Green (Energy) or Green (Profits)? Is There an Alternative Solution?
- Timothy Beggans
- Oct 27, 2024
- 2 min read
Updated: Nov 21, 2024
Could the AI industry speed up coal plant retirements by replacing them with natural gas facilities at the same sites? For tech giants aiming to transition to cleaner energy, this approach could support a quicker shift by repurposing coal sites for natural gas while retiring outdated facilities. This strategy might serve as a bridge to future renewable and nuclear solutions, taking advantage of existing transmission infrastructure near major urban centers.
Coal plant sites near cities like Atlanta and Houston offer the potential to transform infrastructure for supporting data centers' growing power demands. Transitioning from coal to natural gas could also mean emission credits from decommissioning, offsetting environmental impact while meeting immediate energy needs. Yet, the green benefits are substantial: retiring a coal plant and replacing it with a cleaner-burning natural gas facility significantly reduces emissions, providing a more environmentally friendly option while maintaining energy reliability. This raises the question: Should AI prioritize being “greener” over going entirely "green"?
Some AI developers are exploring Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), an alternative with nuclear’s low emissions and the potential for siting near data centers. However, these projects face challenges, including steep costs and long timelines. For instance, the NuScale SMR project ballooned to $9.3 billion before cancellation, underscoring deployment hurdles. SMRs also face potential "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) resistance, as well as regulatory delays, while natural gas offers quicker deployment and fewer public objections.
With energy demands soaring, can AI developers afford to wait for renewables and nuclear to scale, or should they embrace near-term solutions like natural gas? Is a compromise on "green" worth it to ensure stability now?
Comments