When the rubber meets the road, Silicon Valley's progressive climate change warriors need energy to power their artificial intelligence and data centers, and you might be surprised to learn they have no choice. They've been forcing our “renewable” energy technologies to harness the power of the big Government power to strangle (wind turbines and solar panels) and instead pursue…reliability and affordability. [emphasis, links added]
Or maybe it's not so unexpected, considering These people fly from one climate conference to another on private jets While tucking into Kobe beef, we’re urged to eat crickets and lab-grown “meat” puree.
Today, Jonova reported on her blog of the same name about the top executives of the three giants in the technology industry. Google, Microsoft and Amazon have been buying nuclear reactors Providing the vast amounts of energy required to run artificial intelligence programs and data collection/storage facilities:
Two weeks ago, Microsoft restarted the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Now, Google is buying seven small modular reactors, and Amazon is spending $500 million to acquire parts of nuclear energy companies.
In case you didn’t know, artificial intelligence and data centers consume an incredible amount of energyGoldman Sachs said earlier this year:
On average, processing a ChatGPT query requires nearly 10 times the power of a Google search.
[snip]
Now, as improvements in power efficiency slow and the artificial intelligence revolution takes off, Goldman Sachs Research estimates that data center power demand will increase by 160% by 2030.
(I want to ask Why The “pace of improvements in electricity efficiency” is slowing down—perhaps it’s the ridiculous constraints imposed by progressive governments forcing inefficient technologies—but that’s another topic for another day.
As we are all tragically aware, these three companies have completely moved on, Whether it’s the company’s mission or a senior executive’s personal ideology, They use their influence to influence policy – they are key proponents of the progressive “climate change” narrative.
While they did “invest” in some “zero carbon” energy plans, when they needed reliability and affordability, they gave up their position for personal gain –This is why we conservatives insist that nuclear energy is the great and clean option.
Does this mean that we, the “unwashed masses,” will get the same opportunities? Or will we still carry a heavy burden? [with inefficiency and unaffordability]?
I suspect it's the latter.
Thanks again to Joe Nova for the great reporting.
Popular photo on Unsplash by Lee Lawson
Read more in American Thinker
