The AI Cold War: How the U.S.-China Race Could Impact Energy, Water, and Consumers

How the U.S.-China Race Could Impact Energy, Water, and Consumers

Fernando sanchez

As the United States and China deepen their competition for global leadership in artificial intelligence, a less visible battle is beginning to raise concerns among regulators, state governments, and local communities: the enormous energy and environmental costs required to power the data centers that support the next generation of AI systems.

The recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), backed by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and the administration of President Donald Trump, seeks to accelerate the connection of large data centers to the national power grid. The objective is clear: to prevent the United States from losing ground to China in what has become known as the “Artificial Intelligence Cold War.”

Behind this technological race are giants such as OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Oracle, and xAI, companies that require ever-increasing amounts of electricity to train and operate increasingly sophisticated AI models. According to estimates from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), data centers already consume approximately 5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States, and that demand could triple by 2035.

However, the nation’s energy infrastructure is not expanding at the same pace. Industry experts warn that the electrical grid faces significant limitations in absorbing the thousands of additional megawatts required by the AI industry. In states such as Virginia, home to the world’s largest concentration of data centers, these facilities already account for more than a quarter of total statewide electricity demand.

FERC Chair Laura Swett has acknowledged concerns about the impact these new connections could have on consumers’ electricity bills. Although the commission has ruled that data center operators must bear the costs of the infrastructure upgrades required for their grid connections, questions remain about who will ultimately pay for the additional investments needed to strengthen transmission networks, build new power lines, and develop power generation facilities capable of meeting such demand.

Major U.S. utilities and grid operators, including PJM Interconnection, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Southern Company, and other regional providers, are facing growing pressure to ensure adequate electricity supplies without passing excessive costs on to households and businesses.

Yet the challenge extends beyond energy alone. Data centers also require massive cooling systems to prevent servers from overheating. These facilities consume millions of gallons of water each year, particularly in regions where evaporative cooling technologies are used. Environmental organizations warn that the large-scale expansion of these complexes could place additional strain on aquifers and water reserves, especially in areas already experiencing recurring drought conditions.

More....

Earthquake of magnitude 5.8 rattles Greece southwest of Crete

Earthquake of magnitude 5.8 rattles Greece southwest of Crete; no reports of damage

Reuters

An earthquake of magnitude 5.8 strikes Greece, but there are no immediate reports of damage.

The quake occurred at a depth of 13 km (8 miles) and was located 69 km south-southwest of the city of Rethymno on the island of Crete, the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre says.

Uncleared Mines Complicate Shipping Rebound in Strait of Hormuz

Uncleared Mines Complicate Shipping Rebound in Strait of Hormuz

Newsmax Wires

Normal commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is not expected to fully resume until Iranian-laid naval mines are cleared from key shipping lanes, according to the Guardian, The New York Times, NPR, and others.

Despite the mines, President Donald Trump said that the chokepoint has been reopened under a U.S.–Iran ceasefire framework.

The Guardian reported that roughly 80 naval mines remain in or near primary transit routes.

Naval and maritime authorities describe clearance as a slow, high-risk process requiring specialized mine-countermeasure vessels and step-by-step sweeping operations before commercial shipping can safely return to normal levels.

“The main route … through the middle of the Strait of Hormuz, that’s closed, that’s dangerous,” said Phil Belcher, marine director at Intertanko, the tanker owners' association, according to the Guardian.

It also said that almost 600 vessels are believed to still be in the Gulf, where they have been anchored since February, creating a significant backlog that will take time to clear even after conditions improve in spite of upbeat projections.

Richard Meade, editor-in-chief at maritime data provider Lloyd’s List, said, “We are in uncharted territory. I don’t think [shipping in the strait] is getting back to normal this year,” according to the Guardian report.

Newsmax reported that Iranian messaging on Hormuz has remained inconsistent even in the aftermath of the ceasefire announcement.

The Foreign Ministry has insisted that the strait is not closed and that maritime traffic is continuing normally.

Yet at the same time, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued more hardline statements suggesting conditional control and tighter enforcement over transit.

According to the New York Post, an IRGC statement read over maritime radio channels prior to the Foreign Ministry one warned vessels about entering the strait.

“Since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, the complete lifting of the naval blockade, and the withdrawal of American terrorist forces from the Persian Gulf and the region are among the main conditions of the agreement between Iran and the United States, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed until these conditions are met,” that Revolutionary Guards statement said, as reported by the Post. “All ships are requested, for the sake of their security and safety, not to approach the Strait of Hormuz.

"Any vessel that defies this directive will be targeted.”

That operational reality stands in contrast with the Trump administration’s framing of the situation.

More....

Iran Declares Victory Over America After MOU Signed

‘We Are a Superpower’: Iran Declares Victory Over America After MOU Signed

Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz

At the Palace of Versailles on June 17, as French President Emmanuel Macron looked on, President Donald Trump signed his name to a 14-point memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic of Iran—a regime whose state-controlled media, within hours, was broadcasting banners declaring that “the US was forced to sign an agreement to end the war.” In Tehran, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian held up his signed copy for cameras, completing what Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei called proof that his country had “defeated two nuclear powers… We truly are a superpower.” 

The proof that Iran’s celebration is not merely rhetorical lies on the ground: Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful proxy, is firing missiles and drones daily into Israel even as a supposed ceasefire is in effect, and Hamas’s latest response to mediators in Cairo amounts to an effective rejection of key components of Trump’s Gaza peace plan, including the demand for disarmament.

The MOU, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar and signed two days earlier than originally planned, grants Iran large-scale economic relief and commits Tehran only in principle to a subsequent dilution of its enriched uranium—while pushing off discussion of Iran’s nuclear program and other core issues to a 60-day negotiation period. Despite Trump’s combative pre-war rhetoric, Iran’s theocratic government remains in place, its stockpile of highly enriched uranium has not been surrendered, its ballistic missile capabilities have not been destroyed, and it has not ended its support for terror proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi wasted no time in framing the outcome. He stated flatly that Iran “defeated the US in the military battlefield” and warned that “Iran’s armed forces will always have their hand on the trigger to confront the conspiracies of the enemies.” He added that the MOU itself was written not in a spirit of partnership but of calculated suspicion: “This memorandum does not mean trusting the enemy; it has been written with active distrust. We will monitor the implementation of U.S. commitments.”

Iran’s military operational headquarters, Khatam al-Anbiya, went further in its Sunday night statement, declaring that “the humiliated enemies have no option but to accept defeat and surrender before a people inspired by God and the soldiers of the Almighty.” The statement continued: “By imposing their divine and iron will upon their adversaries, they proved that there is no alternative for the enemy other than acknowledging defeat.”

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi matched the triumphalist tone from the diplomatic lane. Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that Araghchi declared the nation’s military performance had yielded not only tactical but strategic gains: “The Iranian nation achieved not only tactical victories during the 12-day imposed war in June last year and the recent war, but also important strategic accomplishments whose impact can be observed in both regional and global equations.” Araghchi added that “the true image of Iran’s power on the global stage stems not only from its military capabilities but also from national cohesion, resilience, and the active involvement of its people.”

On the Strait of Hormuz, Baghaei outlined Tehran’s intentions with precision: “Iran will charge fees for services in the Strait of Hormuz. The mechanisms for managing the Strait of Hormuz have largely been agreed upon with Oman,” preserving, he said, “the sovereignty and dominion of the Islamic Republic of Iran” over the waterway. Trump had announced the strait would open toll-free to all shipping and that the US naval blockade on Iran’s ports would be lifted immediately. Iran’s version of what was agreed and Washington’s version were already diverging before the ink had dried.

Baghaei delivered his most sweeping verdict directly to Iranian state television: “Our enemies have inflicted harm on us. But a wounded lion remains a lion. The war they imposed not only did not bring us to our knees, but made us stronger.”

More.....

Ukraine, Russia, and the Danger of Nuclear Attack on Europe

Ukraine, Russia, and the Danger of Nuclear Attack on Europe

Benjamin Abelow

I’m writing to recommend a remarkable discussion between John Mearsheimer (an endowed professor of political science at the University of Chicago) and the influential, religiously conservative, hawkish Russian nuclear strategist, Sergey Karaganov. The discussion was hosted and moderated by Professor Glenn Diesen (University of South-Eastern Norway).

You’ll need a bit of patience to understand some of Karaganov’s comments. His English is halting, and he sometimes mumbles — especially during the opening segment of the discussion. But it is well worth hanging in and attending closely. And all becomes perfectly clear as the discussion progresses. Mearsheimer does a good job of re-articulating and clarifying any points that Karaganov does not himself make sufficiently clear.

The discussion is fascinating. It provides deep insights into nuclear strategy and makes clear the great danger of the present moment for Europe — and all of us. Europe, if it continues on its current path, and Karaganov’s program is implemented, will be struck by a conventional missile attack from Russia, which then — after a conventional retaliation by Europe and/or the U.S. — likely will lead to a nuclear attack on Europe

Mearsheimer does an impressive job of maintaining collegial, and even, at moments, warm interactions with Karaganov — an indirect form of personal diplomacy. I believe that this is extremely important, as human interactions can have a decisive influence, even in contexts such as this one, in international affairs. Humiliations that are inflicted at the level of individual interactions can lead to global disasters. Conversely, respectful interactions, even in exceptionally trying circumstances, can help both sides draw back from dangerously destructive conflicts, even at late stages. I found the human level of the interactions the most heartening part of the discussion.

As Karaganov describes it — and I believe he is being forthright — this attack would be carried out not as an expansionist or intentionally aggressive strategy. In fact, for reasons described below, it could not function in this way. Rather, it would be an attempt to (as Karaganov describes it) “sober-up” European leaders. These leaders seem to have lost any fear of direct conflict with Russia, and they are increasingly seeking to confront Russia militarily, not just through the proxy of Ukraine. In other words, this very hawkish plan would be a Russian attempt to “reestablish deterrence.” Karaganov genuinely seems to believe that this approach is the best way to avoid a large-scale nuclear war with uncontrolled escalation.

You may not like Karaganov’s viewpoint or his strategy. But, I would assert, you must understand it — because it if European leaders persist on their current path, it will become increasingly posssible, perhaps even probable, that Karaganov’s plan will be implemented and that Europe will be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.

Let me summarize my understanding of what Karaganov is proposing:

Step 1: Russia launches a limited conventional (non-nuclear) missile attack on selected targets in Europe.

Step 2: Europe (and/or the U.S.) respond in kind with a conventional missile attack on selected targets in Europe.

Step 3: Russia launches a nuclear attack on selected targets in Europe.

Step 4: In this scenario there is no Step 4. The conflict ends without further immediate exchanges, escalation, or military conflict of any sort. Europe does not respond with it’s own limited nuclear arsenal (in France and the UK) for fear of being utterly wiped out with a Russian nuclear response. The U.S. does not respond with its own nuclear attack on Russia because it knows that this would immediately trigger a strategic nuclear war, destroying the U.S. (and Russia, of course). So, the exchange ends with Russia’s limited attack on Europe. Deterrence is reestablished on Russia’s terms. Russia is not, however, incentivised to use its new position to expand or significantly coerce the West in other ways, because it knows that doing so is more likely to trigger a nuclear retaliation, and this heightens the risk for Russia. But we must be clear: Even a very “limited” nuclear attack on selected European military and industrial targets probably would kill millions, and quite possibly tens of millions, of Europeans.

This scenario is becoming increasingly likely, I believe, as European leaders seem almost willfully to misunderstand what is happening, why it is happening, and what Russia’s actual goals and concerns are. It has been clear from the start of this conflict — actually, from long before the start of the war — that Russia has not been acting as an expansionary power but rather has been responding to a decades long attempt by the West, especially by the U.S. and NATO, to weaponize Ukraine against Russia, and to do so right on Russia’s border. In a similar but reverse situation, the U.S. would long ago have gone to war to remove the threat.

But these European leaders appear to be entirely blind to this — or, since they are substantially responsible for the course of events, they are psychologically and politically motivated to actively deny the reality. Instead of acknowledging this reality — including the reality of their own terrible and ongoing failures — these leaders are doubling down. They appear to be incapable of changing course.

More....