# Controversy Around Kevin O’Leary’s Data Center Plans and Energy Consumption

*The Joe Rogan Experience* · https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l764NbzpAk

## Summary

Joe Rogan and his guest react to a Tucker Carlson interview with Kevin O'Leary about a giant data center project, debating tax breaks, job creation, and energy consumption. The guest argues the deeper issue is whether America can still build anything, tracing how environmental regulation killed nuclear power and pushed chip manufacturing to Taiwan. He defends O'Leary's data center plan, says data centers should bring their own energy, and notes an emerging anti-AI, anti-energy coalition on both the left and the right.

## Key points

- Tucker Carlson challenged Kevin O'Leary over why taxpayers should subsidize a private data center without receiving equity.
- O'Leary countered that states compete with incentive packages, trading tax breaks for jobs and future tax revenue.
- Tucker questioned the trade of roughly 2,000 jobs against a power draw comparable to New York City's nearly 5 million jobs.
- The guest argues the energy concern is a red herring because new federal policy requires data centers to bring their own energy.
- Environmental regulation, including NEPA, is blamed for ending chip manufacturing in California and pushing it to Taiwan.
- Nixon's Project Independence planned 1,000 nuclear plants by 2000, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved no new plant design for 40 years.
- Three Mile Island caused zero deaths and no proven radiation-caused illness, yet public panic helped halt nuclear construction.
- Germany's shutdown of nuclear plants forced reliance on erratic wind and solar, backed up by coal, which produces carbon emissions.
- The guest sees a 'horseshoe' convergence where the Bernie left and the Tucker right both turn anti-AI and anti-energy.

## Notes

### Tucker vs. Kevin O'Leary on the Data Center
- Tucker Carlson questioned why taxpayers should fund a private data center without receiving equity; O'Leary replied that investors get the shares.
- O'Leary framed tax breaks as standard competition between states, trading incentives for jobs, taxes, and community investment, as with any manufacturing facility.
- Tucker challenged the trade: the project would draw about as much energy as New York City but create only about 2,000 jobs versus New York's nearly 5 million.
- O'Leary responded that an AI data center creates millions of high-paying jobs through national productivity gains.

### The Guest's Assessment
- Tax breaks for some businesses and not others is a legitimate debate where both sides can be argued.
- The energy concern is a red herring: new federal policy and common practice require data centers to bring their own energy or pay for it separately.
- The real underlying issue is whether America can build anything anymore — factories, chip plants, power plants, refineries, pipelines, or housing.

### Regulation and the Loss of Industry
- Chip manufacturing left California for Taiwan because environmental regulations, including umbrella laws like NEPA, made it impossible to build there.

### Nuclear Power's Missed Opportunity
- Nixon's Project Independence planned 1,000 civilian nuclear plants by 2000, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved no new plant design for 40 years.
- Three Mile Island caused zero deaths and no proven radiation-caused illness, yet public panic helped end nuclear construction.
- Fukushima similarly shows near-zero documented health effects, though the site remains contained.
- Nuclear is described as the safest, cleanest, most effective energy; environmentalists like Stewart Brand now admit abandoning it was a mistake.

### Germany's Cautionary Tale
- Shutting down nuclear plants left Germany dependent on erratic wind and solar, with coal as the backup — producing the very carbon emissions nuclear avoids.

### Politics of AI and Energy
- The Trump administration is pro-AI data centers and pro-American energy, linking the two issues.
- The left has grown anti-AI while remaining anti-energy and anti-nuclear; a far-right anti-tech movement mirrors it — a 'horseshoe' convergence of the Bernie and Tucker positions.
- The guest supports O'Leary building the data center 100%, ideally powered by its own nuclear micro reactor, while remaining agnostic on the tax breaks.

## Transcript

[00:00] The Gerogan experience. Anyway, so Kev, the great Kevin O'Leary, was already a great investor and he's a great actor, it turns out. And he's building this giant data center. Did you see Tucker's discussion with him? >> I haven't seen it. It's kind of interesting. Might might be good to watch. Let's watch it. Let's see if we can pull a clip of it. Because Tucker was essentially saying, like, how did you get this past? And they said they voted on it and it turns out it's like three representatives in Utah. And Tucker's argument is like how difficult would it be to subvert the you know, get a hold of three of these representatives and get them to vote on this thing that's not good for the people. They He's saying you're going to

[00:42] be taking American jobs with this thing and this is like Tucker's position. Right. You find any clips on it? >> Well, I did I found the whole thing first. This is 10 minutes long, but Well, let's just play a little bit of it. >> If you want I'll give you a quick while we're looking for it or Yeah, no, let's slap on some headphones. Let's listen to this thing. the difference. There's a state budget Hey, that's no problem. That's no problem. I can build that in Texas. I can build that in Jacksonville, Mississippi. There But but why if it's such a good business would you be asking taxpayers to help pay for it without giving them equity in the company? Are you giving taxpayers shares? No, the the investors get the shares,

[01:17] but here's why they would do it. >> Why would the taxpayers have to I mean, look, if you want to start a business, why why am I as a taxpayer forced to pay for it, your business? I don't I don't get it. Well, let's forget about data centers. Let's go any manufacturing. Let's say you're going to build um an aluminum sheet manufacturing facility. You go to the government there and say, "Look, this is going to be a huge CapEx expect you know, a huge CapEx expenditure. I'm going to hire 2,000 people. I'm going to build a community center. I'm going to pay a lot of tax on the profits in your state when I sell the aluminum and I'm going to hire all these people who they will also pay tax. And we will build a school

[01:57] because our workers need a need a school. And and and and and. What can you give me to incentivize me versus the the state right beside you, which is willing to give me an incentive package? >> No, no, I understand I understand that you're you're gaming a system in place. You didn't come up with this, but I'm just trying to understand So, the trade typically is jobs, okay? But these projects don't actually >> well, no, no, it's also jobs and taxes cuz you're going to >> And taxes? Yeah. But but then you're getting a tax break. So, that doesn't really make any sense >> up front you're getting Tucker, welcome to America, buddy. This is how it's gone on for 200 years. Okay, well, I don't know. Lots of bad things go on for a

[02:37] while. I'm just but I think at some point it's worth assessing like why are we doing this? So, on the job question >> You're doing it because there's a competition. Well, I run a I run a couple of businesses and we're not getting any tax breaks. I think they're every bit as virtuous as data centers, but I'm not availing myself of that and no one's offered and I wouldn't take it anyway because it's not the job of taxpayers to subsidize a private business. It's a fair It's a fair It's a fair comment, but my job is to create a data center, create 2,000 jobs for long-term and 10,000 manufacturing at the beginning or a construction. And I'm obviously looking at at multiple sites and this won't be the last one I

[03:17] build. I have >> May I May I May I ask 2,000 jobs? Okay, so relative to the size the physical size of the project, which as you noted is multiple times the size of Manhattan, and the power draw at peak, this data center, your projections, will consume about as much energy as New York City does, but New York City provides almost 5 million jobs. And this project by your own description would provide about 2,000 jobs. I I I don't see the trade >> that you definitely got that calculation wrong. By building a data center that trains AI that provides productivity to the entire nation, we create millions of jobs, high-paying jobs. So, AI is going to create jobs? I thought it was going to eliminate jobs

[04:07] >> just think about the new technologies we don't even know yet that are going to be No. I think we get it. That was a good cross section of the of the debate. Yeah, I think we got it. A lot of it was in there. So, what is your take on that? I have many takes on that. Okay, I know. I saw you writing things down, so that's why I'm asking you. I'm ready to go. So, start a couple things. So, he started out talking about tax breaks for businesses. I think that's a completely legitimate debate topic. I think he's talking that one Tucker's right in the sense of some kinds of businesses get tax breaks, others don't. Right, that's a completely fair thing. I I I could argue both sides of that of that one.

[04:41] I'll say that that that number one. Number two, the energy thing I think is a little bit of a red herring at this point cuz the the sort of claim you know, the claim is these data centers are going to they're going to use so much energy and then they're going to cause local energy bills, you know, to skyrocket. And I think it is very bad by the way when that happens. I think if a data center comes in, it should bring its own energy with it or pay pay for the energy separately. There is a new federal policy now exactly along those lines that I think everybody's doing in practice, which is to to pair to if if you do a data center, you bring your own energy. So, I think that can be dealt with. And

[05:12] then and then both of those connect to what I think is the big underlying issue which they were kind of dancing around, which is what we talked about earlier with the rebuilding of LA, which is can you build anything in America anymore? Can you? Can you build a factory? Can you build a chip plant? Can you build a power plant? Can you build a refinery? Can you build a pipeline? Can you build housing? And you know, one of the common themes in American life for the last 30 years is the answer to those questions is generally no. You can't do any of those things, right? So, take as an example Silicon Valley, right? So, all the chips are made in Taiwan. Well, 40 years ago all the chips were made in

[05:49] California. Why are all the chips made in Taiwan? Because in California the regulations got set so that you couldn't make chips in California anymore. So, now they're all made in Taiwan and now we have to figure out what to do if China invades Taiwan. That's really all it is? It's just regulations? >> yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, all the all the all the chip plants used to be in California. And what what regulations specifically stopped them from being able to manufacture in California? >> Environmental. Environmental. >> Environmental. Yes. And you you have these you and you have these you have specific issues on on environmental impact on things and then you have these umbrella things with things like NEPA um

[06:16] that basically essentially banned everything um in in much of the country. >> And what was the negative consequences of them in terms of the environment? >> there there there are it's it's like any of these things. There's tons of there there's always some there's always some substance to it. There's always some risk of I you know it's probably it's probably something chemical leakage or something like that. If it's if the chemicals aren't properly managed um and then there's whatever other kind of superheated claims are around that. Let me give you the ultimate story on that which goes goes to the power thing. Um okay, so for the last you know, 50 years you know, we've we've we've been worried about global warming climate

[06:43] change. And specifically with that we've been worried about carbon emissions. It turns out there is a form of energy which basically is unlimited energy that's that's carbon free. That generates no carbon at all and it's nuclear power. Um the the nuclear power was considered such an attractive way to generate energy in the in the in the 50s and 60s that a whole bunch of you know, big nuclear plants got built. By the way, France ran for a long time almost entirely on nuclear power. Japan ran for a long time almost entirely on nuclear power. But we used to we used to have nuclear plants you know, getting getting built in the US. Um the environmental movement started. They said they don't you know, they

[07:13] don't want you know, oil and gas fossil fuels. Um and so the Nixon administration around the time you and I were born uh created something called project independence and project independence was to build a thousand new civilian nuclear power plants in the US by the year 2000. And the idea was a thousand nuclear power plants will power the entire United States with totally clean energy. By the way, that's also the energy electricity you need to be able to cut over to electric vehicles which could have happened a lot sooner. Um and then and then it's got it's called project independence cuz it means the US won't have to be involved in the Middle East anymore, cuz we won't need the oil. Right? And and this was a response to

[07:47] the the growing energy crisis in the 1970s at the time. Um how many nuclear power plants were built out of the thousand? Round us to zero. Uh they never got built because the Nixon administration also created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which made it its purpose in life is to stop nuclear power plants from getting built. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not approve a new nuclear plant design for 40 years. Now, is this because of Three Mile Island? >> So then Three Mile This is a great example. So then Three Mile Island hits. And Three Mile Island in the in for you know, the it's it's it's a it was a meltdown of a nuclear plant civilian nuclear plant on the East Coast, and it becomes a mega story. And

[08:22] this is like a this is in the middle of the this is in the '70s when people are freaking out about all, you know, Vietnam and the oil shock and like all these issues and recession, depression. And then on top of that, this nuclear power plant melts down. Everybody freaks out. Complete panic. Um how many people died from Three Mile Island melting down? One? Zero. Zero? >> Zero. Zero deaths. Zero deaths. And the total >> got ill, though? >> No. I don't I I I don't >> Is there residual cancer deaths? >> there's any evidence of any uh any resulting illness. Cuz it just like it just melts down, it just stays there. So like if you walk into an abandoned nuclear power plant that's melted down that hasn't been contained, you're going

[08:57] to be in trouble. But like if you're just like if you're just like if you're Like another example is Fukushima. I think that they're literally have an argument of like whether it's zero or one uh people who have been affected by Fukushima in Japan, which was the you know, the other affected affected Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, this is people have I forget who did it, but somebody went shortly after Fukushima and just made a point one of the somebody one of the Americans who works on this stuff went over there and he just like went around and started eating everything, you know, all the edible plants and drinking the ground water. Like it it's it These are These are not In fact, Yeah, but the consequences of

[09:28] radiation poisoning aren't instantaneous, right? Like >> Yeah, yeah, but this is my point. Three Mile Island has We now have 50 years of data. And so if there was going to be some crisis based on that we would know about >> no like excess cancer >> there's no excess cancer, there's no nothing. I don't think anybody's ever ever shown any anything like that. >> Let's find out. Yeah, let's let's Throw that into perplexity. Um are there any excess cancer rates that are linked to Three Mile Island? And then there's the second question would be um are there any um No acute radiation deaths or clearly proven radiation caused illnesses have been documented from Three Mile Island. But epidemiological studies disagree

[10:06] about possible small longer-term cancer effects in nearby populations. But that's from 50 years ago. But look at that next bullet. Uh immediate injuries or deaths official investigations by Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other agencies conclude that the radioactive releases were low and that there were no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public in the immediate aftermath. >> the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is against building new nuclear power plants. >> Right. Like right. These are not So the problem is the narrative, right? The problem is that everybody freaked out. Oh, nuclear, we're going to die. It's new technology. It's it's voodoo. It's witchcraft. >> green. It's green. It's it's the same

[10:44] >> It's the same stuff that makes the bombs. >> Makes the bombs. Yeah, bad. The ick factor is ick factor. It feels bad. >> they're going to lie to you. The government will lie. You'll die and they'll they'll sweep it under the rug. Exactly. It makes it makes it Yeah, it's you have this And by the way, like I said, I I think it's understandable. Like you have you have this like visceral response and I mean that's a real thing. People something people experience. It's a real thing. Right. >> But the result of that, like let's just put yourself you're an environmentalist, the result of that is for 50 years we've generated all of this completely unnecessary carbon like the entire time. Like we like that's that's that's that's the

[11:16] alternative. >> Right. >> And by the way, it's even worse in the rest of the world where they don't need they don't even you know, many many developing countries they don't even have centralized oil and gas the way we do. They they literally do wood burning inside their homes and that is extremely >> Yeah, wood burning's terrible. >> That's extremely bad. Unfortunately, cuz it smells awesome. And here's another argument about this. The problem is also that the technology around nuclear power plants has evolved significantly. Yet people are still locked into this idea of like Fukushima which like they had a backup generator that went down. That whole place is for 100,000 years. Yeah, but again it's a it's a place.

[11:51] It's a contained place. And so what you But isn't it leaking into the ocean? I don't Yeah, I don't know. I think it's leaking into the ocean and I think like Brett Weinstein told me not to eat tuna. >> [laughter] >> No, that's mercury. I I think that's it. Yeah, that's it. No, he was saying like radioactive tuna. You get They'll get sushi. I think the mercury will get you before the before the There's definitely that. But here's my point. So we decided we decided to just not build nuclear power plants. In fact, we've been shutting them down. And by And by the way, Germany has been shutting them down the Germany shut them all down, right? >> they've been shutting them down. The The result of that

[12:23] It's actually there's there's tons of ironies in this. And so first of all, you don't get you don't get the energy. You don't get like the safest form of energy known to man. Like you just simply don't Most effective. Most effective and cleanest than everything else. And at least And by the way, this is the other thing is rank ordering all of this like rank order any of this against oil and gas the downstream implications of oil and gas or any other form. Like it's just it's just it's super clear. Like And by the way, the environmental movement itself is turning and they're they're actually rediscovering nuclear power and becoming in favor of it. Right. Stewart Brand is one of the original environmentalists wrote a whole book

[12:50] talking about how this this is this whole thing was a huge mistake. So this is starting to happen. But there's all kinds of just amazing kind of downstream things from that. And so one is if you turn off This is what Europe is doing. If you turn off the reliable sources of energy, then the theory is you're going to cut over you're going to cut over to to to to renewables which is wind and solar. Mhm. The problem is wind and solar are not 24/7. Right. And so you're you're you're This is what Germany's has done is you turn off your nuclear power plant. You then are running on wind and wind and solar which is which is then erratic whether the sun is out or whether the wind is blowing. And so then

[13:20] you need your backup generation of power to be able to make up for the gaps. And guess what that is? >> Coal. Coal. >> [laughter] >> And so coal coal emissions are carbon emissions. >> Coal is so fun. Okay, but here's why this is important. Okay, so it's important actually for two reasons. One is it it just make this broad category question of can you build things in America? Can you build a factory? Can you build an energy plant? Can you build a data center? Can you build housing? And every single one of those there's this massive problem which is like right now in many cases in many places no, you can't. Number one. Number two, if you're going to build a data center, you want it to bring its own energy.

[13:53] Right? So the very specific thing you want to do is ideally I you want to ideally you'd want to plant a nuclear micro reactor right next to it. Um and just let it like completely power itself. Right? And just like let it go. Um and and and and yeah and and then as a consequence these issues are getting are getting intertwined. Um and so and so what and so what's happened is the Trump administration is both extremely pro building AI and building AI data centers and they are very pro American energy production. And then those issues are linked because the data centers need need energy. And as a consequence the other the left has become as a consequence increasingly anti-AI. And has always been anti-energy and

[14:26] anti-nuclear. And now they're combining that together. And then of course Tucker is the latest twist on this which is you now have a rump sort of uh I don't even know what to call it anti-tech anti-AI anti-energy movement on the far right. Um and so you've you've got you've got the horseshoe theory. You've got the horseshoe theory where the the Bernie position on AI and the Tucker position on AI are becoming closer and closer and closer. And so so anyway, so that's the backdrop uh to to to to all this. This is why I think it's a great I think what Kevin is doing is a fantastic idea. I think obviously he should build that thing. You know, should he get the tax breaks or not? I don't know. Whatever. Um

[15:00] should he build the thing? 100%. So the argument about the tax breaks is that states offer tax breaks because they're in in competition with other states. For for certain categories of businesses. Um and so this happens Kevin said it. This happens with manufac if if if in the in the in the rare event that I want to open a manufacturing plant in the US which generally people don't even try anymore. But in In event you want to, you you bid it out to the states and you see who gives you the best tax break.