AI [companies] are starting to publicly frame AI concerns around grid power demand. They think this broadcasts them as "good corporate stewards" among people concerned about grid energy demand and 'climate change' and 'AI carbonara' in general.

In North America, the US has committed to natural gas turbines and petroleum forever. Not because of any good and evil stooges in politics... but because they have rejected the energy density of nuclear power for whatever reasons decades ago. which was then and now ONLY other comparable energy source on the table.

It will backfire. AI people (like Musk who went big sensibly with natural gas turbines in Memphis)is being targeted and chased because of them. And AI is NOT the (direct, local) job creator it was promised to be.

What it's actually doing is conflating the two. People will react to turbine fumes from AI plants today, to a greater extent than they would even react to a natural gas electric power plant on the same property.

So AI plants will be chased away from cities, relocate near existing power plants, then they will be attacked again by people forcing them to buy 'carbon credits' directly. Most cannot relocate near a nuclear plant because there will be no nuclear growth in the short term and AI lives in the short term.

So AI [plants] will be chased away from people, and then into orbit.

Is everyone okay with that?

I think it's the same in Europe (with a few exceptions) – people don't want nuclear power anymore (because of the high construction and maintenance costs and the waste). In addition to renewable energies, gas turbine power plants are also being used (because of their low construction costs, they can be ramped up quickly, and they can be converted to hydrogen later).

In my opinion, AI companies should be required to generate a sufficient percentage of their energy themselves from renewable sources.