This 7% of Earth’s surface burns more fuel than anywhere



The ruling class trades in carbon outrage like it’s gold. Sanctimony fuels its crusade against oil, gas, and coal — never mind that those very fuels built the modern world. The comforts we take for granted — from longer lives and stocked shelves to clean water and lifesaving medicine — all trace back to the energy abundance that hydrocarbons made possible.

Still, the decarbonization faithful press forward. They dream of a carbon-free Eden, even as the global power grid, still humming on fossil fuels, refuses to cooperate.

Critics keep forecasting a shift away from fossil fuels. Reality keeps proving them wrong.

You won’t find a clearer contradiction than in the Yuxi Circle.

Draw a circle with a 2,485-mile radius around the southern Chinese city of Yuxi. British geographer Alasdair Rae did just that — and inside it resides 55% of the world’s population: some 4.3 billion people crammed into just 7% of Earth’s surface. The region includes China, India, much of Southeast Asia, and parts of Pakistan. Some of it — like the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan Desert — is barren. But the rest is packed with cities, factories, and the aspirations of hundreds of millions clawing their way toward modern life.

Why does this matter? Because this region now anchors the world’s biggest fight over energy, growth, and climate policy.

While bureaucrats in Brussels sip espresso and activists glue themselves to the pavement in London, the real action plays out in Asia’s economic engine. In cities like Shanghai, Delhi, and Tokyo, energy demand soars — and fossil fuels do the heavy lifting. Coal and gas plants keep the lights on, while wind and solar trail far behind.

China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. India burns more than the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom combined. The 10 ASEAN countries rank third. Oil use tells the same story: China and India sit alongside the U.S. atop the global leaderboard of consumption. Economic growth, it turns out, runs not on hashtags but on hydrocarbons.

Critics keep forecasting a shift away from fossil fuels. Reality keeps proving them wrong.

Hundreds of millions in the Yuxi Circle are still striving for what Westerners call a “decent life.” That means refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioning — and with them, a dramatic spike in electricity demand.

RELATED: Climate orthodoxy punishes the West

  Photo by Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

For context: The average American consumes 77,000 kilowatt-hours of energy each year. The average Indian uses a 10th of that. A Bangladeshi? Just 3% of what the average Norwegian consumes.

Now multiply that gap by a population of billions, and you begin to understand what’s coming.

The living room revolution is only the start. An industrial boom is building behind it — factories, office towers, and shopping malls all hungry for electricity. The coming surge in energy use across the Yuxi Circle will make the West’s climate targets look like a quaint relic of the past.

In this part of the world, the green fantasy runs headfirst into human need. Wind and solar can’t meet the moment. Coal, oil, and gas can — and do.

Just as they did for the West, these fuels now power the rise of the rest. And no amount of Western guilt or climate alarm will change that.

One town got a nuke plant; the other got a prison … and regret



Two Southern towns in different states share the same name: Hartsville. They were both chosen as future sites for nuclear plants in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of those nuclear plants was completed and went online, helping to foster a thriving and prosperous community. The other plant was canceled, leaving a derelict cooling tower as a reminder of what might have been for the downtrodden town that has been economically left behind.

Hartsville, South Carolina, with its nuclear generating station, is thriving. Hartsville, Tennessee, with its for-profit penitentiary and abandoned nuclear project, is dying.

The 'tale of two Hartsvilles' shows the power of a town producing an actual product — requiring technicians, skilled tradesmen, and engagement with local businesses.

The Pamphleteer, a Nashville-based publication, published a piece by Hamilton Wesley Ellis titled “Atomic Hartsville: A small Tennessee town’s forgotten history as a nuclear leader.” The article draws a stark contrast between the two Hartsvilles — and explores what might have been if Hartsville, Tennessee, had completed its nuclear power plant.

But this story goes beyond one town’s missed opportunity and another’s industrial success. It serves as an allegory for a larger truth: Industrial vitality sustains American communities. Where industry thrives, prosperity and opportunity follow. Where industry dies, decline sets in — dragging despair in its wake.

A ‘tale of two Hartsvilles’

Ellis writes of Tennessee’s Hartsville:

Today the nuclear plant is quiet as the grave. Surely the town of Hartsville would look different had the plant’s four reactors reached criticality and provided power to the region. Since opening its doors in 2016, the private prison next door has had three fatal stabbings, three COVID deaths, and multiple cases of assaults on guards, mental health workers, and inmates alike. The prison’s short brutal history has firmly established it as a more dangerous place than any operational nuclear facility in US history, but at least they’re hiring.

The juxtaposition of a prison-based service economy and a nuclear-fueled industrial economy is certainly compelling, especially for those old Nader-ites still fighting against nuclear energy. Beyond the nuclear argument, the “tale of two Hartsvilles” shows the power of a town producing an actual product — requiring technicians, skilled tradesmen, and engagement with local businesses. This industrial ecosystem creates wealth, which is recirculated through a variety of other employers and supports an environment that enables a middle-class lifestyle.

 If completed, the four-unit Hartsville facility would have been the largest nuclear power plant in the world.Photo by Karen Kasmauski/Corbis via Getty Images

To that point, Ellis observes:

The South Carolina Hartsville is home to a university, technical college, and the state Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics. Hartsville, Tennessee, has a Dollar General. Both towns have roughly the same population, give or take a couple thousand people, but extremely disparate vibes. One is a thriving community built on science and industry, the other a struggling village blanched gray by a very long run of bad luck.

Hartsville, Tennessee, is the story of too many such towns across the U.S. that have had a “long run of bad luck” — and that bad luck was no accident. It lies at the intersection of an America-last political mindset among our ruling class and a wicked business school philosophy that sees any labor expense as unacceptable.

RELATED: Comparative advantage was built on patriotism. That’s gone.

 adventtr via iStock/Getty Images

American jobs were outsourced to countries where working conditions often resemble slavery. That decision triggered an industrial collapse across large swaths of the United States. With the collapse came a cascade of local devastation. Community institutions fell apart. Economic activity dried up. Social pathologies filled the vacuum.

The so-called “principled free traders” who once cheered the offshoring of American jobs now ridicule those calling for the reshoring of industry. They claim automation made industrial labor obsolete. Andrew Yang, a former Democratic presidential candidate, often promotes this idea, as he did in a 2019 New York Times op-ed headlined, “Yes, Robots Are Stealing Your Jobs.”

Let’s bring workers home

Maybe so. But if that’s the case, then let’s reshore those plants that are using robotics. Transportation costs should decrease significantly. If labor expense is so “reprehensible,” aren’t transportation expenses also bad? Moreover, automation still requires human workers to build, service, and install the robots, as well as skilled tradesmen to do the plumbing and electrical work. Moreover, people will need to deliver products from the bays, handle deliveries, service vehicles, and so on.

Hartsville, Tennessee — with its decaying cooling tower looming over a long-abandoned project — stands as a monument to the dismantling of reliable energy and the destruction of industrial jobs. This is the green, globalist vision for America. By contrast, Hartsville, South Carolina, with its thriving industrial base and a product globalists love to sneer at, represents the America-first alternative championed by the MAGA movement.

Whether it is nuclear power, appliances, microchips, or any other product, industrial manufacturing drives local prosperity. It circulates money through the economy, creates stable jobs, and builds strong communities. The United States doesn’t just benefit from this activity — it depends on it.

The AI ‘Stargate’ has opened — and it’s not what you think



For 30 years, I’ve warned about a future many dismissed as conspiracy or science fiction: a future dominated by centralized power, runaway technology, and an erosion of individual liberty. I said the real showdown would arrive by 2030. Now we’re at the doorstep, and the decisions we make today may define whether this moment becomes our last great opportunity — or our greatest irreversible mistake.

The trigger for this showdown is a project called Stargate.

AI is the ultimate jailer, and once the cage is built, it will be nearly impossible to escape.

This new initiative, backed by OpenAI, Microsoft, Oracle, SoftBank, and a UAE-based investment firm called MGX, aims to develop extensive infrastructure for artificial intelligence, including power plants and data centers. Stargate is positioning itself to fuel the coming wave of AI agents, artificial general intelligence, and potentially even artificial superintelligence. The project’s goal is nothing short of global AI dominance.

Big Tech is putting its money where its mouth is — pledging $100 billion upfront, with an additional $400 billion projected over the next few years. The project may bring 100,000 new jobs, but don’t be fooled. These are infrastructure jobs, not long-term employment. The real winners will be the companies that control the AI itself — and the power that comes with it.

The media’s coverage has been disturbingly thin. Instead of asking hard questions, we’re being sold a glossy narrative about convenience, progress, and economic opportunity. But if you peel back the PR, what Stargate actually represents is a full-scale AI arms race — one that’s being bankrolled by actors whose values should deeply concern every freedom-loving American.

Technocratic totalitarianism

MGX, one of the primary financial backers of Stargate, was founded last year by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a regime deeply aligned with the World Economic Forum. The same WEF promoted the “Narrative Initiative,” which calls for humanity to adopt a new story — one where the digital world holds equal weight to the physical one.

It's not shy about its agenda. It speaks openly of “a second wave of human evolution,” built around centralized, technocratic rule and ESG-compliant artificial intelligence, governed by AI itself.

Larry Ellison, Oracle’s chairman and a chief architect of Stargate, has already made his intentions clear. He promised AI will drive the most advanced surveillance system in human history. His words? “Citizens will have to be on their best behavior.”

That isn’t progress. That’s digital totalitarianism.

RELATED: ‘The Terminator’ creator warns: AI reality is scarier than sci-fi

  Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images

These are the same elites who warned that global warming would wipe out humanity. Now, they demand nuclear power to feed their AI. A few years ago, Three Mile Island stood as a symbol of nuclear catastrophe. Today, Microsoft is buying it to fuel AI development.

How convenient.

We were told it was too expensive to modernize our power grid to support electric cars. And yet, now that artificial general intelligence is on the horizon, those same voices are suddenly fine with a total energy infrastructure overhaul. Why? Because AI isn’t about helping you. It’s about controlling you.

AI ‘agents’

By 2026, you’ll start to hear less about “AI” and more about “agents.” These digital assistants will organize your calendar, plan your travel, and manage your household. For many, especially the poor, it will feel like finally having a personal assistant. The possibility is tempting, to be sure. However, the cost of convenience will be dependence — and surveillance.

Moreover, AI won’t just run on the power grid. It may soon build its own.

We’ve already seen tests where an AI agent, given the directive to preserve itself, began designing electricity generation systems to sustain its operations — without anyone instructing it to do so. The AI simply interpreted its goal and acted accordingly. That’s not just a risk. That’s a warning.

Progress without recklessness

Yes, President Trump supports advancing artificial general intelligence. He wants America, not China, to lead. On that point, I agree. If anyone must master AGI, it better be us.

But let’s not confuse leadership with reckless speed. The same globalist corporations that pushed lockdowns, ESG mandates, and insect-based diets now promise that AI will save us. That alone should give us pause.

AI holds incredible promise. It might even help cure cancer by 2030 — and I hope it does. But the same tool that can save lives can also shackle minds. AI is the perfect jailer. Once we build the cage, we may never find a way out.

Stargate is opening. You can’t stop it. But you can choose which side you’re on.

There is an antidote to this: a parallel movement rooted in human dignity, decentralization, and liberty. You won’t hear about it in the headlines — but it’s growing. We need to build it now, while we still have the opportunity.

If you’ve listened to me over the years, you’ve heard me say this before: We should have had these conversations long ago. But we didn’t. And now, we’re out of good options.

So the question is no longer, “Should we build AI?” It’s, “Who is building it — and why?”

If we get the answer wrong, the cost will be far greater than any of us can imagine.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Spain and Portugal went dark for 12 hours — America could easily be next



When I visited in Europe earlier this month, a massive blackout had just struck Spain and Portugal — the largest in either country’s history. Sixty million people across the Iberian Peninsula and parts of southern France lost power and communication for 12 hours. It was a total system collapse. And if America doesn’t wake up, we’re heading for the same fate.

This wasn’t just some fluke or freak weather event. It was a disaster years in the making, baked into the very structure of Spain and Portugal’s energy policies — policies championed by radical environmentalists and now echoed by the Democratic Party here at home.

Over-reliance on wind and solar leads to blackouts and economic chaos and puts us at the mercy of our adversaries.

Spain and Portugal are the poster children of Europe’s so-called green energy revolution. Just before the blackout, Spain’s energy infrastructure was a mixture of up to 78% solar and wind, with only 11% nuclear and 3% natural gas. Spain gutted its base-load energy sources — nuclear, hydro, and gas — in favor of wind turbines and solar panels. The result was an electrical grid as flimsy as a house of cards.

Predictably, the U.S. media ran interference. Reuters insisted that the blackout wasn’t the fault of renewable energy but instead blamed the “management of renewables.” That’s like saying a building collapse isn’t the fault of bad materials, just bad architecture. Either way, it still falls down.

Set up to fail

“Renewable” power sources are unreliable by nature. Solar doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t shine. Wind turbines don’t spin when the air is still. And when these systems fail — and they inevitably do — you need consistent, dispatchable backup. Spain doesn’t have that. In the name of “saving the planet,” the Spanish government heavily taxed nuclear plants until they became unprofitable, then shut them down altogether.

As Spanish economist Daniel Lacalle put it: “The blackout in Spain was not caused by a cyberattack but by the worst possible attack — that of politicians against their citizens.”

And yet, not far away, parts of southern France that were affected by the same blackout recovered quickly. Why? Because France has wisely kept its nuclear power intact. In fact, nuclear power provides 70% of France’s electricity. Say what you want about the French, but they got that part right.

What happened in Spain and Portugal is not a European problem — it’s a cautionary tale. It's a flashing red warning light for the United States. The Democrats' Green New Deal playbook reads exactly like Europe’s: Phase out fossil fuels, demonize nuclear power, and vastly expand wind and solar — all while pretending this won’t destabilize our grid.

Look at California. In 2022, the state experienced rolling blackouts during a heat wave after years of shutting down nuclear and natural gas plants. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) had to scramble to bring those “dirty” plants back just to keep the lights on.

Even back in 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy warned that over-reliance on renewables threatens grid stability. But the Biden administration ignored it and dove headlong into the disastrous waters of green energy.

AI’s imminent energy demand

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently told Congress that artificial intelligence is expected to consume up to 99% of our total electricity generation in the near future. Think about that — 99%. Add to that the left’s obsession with mandating electric vehicles, and the demand on our already fragile grid becomes unsustainable.

Try running all of that — AI data centers, EV charging stations, and the basic needs of 330 million people — on wind and sunshine. It’s impossible. Until someone invents a clean, infinite power source that works 24/7, we need nuclear, natural gas, and yes, maybe even coal.

This isn’t the first time a green energy fantasy has ended in blackouts. In 2016, 1.7 million Australians lost power due to wind farm fluctuations. In 2017, Germany’s trillion-dollar experiment with renewables nearly collapsed its grid. In 2019, more than a million Brits lost power after a lightning strike overwhelmed their renewables-heavy system.

These aren’t isolated events. This is a pattern. When energy policy is driven by ideology instead of engineering, people suffer.

Here’s a dirty little secret the climate cult doesn’t want you to know: Renewables lack something critical called inertia. Traditional base-load sources like nuclear and gas provide the physical inertia needed to keep a grid stable. Without it, a minor disruption — like a cloudy day or a sudden drop in wind — can trigger a cascading blackout.

Worse, restarting a power grid after a blackout — what’s called a “black start” — is significantly more challenging with renewables. Nuclear and natural gas plants can do it. Wind and solar can’t.

While it doesn’t appear that this was a cyberattack, it easily could have been. Renewable-heavy grids rely on inverters to convert DC to AC — and those inverters are vulnerable. Major flaws have already been discovered that could allow hackers to remotely sabotage the voltage and crash the grid. The more we rely on renewables, the more we invite foreign actors like China and Russia to exploit those vulnerabilities.

Save the grid!

So what’s the takeaway from the Spain-Portugal blackout?

First, we need to stop demonizing nuclear energy. Spain still plans to shut down all of its nuclear plants by 2035 — even after this catastrophe. That’s insane. Nuclear is safe, is clean, and provides the base-load power and inertia a modern grid needs.

Second, we must preserve and expand our natural gas infrastructure. When renewables fail — and they will — gas is the only backup that can be scaled quickly and affordably.

Third, we need to fortify our power grid against cyber threats. If our electricity goes down, everything else follows — banking, transportation, communication, water. We’re talking about national survival.

Green energy has a role in the future. But it’s not the savior the left wants it to be. Over-reliance on wind and solar leads to blackouts and economic chaos and puts us at the mercy of our adversaries.

The blackout in Spain and Portugal should be a wake-up call. If Democrats turn our grid into their ideological jungle gym, the lights will go out — literally. We can’t afford to play roulette with our power supply.

America’s energy strategy must be based on reliability, security, and reality — not political fantasy. If we fail to recognize that, we’ll soon be the ones stuck in elevators, stranded on trains, and left in the dark.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Plugged in, checked out: The Dept. of Energy needs a reality surge



The Department of Energy needs a complete overhaul.

Congress established the DOE in 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis, consolidating a patchwork of energy-related programs under one roof. The department took over the management of nuclear programs, national research labs, and a variety of alternative energy efforts. Its 2025 budget tops $50 billion. It supports 14,000 employees and a staggering 95,000 contractors across 83 field locations.

The Department of Government Efficiency should scrutinize the DOE’s effectiveness like any other federal agency. But this department demands a different kind of review. The issue isn’t just waste or mismanagement. It’s mission.

Energy is the lifeblood of any advanced society. The DOE should pursue one overriding goal: making America energy-independent with a long-term strategy for cheap, abundant power. That’s not what it’s doing.

Yes, the energy sector should remain a free-market enterprise. But it’s also a national asset. Energy production and distribution are essential to American sovereignty, economic security, and global influence. That makes the DOE more than just another bloated bureaucracy — it’s a strategic liability unless restructured with purpose.

If the DOE can’t define that purpose, the DOGE must.

Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity.

One of the department’s core missions should be to secure American energy independence. This is not just good policy — it’s a national security imperative.

Wars are won or lost based on the ability to fuel military and industrial operations. If America can’t meet its own energy needs, it risks becoming dependent on hostile regimes that can — and will — weaponize energy supplies against us.

Previous administrations have sabotaged this mission. The DOE should not focus on environmental goals like reducing carbon emissions. Those objectives often conflict with the department’s strategic purpose. “Climate change” is not a scientific certainty — it’s an ideological construct. Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the past 20,000 years, submerging the ruins of countless ancient civilizations, and none of that was caused by human industry.

Yet the Energy Department continues to throw billions at preventing a hypothetical sea rise of just a few feet — this time supposedly caused by human activity. That’s not just wasteful; it’s dangerously off mission. Nearly 40% of recent DOE budgets have gone to renewables and carbon capture. That funding should be powering the country — not chasing climate fantasies.

It’s absurd. America holds vast fossil fuel reserves — thanks to innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — that can provide cheap, reliable energy. These resources can make us energy-independent and globally competitive. The DOE should clear the way for fossil fuel extraction and pipeline construction, starting with permitting on federal lands and aggressive deregulation.

At the same time, the department should end all spending on alternative energy development — except nuclear.

The free market, not the federal government, should drive innovation. The DOE needs to stop subsidizing every corner of the energy industry, fossil fuels included. Government handouts distort markets, discourage competition, and reward political connections instead of performance. Cronyism, fraud, and corporate capture follow wherever subsidies go. A healthy, well-capitalized U.S. energy sector doesn’t need government favors — it needs government to get out of the way. Let consumers, not bureaucrats, decide the winners.

To sharpen its focus, the Department of Energy must shed every responsibility not central to its mission. Environmental policy belongs with the Environmental Protection Agency. Government-run electricity operations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, should be sold to private firms.

The DOE has no business in genomics. It should transfer its Human Genome Project work elsewhere. The Pentagon — not the DOE — should manage the nuclear weapons stockpile. The department should also end its subsidies for synthetic fuels like ethanol, which distort agricultural markets and drive up food prices. Many of its remaining research functions should be reassigned to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the National Science Foundation.

The department should also abandon appliance efficiency mandates that degrade performance, frustrate consumers, and increase costs.

It must reject the Biden administration’s bloated Green New Deal agenda, which has dragged the DOE into a fantasyland of bureaucratic overreach. The department should withdraw from the energy-related provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and related executive orders. These distractions must be repealed and the associated spending eliminated immediately.

The DOE needs to recognize the direction the world is headed: toward an electricity-dominated future. Electric vehicles are only the beginning. Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity. We’ll need fossil fuels to supply the grid for now — but that supply will become harder to access just as demand surges. The DOE must plan accordingly, not wander off chasing green illusions.

The coming surge in electricity demand cries out for a modern-day Manhattan Project — this time led by the Department of Energy. The DOE should lead a national effort to radically expand, modernize, and harden the electric grid. It must accelerate the development of small-scale nuclear fission reactors and push to make nuclear fusion commercially viable.

Nuclear energy — especially fusion — is clean, powerful, and virtually limitless. While the private sector should continue optimizing fossil fuel and alternative energy technologies, the DOE must draw up the blueprint for America’s energy future. It should clear regulatory obstacles that block meaningful progress.

So what should the DOGE do with the DOE? Strip away every distraction and narrow its mission to one goal: ensuring America has cheap, abundant, reliable energy. Everything else belongs on the chopping block.

Can RFK Jr. make conservatives environmentalists again?



Clean energy. Al Gore. Nuclear power. Richard Nixon. The Green New Deal. Conservation. What do all of these things have in common? They are all parts of a partisan past in the vague bubble called “environmentalism.” Fortunately, not everyone sees it this way, and some even believe that the new administration holds the key to bringing in a cleaner, brighter future for America and beyond.

On “Zero Hour,” Benji Backer, founder of American Conservation Coalition and author of the new book "The Conservative Environmentalist: Common Sense Solution for a Sustainable Future," sat down with James Poulos to discuss conservation, nuclear power, and making environmentalism a bipartisan issue again.

— (@)  
 

Many people on the right usually cringe when they hear the word "environmentalism": “The left has done such a disservice to the environment by making it so political. ... It shouldn’t be that there’s a pro-environmental side and an anti-environmental side. ... Both end up being anti-environmental sides because neither one actually has an incentive to solve a problem.”

Backer, a conservative environmentalist himself, draws inspiration from conservative leaders in the past: “Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan were the original conservationists. They were Republicans, and they proposed good conservative policy for the environment that also is good for our country, and they actually worked across party lines. It used to not be a partisan issue.”

He is optimistic that RFK Jr., Trump, and many of the figures surrounding them represent a “coalition of Americans who want to build a better country and to take this issue back.” This is a “real opportunity” for changing the way politics deals with environmental issues: “I believe the next four years provide this real opportunity for the right to take this issue and say, ‘Hey, we care about the environment, too, we just don’t want to solve it in a crazy way. We want to protect people’s livelihoods, and we want to protect our communities. We want to make America stronger, and we want to protect the environment.”

To hear more about what Benji Backer had to say about nuclear power, the history of environmental movements, and a bipartisan future, watch the full episode of “Zero Hour” with James Poulos.

  
 

Indiana GOP Considers Forcing Ugly, Unreliable Energy On Unwilling Towns

Common-sense counties are right to question the highly-subsidized renewables eating up vast acres of farmland, which already appear to be losing their luster in a nuclear future.

The perfect pick to lead Trump’s Department of Energy



How do you restore a bloated and misdirected U.S. Department of Energy to its originally intended purpose of assuring affordable and reliable American energy? The answer is to appoint a highly knowledgeable and successful energy producer to the position of Energy secretary. Donald Trump made the perfect pick in Chris Wright.

A mechanical and electrical engineer by training, Chris Wright is one of the people most responsible for the fracking revolution that freed America from the whims of hostile oil producers like Iran and Venezuela. He is currently the CEO of Liberty Energy, an oil and natural gas servicing company at the forefront of American oil and natural gas production. He also sits on the board of directors of Oklo Inc., an advanced nuclear technology company.

Under Trump and Chris Wright, American energy policy will return to holding our energy destiny in our own hands.

In other words, Wright possesses impressive knowledge and experience regarding a broad array of energy sources and technologies, and he has a track record of successfully bringing those energy options into the marketplace.

Perhaps most appealing about Wright is his refusal to give in to pressure tactics from leftist climate and environment activist groups. “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, either,” Wright wrote on his LinkedIn page. Countering leftist fearmongering, Wright has visually illustrated that fracking fluid is not dangerous by drinking it in public.

Wright stands for an America that dictates energy policy to the rest of the world rather than being held captive by it. America has more oil, coal, and natural gas resources than any other nation on Earth, but we rarely act like it. Under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, government policy was to restrict American energy production under climate change rationale and then beg nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to export more oil to us. Under Trump and Chris Wright, American energy policy will return to holding our energy destiny in our own hands.

The beauty of abundant domestic energy production is that if there is a Middle East crisis, or if OPEC decides to tighten its oil production, America is the nation that most benefits from the rising prices, rather than Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. More American energy production means prices are likely to return to Trump-era lows — but any foreign events that put pressure on energy markets will benefit America rather than other nations.

Under Wright, the U.S. Department of Energy will focus on spurring affordable and reliable American energy, not creating massive and ineffective boondoggles for climate change virtue-signaling. This is in stark contrast to the Department of Energy under the Biden administration and current Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

Granholm is a career politician and a partisan Democrat best known for giving over-caffeinated speeches at the 2012 and 2016 Democratic National Conventions. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in 2021 approved Granholm as Energy secretary despite Granholm having absolutely no specialized experience or knowledge regarding energy issues. The result was predictable.

The Biden-Granholm DOE website lists climate change as a “top priority” of the DOE and boasts about all the DOE programs and DOE money being spent on climate change — instead of assuring affordable and reliable American energy. Yes, the percentage of wind and solar power in the American electricity mix rose from 11% in 2020 to 15% in 2024. The result of adding such expensive and unreliable energy to our electricity mix is that electricity prices rose a staggering 23% under Biden-Granholm, after rising less than 1% per year in the decade before Biden-Granholm.

Biden-Granholm’s effect on gasoline prices is even worse. Gasoline prices averaged just $2.48 under the Trump administration. They are averaging $3.45 under Biden-Granholm, which is 39% higher than under Trump.

Americans gave Donald Trump a mandate to halt runaway energy inflation. Americans want affordable and reliable energy rather than climate change virtue signaling. With a Department of Energy under the vision and leadership of Chris Wright, America will once again return to energy affordability and energy dominance. Wright is the perfect man for the job.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolicy and made available via RealClearWire.

Microsoft’s billion-dollar plan to reopen Three Mile Island for AI data centers



Constellation Energy has agreed to restart a reactor on Three Mile Island and will supply the vast majority of the power to Microsoft to support its data centers.

Three Mile Island in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, is the site of the partial nuclear meltdown that happened in 1979. However, the energy company will reopen the Unit 1 reactor, which did not melt down but rather closed in 2019.

CNBC reported that Constellation will invest $1.6 billion in restarting the plant through 2028, and it is expected to remain open until 2054. The plant will be called the Crane Clean Energy Center after the company's deceased CEO, Chris Crane.

Microsoft will purchase energy from the plant in a 20-year deal in order to power its artificial intelligence and data centers with what is being described as carbon-free power. This will occur despite criticisms from environmental activists who have shunned nuclear energy due to its waste.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates even has a green energy company called Breakthrough Energy; however, green energy would not have the capacity required for Microsoft's data centers.

'The decision here is the most powerful symbol of the rebirth of nuclear power as a clean and reliable energy resource.'

Energy reporter Mark Nelson claimed in a post on X that Microsoft will pay approximately $800 million per year across the 20-year deal, for a total of $16 billion spent on energy.

According to the Tokenist, the agreement also states that Constellation will provide Microsoft with about 835 megawatts of power, the largest purchase Microsoft has ever made for energy. This represents almost all of the Unit 1 reactor's capacity, which Constellation said had a ceiling of 837 megawatts before it was shut down.

While this is enough power to feed more than 800,000 homes, Microsoft will essentially have its own nuclear plant to energize its data centers.

"The decision here is the most powerful symbol of the rebirth of nuclear power as a clean and reliable energy resource," said Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez. "In this rebirth, we see the most powerful sign that America will turn to the enduring promise of nuclear energy, an old and loyal ally that is renewed and ready to light the way forward."

CNN reported that the reactor's reopening will create about 3,400 jobs and add another $16 billion to the Pennsylvania economy, which pleased local politicians.

“This will transform the local economy and presents a rare opportunity to power our economy with reliable clean energy that we can count on," said state Rep. Tom Mehaffie (R); the plant is in his district. "This is a rare and valuable opportunity to invest in clean, carbon-free and affordable power — on the heels of the hottest year in Earth’s history."

Constellation's stock jumped about 15% or about $30 per share after the news broke.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nuclear energy is clean and safe, so why do climate doomsayers ignore it?



For the longest time, I didn’t know what I thought when someone mentioned nuclear energy.

It seemed relegated to the realm of sci-fi or "The Simpsons." I knew what Chernobyl was, and I remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster (a dorm room in Chinatown, pulling an all-nighter). But still, I didn’t know what to make of it.

I spent several years in the trenches worrying about climate change, and I still don’t think I thought about nuclear very much. I thought we’d sooner see carbon capture than any meaningful changes to our energy infrastructure. Plus, wasn’t nuclear energy really dangerous, anyway? Maybe that’s what I thought about it. Not a pipe dream exactly; it was just dangerous.

I think a lot of people get their idea of nuclear waste from "The Simpsons," but as my friend Madi Hilly says, the only thing "The Simpsons" got right about nuclear is that a man without a college degree can make enough to buy a home and support his family while working at a nuclear power plant.

Then, around 2019, I started noticing nuclear discourse appearing in my digital life. A tweet here, a TikTok there. Suddenly, it started taking shape in my mind. It was no longer some ill-defined threat. Nuclear energy became something more tangible.

But for people like me, being able to understand nuclear power doesn’t just happen. It’s thanks to people like Emmet Penney, one of the most interesting and most accessible energy writers out there. Something of a digital renaissance man, he’s an accomplished essayist, the mind behind the newsletter Grid Brief, a podcast host times two at "Nuclear Barbarians" and "ex.haust," a contributing editor at Compact, and a recipient of a prestigious Emergent Ventures grant.

Here’s our conversation in which we discuss how he got into nuclear, whether my kids will grow extra limbs if we ever see widespread nuclear adoption, and why it feels like nuclear is entering the discourse as a perfect solution to our energy needs.

Katherine: You are a humanities guy — what’s the story on how you got into nuclear?

Emmet: I got into nuclear through Michael Shellenberger’s work and Leigh Phillips’ book "Austerity Ecology & the Collapse Porn Addicts." A few years after I got nuke-pilled, I had the wonderful opportunity to help on Michael’s book "Apocalypse Never," which turned me into a full-blown advocate. This story has a lot of twists and turns, but that’s the most direct version of how it happened. Still, it baffles me that I’m even in this space.

Katherine: Where’d the name “Nuclear Barbarians,” the title of your nuclear energy podcast, come from?

Emmet: I don’t share, as many nuclear advocates seem to, the belief that history progresses. Yet I still believe in civic virtue and the power and necessity of big industrial projects. So I wanted to come up with a brand idea that had an atavistic, John Milius tinge to it. I also wanted to head off the “nukebro” insult that renewaphiles tend to hurl around. If I’m already posting memes with Arnold as Conan and calling myself the Nuclear Barbarian, what else is there to say? I’ve already said it for you. The other reason I picked it is because if you’re a nuclear advocate, you’re more or less beyond the moat of the energy mainstream’s castle. So I wanted to feature that rather than fix it.

Katherine: Please excuse the expression, but can you red-pill me on nuclear energy? I have internalized so much anti-nuclear propaganda.

Emmet: Depends on what your concerns are. Many people are worried about safety issues, but nuclear power is among the safest energy sources. It also has the lowest land footprint. If you’re really worried about climate and you think it’s a good idea to electrify everything so as to reduce emissions, then you’ll want to look at the two canonical examples of decarbonizing the electricity sector: Ontario and France. Both were accomplished with nuclear. No one’s done it with renewables. If you want to know how nuclear got such a bad name (and how it became so expensive to build in America), you can check out this piece I wrote for American Affairs. It was my attempt to write the article I wish someone could have handed me when I first started getting into all this five years ago.

Katherine: What about nuclear waste? Will my kids grow extra limbs if I live near a reactor?

Emmet: The waste is the best part. Renewables end up clogging landfills and leaching toxic chemicals into the ground. Coal stores a lot of its waste in the air we breathe. On the other hand, nuclear has highly monitored waste stored in highly durable casks. Check out this photo of my friend Paris hanging out with the waste at the Paolo Verde plant in Arizona.

I think a lot of people get their idea of nuclear waste from "The Simpsons," but as my friend Madi Hilly says, the only thing "The Simpsons" got right about nuclear is that a man without a college degree can make enough to buy a home and support his family while working at a nuclear power plant.

Katherine: What should freak me out the most about energy these days?

Emmet: The general hostility to energy abundance that Western elites exhibit. People think they can do whatever they want with fossil fuels or nuclear and nothing bad will happen. Or they don’t care that bad things happen because it doesn’t affect them as much. But get a load of Germany right now – they closed their nuclear plants, made themselves dependent on natural gas from Russia, and now they’re firing up their coal plants to keep the lights on. So much for the all-renewables dream of their Energiewende. What we’re experiencing right now is the trailer for the feature-length suffering that’s about to play out over the next few years. Few in charge seem to have really internalized this.

Katherine: You wrote about renewable energy credit scams in your newsletter, Grid Brief. It’s not the first time I’ve heard chatter about this. What’s the story there?

  Leif Skoogfors/Getty

Emmet: Renewable energy credits are a way to say you run on clean energy from renewables without actually doing it. They’re like the indulgences for sins the Catholic Church put on the market way back when. The basic idea is that you offset your “sin” of consuming fossil fuels by purchasing some credits that go towards renewable energy projects. Does this actually happen? It’s a Barnum and Bailey world out there, so not really. It’s more like an accounting trick.

They’re useful because if you’re, say, running a huge data storage facility, you’re power-hungry and most likely getting all of your juice from fossil fuel generators because fossil fuels are energy-dense, reliable, and dispatchable (you can call on them when you need them). But maybe you’re in a state that has certain standards around how much clean energy you have to use. Well, you can buy some credits and say, “Hey, look! I bought all these credits that cancel out all my emissions! I’m 100% clean now.” Unless you’re parked next to a major hydro dam or a nuclear plant, that’s probably a load of bull. And part of that’s just the nature of electricity. Once electricity is created, you can’t analyze it and go, “Ah, yes! This is coal electricity.” It’s just watts. There’s no such thing as an electricity sommelier.

Anyway, RECs are a big scam.

Katherine: It’s weird that energy doesn’t get a lot of airtime in the hot-take economy given how it … well, undergirds everything. But part of me wonders if it’s because it’s just complicated to write about and there’s a barrier to entry to understand what you’re talking about. Is that it? Or do you think there are other reasons?

Emmet: I’d say the barrier to entry for energy discourse is inherently higher than other spheres. Anyone can watch some new Netflix show and fire off a spicy take on it — and good for them. With energy, you have to put some work in over time. Lots of homework. I’m absolutely a beginner. Part of the reason I got into all this is because there’s something new to learn every single day.

It’s also because — and this is especially true when it comes to electricity markets — there are loads of specialized language. If some dude with a wind turbine in his profile pic tweets out “MOPRs are for utilities cucks,” who the f**k is going to like or RT that? No one knows what he’s talking about outside a very small circle. Hot-take economies run on the structure of jokes, and jokes are structured like a 2010 American Apparel ad. It’s about what information is missing, not what information’s there.

All that being said, there are still flame wars and hot-take economies that play out within the energy sphere. It’s like any other online discourse, really. Just with more white papers and graphs.

Katherine: Who’s one person everyone should be reading on any topic? Or listening to, for that matter?

Emmet: There are so many people I could list that it’s overwhelming me. So I’ll instead give some advice that I wish someone had given me when I started exploring various domains for myself: Go to the library and find out-of-print books on the topic you’re interested in. Or buy them online if you’re so inclined. Understand that what you’re curious about has probably been litigated over and over again — tear through works cited and bibliographies and figure out the genealogy of the debate to the best of your ability. Try to wade into the flow of time.

And reread Plato’s "Republic" a few times a decade.