Yes, life today is complicated, even more so with bandwidth limitations that we all must navigate. I encounter so many “bumping their gums” with little more than an ill-informed opinion that they are attempting to pass for intellect.

Other than abortion, religion, politics and the Middle East, is there anything more controversial and incendiary than the environment? You know … public enemy No. 1: power generation. It divides families, industries, classrooms, boardrooms and political parties. I’ve encountered more than one young couple who have elected not to have children as, get this … they don’t want to add to the carbon footprint! This gives me a cause for pause, as after all, I grew up with seven siblings. However, it’s a new era, and with that many new ways of thinking. I don’t judge the decision, but simply desire that this new thinking, or any thinking, be fact-based. 

In our society, we unfortunately tend to over-worship wealth and celebrity. How about the movie stars with the big mouths and opinions, driving their EV Prius to the airport with media in tow, only to get on their private jets and fly to the Stockholm Conference to “fix” the environment, and in doing so, pontificate ad nauseam with little expertise? Such is fraught with hypocrisy, but few seem to notice. I prefer the executive who says, “I worked my ass off and bought this jet with my own hard-earned money. I will now use that jet to become more efficient, which enables me to build more businesses, create more jobs, and yes, pay more taxes to the betterment of both the country and society.” (Bravo: Barry Z.) 

So, let us push back on those biased headlines and look at irrefutable facts:

After all the celebration, investment and taxpayer subsidies, less than 3% of the world’s vehicles are EVs. 

Maximizing renewables — wind, solar, geothermal, bio mass, hydro — would only satisfy demand in the single digits. 

In the U.S. today, 60% of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels. 

Another 20% comes from nuclear. 

Natural gas alone is providing 43% of our nation’s electricity.

There is growing, impressive domestic and international demand for LNG, which explains the new plant construction.

Our company has a power division that goes back to 1914. We facilitated re-engineering and fabrication for coal-fired plants. With the empowerment of the EPA, and fracking technology, resulting in a 70% reduction in natural gas cost. As a result, in classic disruptive technology fashion, coal-fired utilities, which in 2001 provided 50% of our electricity, are now significantly downsized. However, contrary to popular belief, coal still delivers 16% of U.S. electricity generation. Further, there is talk in the administration to reactivate some shuttered coal-fired plants. Recently, the administration halted construction of the 700 MW Ørsted’s Revolution World Wind Project offshore Rhode Island, notwithstanding that it’s 80% finished, with 45 of the planned 65 turbines already complete. It’s been on again, off again, with various court edicts. In fact, nearly $20 billion in renewable energy projects have been cancelled this year. Funny isn’t it that when subsidies are removed, economic viability vanishes. 

Yes, we need to protect the environment and, in doing so, not dismiss renewables, yet we still need adequate power generation for the life of the next generation to be sustainable. We can’t love life and hate the industry that makes it possible. Renewables and electric vehicles are applauded in the headlines. Where is the front page article or study on the environmental impact of the disposal of lithium batteries? In addition, many of these batteries contain 20% cobalt by weight. Where is the article that notes 73% of all cobalt is mined in the Congo, using child labor! Some estimates have 40,000 children working in these mines with some as young as six years old. But no one dare call it exploitation or, God forbid, slavery. 

Personally, I believe the key lies with nuclear power, which produces zero pollutants. Technically, it is considered non-renewable, as fossil fuels, by definition, come from ancient organic matter. Nuclear does not fit that definition, as it relies on fission. With a bit of oversimplification, take a heavy atom such as uranium and smack it with another atom … problem solved. Actually, you hit the atom’s nucleus with a neutron, but let’s not convolute with details. 

Today, development is being accelerated with mini nuclear plants called SMRs (small modular reactors). In addition to many other advantages, such as eliminating transmission distances, these plants help mitigate the risk of terrorist attacks on the electrical grid.

Understand that, as we see the exponential growth and reliance of AI, the required data and processing centers are very energy-intensive. In fact, they already are consuming 200 TWh (terawatt-hours). Let me translate … humongous! A single data center can consume 100 MW of power! Just one “typical” center can consume as much power as 100,000 homes for a year. One mega data center can consume the equivalent of 800,000 homes. In fact, at present, data rooms alone consume 4.5% of the entire North American energy capacity and are increasing to 12% in the next 36 months. The train has left the station. Rest assured this “space” will be politicized. Watch the rhetoric escalate as the midterm elections near, especially in states with data center concentration and contested elections such as California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, and others yet to come. Fasten your seatbelt as the opposition will elevate and the opposition will be bipartisan from Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal to Republicans Sen. Josh Hawley, Marjorie Taylor Greene and even Gov. Ron DeSantis. Municipalities and counties are beginning to oppose the senators due to: 

A.    The impressive efficiencies of data centers do not create any appreciable employment (which is the point). 

B.    Fear of escalating utility costs in communities as the data centers significantly increase demand. 

Then again, construction can be multiyear and create countless construction jobs. Further, if data centers were labor-intensive, where and how would one even begin to staff? Could we even fill these positions? Anyways, the take-away is: Let’s get ready to rumble. We must look beyond the popular headline that focuses on our growing energy demand being totally satisfied with renewable energy. Such perception relies on technology not yet even developed, or perhaps not even possible. Yes, renewables have a role, but that role is technologically limited. It will not be the proverbial “be-all and end-all.” 

Let us continue to discuss the environment and energy, but let’s be ethical and do so from an informed, fact-based position. 

Oh, by the way, one out of every 10 jobs in the United States is in the energy sector.

“There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by reading. The few that learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the fence for themselves.” — Will Rogers