THE GRID DOES NOT RUN ON SLOGANS

AI has exposed the central weakness of net-zero politics: America cannot ration its way to prosperity.

There is nothing like an electric bill to bring an ambitious political promise back to earth.

For years, supporters of net zero talked as though changing the way an entire nation produces electricity was mostly a matter of setting the right deadline. Announce the goal. Pass the mandate. Hold the news conference. The technology, transmission lines, power plants, and public patience would somehow fall into place.

Then came the artificial intelligence boom, and with it a blunt reminder: computers run on electricity, not press releases.

This is not an argument for dirty air or against renewable energy. Wind and solar belong in America’s energy portfolio. So do nuclear power, natural gas, hydropower, geothermal energy, and whatever new technology proves it can deliver reliable electricity at a reasonable price.

The problem begins when politicians decide the outcome before engineers have worked out how to get there.

A responsible energy policy should begin with a few ordinary questions. Will the power be available when people need it? Can families afford it? Can the grid handle the additional demand? Are we producing the fuel and equipment here at home, or simply trading one foreign dependency for another?

Those questions are not ideological. They are practical. They are also the questions too many policymakers skipped.

The International Energy Agency estimates that electricity consumption by data centers could more than double by 2030, reaching about 945 terawatt-hours worldwide. In the United States, data centers may account for nearly half of the growth in electricity demand through the end of the decade.

That is a tremendous amount of new demand arriving at a time when building a transmission line can take years and approving a new power plant can take even longer.

Wind and solar can help meet that demand, but they cannot carry the entire load by themselves. The sun sets. The wind slows. Demand does not politely disappear with them. Hospitals remain open, factories keep running, families turn on the heat, and data centers continue processing information.

Even the IEA acknowledges that grids with greater amounts of wind and solar need dispatchable generation, more transmission, storage, and better demand management. In plain English, the grid needs backup. It needs power that can be called upon when it is needed, not merely when the weather cooperates.

This is where the net-zero argument has too often wandered away from reality. Energy sources became symbols of personal virtue rather than parts of an enormous and complex system. Wind and solar were good. Natural gas was bad. Nuclear power made everyone uncomfortable. Meanwhile, grid improvements stalled, permitting dragged on, and consumers were handed the bill.

Technology companies are learning the same lesson.

Microsoft has pledged to become carbon negative by 2030. Yet its 2025 sustainability report found that the company’s total emissions were 23.4 percent higher than its 2020 baseline, partly because of the expansion of cloud computing and artificial intelligence.

This does not make Microsoft dishonest or irresponsible. It shows how difficult these promises become when they collide with growth.  AI requires enormous computing capacity, and computing capacity requires electricity every hour of every day.

Republicans should not respond by treating renewable energy with the same hostility that some environmental activists reserve for fossil fuels. That would be just another form of ideological energy policy.

The better answer is abundance.

Build modern nuclear reactors. Produce American natural gas. Upgrade transmission lines. Keep reliable plants operating until adequate replacements are ready. Encourage geothermal, hydropower, storage, carbon capture, and other technologies that can compete on reliability and price. Most important, fix a permitting system that can delay essential infrastructure for a decade or more.

Energy affordability is not an abstract economic concern.  It shows up in the grocery bill, the rent, the transportation costs, and the monthly utility statement. Wealthy activists may be able to absorb those increases. Working families cannot.

Good government means admitting that every energy choice has a cost.  Some promising technologies will succeed. Others will not. Deadlines will slip. Plans will change. Serious leaders adjust when the facts change, rather than pretend the facts are politically inconvenient.  Sadly, our friends on the left aren’t willing to bend.  Or admit the fact they are wrong, and we are right!

America’s next generation of manufacturing, medicine, defense, and artificial intelligence will require more electricity, not less. Our competitors understand that.

The question is whether we do.

The country that produces abundant, affordable, reliable power will have the advantage. The country that chooses scarcity will spend the future explaining why the lights cost more and break down more often

---

ENDNOTES

1. International Energy Agency, “Energy Demand from AI,” Energy and AI. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai

2. International Energy Agency, “Executive Summary,” Energy and AI. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/executive-summary

3. International Energy Agency, “Executive Summary,” Integrating Solar and Wind. https://www.iea.org/reports/integrating-solar-and-wind/executive-summary

4. Microsoft, 2025 Environmental Sustainability Report. https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcorp/microsoft/msc/documents/presentations/CSR/2025-Microsoft-Environmental-Sustainability-Report.pdf

5. Microsoft, “Microsoft Will Be Carbon Negative by 2030.” https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/

Jacob Silver writes on national politics and public affairs for Direct Line News.

About The Author