This is just a guess, but is the reason the same one that the gas is cheap all the way out in BFE west Texas? In other words, even if you could generate electricity from wellhead gas more cheaply than a bunch of wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries just west of Fort Worth, can you actually export it to east Texas where all the demand is? The solution here being: let's build our giant demand machine directly on the steppe and skip all that expensive infra, because data is much cheaper to move than energy.

Does that graph take into account capacity factor ?

Because management at big tech could give any shits about you or where they live.

It’s easy to see.

I've often wondered how this is lawful under the EPA. Obviously it must be, but it seems like a gross oversight to allow people to just burn natural gas and allow its byproducts to escape into the atmosphere yet not get any useful work out of it.

looks like a terrible idea from my perspective also.

I can think of a few angles that might have pushed them towards gas, mainly (a) they wanted on-demand generation cap, (b) they didn't want to get into the batteries game at the volume they'd require, or (c) they didn't want to deal with securing the space needed to produce 2.6GW of solar. Also yeah they're definitely not price-sensitive, any of the hyperscalars is more than happy to pay extra to get exactly what they want.

edit: for example that EIA list of new solar projects you linked indicates that the largest battery installations going up in '26 are all ~500MW, and that there are only four of them (of that size). I think the energy intensity of a multi-GW datacenter is the main reason that they're not going for solar here.

> But why would they go this direction?

sibling comment has it, they want to do power generation on site and not connected to the grid and all the PITA that come with that. Further, they can pitch power independence to the locals which removes a big argument from the anti-datacenter crowd. Finally, the power gen i saw at Stargate in Abilene TX which was maybe 10 units (if that's what they're called) took up maybe 30 acres of land so they're not very big compared to the rest of the campus.

> What this tells me is that like most hyperscalers, Microsoft is not price sensitive on the electricity side,

What this should likely tell you, is that you are missing information and have an incomplete picture of the situation.

Or it could be MSFT just likes to spend extra money for no reason because they are simply stupid. I'm gonna go with the former though.

I'd be interested in all these behind the meter setups for large 24x7 loads that are being built using solar+battery though. I haven't heard of one personally, but I must be lacking information on the subject since you seem so certain these are common?

Solar makes sense for utility generation because demand goes down at night. For datacenter usage demand is effectively constant, so theyd need a fuckload of batteries which is where all the cost goes. It doesnt make sense to power 2.6 GW overnight fully on batteries. Much simpler, a.k.a faster, to just buy a plot next to an area with excess gas and build the whole thing there.

What I meant was that all political and economic decisions here go in favor of oil. The war, the proposed laws to make Chinese EVs illegal, the softening of environmental regulations, etc.

Chevron and the US Government are joined at the hip, so these kind of deals "flow" naturally.