AI’s Energy Demands Make Every Fuel Option Viable

For over twenty years, the United States has been ensnared in a paralyzing, bipartisan energy conflict: Republicans reject renewable energy in favor of fossil fuels, supporting projects like the Northern Access Pipeline in western New York, while Democrats criticize fossil fuels and advocate for green energy technologies.

The old partisan lines in this debate are shifting. An increasing number of Republicans are backing U.S. clean-energy leadership, while some Democrats are pushing back against essential permitting reforms needed to implement it.

However, the extensive energy demands of artificial intelligence will radically change our national energy conversation.

AI requires a significant amount of electricity. It’s challenging to envision the sheer volume of power AI will necessitate in just a few years.

A recent peer-reviewed study indicated that NVIDIA, the largest global supplier of AI hardware, is projected to distribute around 1.5 million AI server units by 2027.

Once these servers operate at full capacity, they will require 85.4 terawatt hours of electricity annually—surpassing the electricity consumption of countries like Switzerland and Greece over the same period.

It’s important to note that not all of these NVIDIA servers will be located in the United States.

However, if the U.S. continues to lead in the AI sector—a goal that President-elect Donald Trump is almost certain to pursue—the U.S. will command a considerable portion of the AI chip and server market.

While our nation has ample energy resources, the current excess capacity is insufficient to meet the escalating energy requirements of AI.

AI is not the only sector driving demand. The International Energy Agency reports that cryptocurrency and data centers may also double their energy consumption compared to 2022 levels by 2026.

Moreover, an increasing number of electric vehicles will further amplify the need for electricity production.

These developments render the traditional energy debate obsolete.

American energy use has been stable for many years. In a landscape of relatively predictable consumption, conservatives might argue that boosting domestic fossil-fuel production could ensure U.S. energy independence without the need for renewable energy investments.

This viewpoint had merit (aside from environmental considerations). In 2023, fossil fuels comprised approximately 84% of domestic energy production—almost sufficient to meet the entire U.S. energy demand.

Meanwhile, progressives could rightly contend that stable energy consumption indicated that energy efficiency initiatives and investments in renewable energy could transition the U.S. away from fossil fuels toward carbon-free energy sources.

While Governor Hochul’s congestion tax may disproportionately affect the poorest New Yorkers, it’s undeniable that genuine advancements, like improved fuel efficiency, have contributed to better air quality and enhanced urban living conditions.

Effectively, both sides were discussing how best to fill a fuel tank of relatively similar size, and each made valid points.

However, the energy requirements of AI mean that this fuel tank must expand significantly—and we can no longer afford to merely swap one fuel source for another.

Current renewable technologies cannot yet fulfill our existing demands, and our natural gas supply is simply inadequate to generate the necessary power.

Our only viable option is to utilize every energy source at our disposal: natural gas, solar, geothermal, hydropower, energy storage, nuclear—everything.

Expanding our capacity across all fronts to meet AI’s seemingly boundless energy needs may seem daunting, but we have no alternative.

AI is not just a fascinating technology that can tell jokes, edit papers, assist in research, and create lifelike videos. It will be the pivotal national-security technology of the 21st century, affecting everything from cybersecurity and intelligence gathering to autonomous weapon systems and beyond.

If we fail to secure dominance in the AI field, China will—and we certainly don’t want to exist in a world where a communist China overshadows AI.

The partisan energy debate has concluded.

Given the energy demands of AI and the potential for China to triumph in this technological race, we face two choices: utilize every available energy source—or face defeat.

Neil Chatterjee served as chairman and a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.