From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The U.S. power-generation sector has been hit in recent weeks with story after story about Big Tech firms entering into deals with power providers or developers to satisfy their electricity needs with nuclear generation.

Here are some examples:

—In mid-October, Google said it had entered into an agreement to purchase power for its data center needs from Kairos Power, a developer of small modular reactors (SMRs).

—A couple of weeks earlier, Microsoft and Constellation completed a deal that would involve the restart of Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania to power that company’s needs.

—On Dec. 3, Meta issued a request for proposals to nuclear developers to provide up to 4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity to power data centers and AI no later than the early 2030s.

—Perhaps the most extensive development of all came two days after Google’s announcement, when Amazon announced it has entered into deals to support the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with three developers in three different regions of the country.

So, what’s going on here? Aren’t all these Big Tech companies supposed to be totally bought into the climate-alarm narrative, a narrative that claims wind and solar are the only real “clean” energy solutions for power generation? Aren’t we constantly bombarded by boosters of those non-solutions that they are able to reliably provide uninterrupted electricity if backed up by stationary batteries?

Certainly, that has been the case in the past — few corporations could hope to match the volume of virtue signaling about green energy we have seen from these tech companies in recent years. That was all fine until, apparently, the AI revolution came along.

AI is an enormous power hog, one that these and other Big Tech firms must now rapidly adopt to remain competitive.

The trouble with AI and the data centers needed to make it go is that it requires the reliable, constant injection of electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days every year. While these Big Tech firms would no doubt love to be able to virtue signal about sourcing their power from wind and solar backed up by enormous banks of batteries, each and every one of them has assessed that option and realized it cannot reliably fill their needs.

Thus, the recent rush to nuclear. After all, once they’ve been built and placed into service, nuclear reactors are a very real zero emissions power source. And unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants do not have to be backed up by an equal amount of generation capacity provided by another fuel, consisting most often of natural gas plants. Nuclear reactors are basically the Energizer Bunnies of power generation: They just keep going and going.

Another big advantage nuclear brings over renewables is the avoidance of the need to invest in massive new transmission networks. This is especially true of SMRs, which can be installed directly adjacent to the contracting data centers. By contrast, wind generation installations must be located in areas where the wind reliably blows. Such areas are often hundreds of miles away from big demand centers, as has been the case in Texas.

Where solar is concerned, the provision of multiple gigawatts (GWs) of generation capacity can require the condemnation of hundreds of acres of land, often thousands. The stationary battery centers for 1 GW of solar or wind would require another large swath of land to be condemned. By contrast, the land footprint for a pair of 500 megawatt (MW) SMRs would amount to no more than a few acres.

Where the deal between Microsoft and Constellation is concerned, sourcing power from an older generation nuclear plant like Three Mile Island will involve interconnecting into an already extant transmission system, though some upgrades and extensions will no doubt be required.

This sudden rush to nuclear by some of the largest companies in the country will benefit all Americans. The massive infusion of capital will accelerate development of SMRs and other advanced nuclear tech, pressure policymakers to modernize antiquated nuclear regulations, and to streamline Byzantine permitting processes that currently inhibit all forms of energy development.

It is a win-win situation for all of us.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

Winnipeg City Council’s War on Natural Gas Shows the Need to Counter Special Interests

Some members of the Winnipeg City Council are determined to continue their reckless war on natural gas in buildings in Canada’s coldest city.

The latest move occurred at City Council when the City’s Standing Policy Committee on Water, Waste and Environment considered a motion to discuss options for moving away from not using natural gas heating in existing and new residential, commercial and industrial buildings. The lack of action placed the motion in limbo.

It ought to remain in limbo forever. Winnipeg City Council should instead enshrine energy choice. Winnipeggers who favour energy choice and sensible policy can take heart from the experience of other Canadian cities. More cities are fighting these natural gas bans. Vancouver City Council ended a natural gas ban in new buildings this summer after a group of councillors pushed back. They raised housing affordability concerns because homeowners and landlords are subject to costly retrofits with a ban on natural gas heaters, gas furnaces and gas boilers.

Unfortunately, a recent tied vote defeated the policy reversal. This organized opposition, however, shows what is happening at ground level: Average people pummeled by inflation and higher energy costs are finally fighting back.

Opponents of energy choice make exaggerated claims regarding the influence of the energy lobby in these debates, while they are tone-deaf about the actual organized interests at play. Environmental organizations such as the Pembina Institute are well-funded and always present at protests. They also funnel misleading information to local activists and politicians.

Manitoba Hydro has spoken out against natural gas bans for years. In 2021, the Crown electric utility said moving the province from natural gas to electricity as a home-heating source was unrealistic. Despite abundant hydropower, Manitoba does not have the generating capacity to support this switch. Manitoba Hydro said the grid cannot serve peak demand without natural gas. Meeting our energy needs without natural gas would require doubling the province’s generating capacity. This is the province’s utility saying this based on a simple analysis of the evidence, not a ‘right-wing’ economist.

The problem with these debates is that ideologically driven environmental organizations drown out reasonable voices. These groups are often behind local campaigns to deny energy choice. They are well-funded special interests ‒ often using foreign funding or even funding from our governments.

Individuals and organizations committed to energy choice must become active and counter these well-funded voices. Pro-energy choice voices must refute the misinformation spread by environmentalist interests. In municipal elections, they should promote candidates and even electoral slates that respect energy choice and sensible policy.

In the United States, some Republican-led states have successfully prevented localities from banning certain hydrocarbon-based heating infrastructure. However, their efforts are limited because a change in state-level politics could reverse the move to limit local governments.

Strong citizen-led local movements are the answer. They should always watch for policies that oppose energy choice. Such movements must be active in local politics, opposing these elitist environmental special interests. Reasonable Winnipeggers ‒ right and left ‒ must defend reasonable energy policies. This is not a partisan issue. It is never too late to stand up for sanity in the local fight for energy abundance and freedom for all.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.