Gain complimentary access to the White House Watch bulletin
An overview of the implications of Trump’s subsequent administration for the capital, commerce, and global affairs
What might impede the rapid growth of artificial intelligence in America? Numerous possibilities exist. Escalating anti-technology populism stands as one: a recent poll reveals that 58 percent of US citizens harbor distrust towards AI.
Over-indebtedness represents a further concern: AI-linked firms are not only consuming vast amounts of private credit but also intend to release an unprecedented $450 billion in bonds within the current year, as per the Institute of International Finance. A third hazard is the possibility that more economical, superior AI iterations might supplant the expensive, exclusive large language models favored by Silicon Valley.
However, a fourth, more mundane problem also exists: power supply. Should the AI surge continue its rapid pace, worldwide electrical consumption by data centers is anticipated to dual by 2030, with even more substantial increases foreseen in the United States and China.
Beijing has proactively addressed this by implementing an astonishing 1,500 gigawatts of novel energy capacity since 2021, bringing its cumulative capacity to 3,891GW. Nevertheless, the US has not followed suit: its deployed capacity has shown minimal growth recently, currently standing at approximately 1,373GW — which is less than China’s additions over merely four years.
This is startling. Furthermore, China is projected to incorporate more than 3.4 terawatts of power generation capability over the coming half-decade, Bloomberg reports — a figure six times greater than that of the United States.
Predictably, the technology industry in America is concerned. For instance, Jensen Huang, the chief of Nvidia, conveyed to the FT last year that China possessed the potential to “prevail in the AI competition” against the US due to its “unrestricted power”. Elon Musk asserts that “given prevailing trajectories, China is poised to significantly surpass the global remainder in AI computation” because it will possess three times the United States’ electrical output by the conclusion of 2026.
Moreover, OpenAI has urged governmental intervention. “The United States is globally preeminent in AI development [yet] maintaining this advantage necessitates substantially greater electricity than the US presently supplies,” it announced in a memorandum from the previous year. “Electrons represent the new petroleum.” (This is paradoxical considering that data was formerly celebrated by technology enthusiasts as the “new petroleum”.)
However, whether President Donald Trump is capable of — or inclined to — intervene remains ambiguous. On Tuesday, in his State of the Union speech, he proclaimed that “we are instructing the prominent technology corporations that they bear the responsibility for meeting their own energy requirements” to ensure that “no consumer prices will escalate”. Next week, he is expected to elaborate on this during a White House assembly with leading tech magnates.
Yet, do not anticipate a miraculous solution from him. It will prove challenging to protect the electorate from an impending energy crunch, even if Trump compels technology firms to construct their own power sources. To illustrate one predicament: given that numerous data centers employ diesel generators for contingency, “cost escalations ranging from 20 to 50 percent might be anticipated in the constricted international diesel market” shortly, as per Philip Verleger, an energy expert.
A further substantial challenge lies in electrical transmission. China has rapidly constructed high-voltage conduits in contemporary times. But the United States has not. This cannot be remedied by private industry or individual states absent federal intervention, as these lines frequently traverse state boundaries. Nonetheless, thus far, minimal progress has been achieved — regardless of whether the presidents were Democratic or Republican. “In 2008, a novel [transmission] initiative generally required a wait of under two years for connection. However, by 2024, this period extended beyond 4.5 years,” remarks Heather Boushey, a past economic consultant in the Biden administration.
Even more concerning, Trump is conducting an ideological battle against sustainable energy. Indeed, China utilizes fossil fuels to augment its power network (regrettably including coal). But as Kyle Chan, an energy specialist at Brookings, points out: “More than fifty percent of China’s [recent] electrical expansion over [the past decade] originated from ecological power sources, including wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.” These are quick and inexpensive to deploy — even prior to considering the ecological advantages.
Yet, Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” maxim renders him unwilling to adopt renewable energy, even as a supplementary power option, let alone as a substitute for fossil fuels. In fact, last summer, the energy department rescinded a proposed $4.9 billion loan assurance for an 800-mile “Grain Belt Express” transmission line designed to transport wind energy from Kansas to Illinois and Indiana. This is preposterous.
Therefore, can the United States bridge the disparity with China? Certain White House functionaries inform me it is feasible, through leveraging federal authority to implement transmission infrastructure and compelling major tech firms to finance substantial energy expenditures.
David Victor, a professor at UC San Diego, believes that increased ingenuity will also be beneficial. “The truly significant [future] narrative in energy will revolve around power-saving advancements for microchips,” he states. “Numerous projections for voracious energy expansion for data centers are rather exaggerated [given that] many of these undertakings will prove unnecessary, particularly if the AI speculative frenzy concludes.”
One certainly hopes that is the case. Nonetheless, unless — or until — this transpires, the unfolding narrative will further underscore why coherent, anticipatory, practical strategies can surpass a governmental framework beset by fragmentation and undue financial focus. Future American chroniclers might indeed lament. However, presently, technology investors ought to contemplate the tangible, mundane challenges of influence — both in a governmental and practical connotation.
[email protected]