BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Pessimism Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 10.5% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 794 faulty-reasoning hits from 874 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.1% and a BS Rank of 17% (23,842 of 28,667 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.20% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  The Trump administration is repurposing large chunks of federal land to host enormous data centers and the power plants needed to run them as officials seek to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence and overcome growing local opposition to the facilities. 
The Energy Department announced Wednesday that it would redevelop parts of a retired Cold War-era uranium enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, to host a large new AI data center campus. 
The site is owned by the federal government and has been undergoing environmental cleanup for years. 
The $100 billion project would include construction of 2 gigawatts of natural gas power connected to the local grid and 2.6 gigawatts of battery storage capacity. 
The Energy Department said the project would be privately funded through a partnership with NextEra Energy, one of the nation’s largest power companies; the investment firm Brookfield; and several local utilities. 
(One gigawatt of gas can power roughly 750,000 homes.) 
“The U.S. government is leveraging its assets  like our federal lands  to add power generation, create jobs and ensure the United States wins the AI race,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a statement. 
It’s the third time that the Trump administration has detailed plans to redevelop Cold War-era facilities into data centers. 
In March, the Energy Department announced that it would repurpose parts of a former nuclear enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio, to host an enormous 10-gigawatt data center, mostly powered by natural gas and financed partly by Japan. 
And this month, the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration said it would work with engineering firm Amentum to explore a 1-gigawatt data center, potentially powered by gas and nuclear power, at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, a federal complex once devoted to making plutonium for nuclear weapons. 
President Donald Trump has been a major supporter of artificial intelligence, which he has called essential to winning the technology race against China. 
In recent months, he has also tried to confront growing opposition in many communities to the proliferation of giant, energy-hungry data centers, which are driving up electricity demand. 
A recent Gallup poll found that nearly half of Americans would “strongly oppose” a new data center in their neighborhood, with many citing concerns about noise, pollution and energy and water usage. 
In the first quarter of this year, at least 75 data center projects worth $130 billion were delayed or stopped by local opposition, according to Data Center Watch, a project by the AI research firm 10a Labs. 
At a White House event last week, Trump aimed to address some of those concerns by announcing that nearly 200 companies  including tech giants, utilities and data center developers  had signed a voluntary pledge to prevent AI data centers from increasing electricity costs for Americans. 
Experts said that pledge could be hard to honor in practice, since power prices are often determined by local regulators. 
Trump highlighted examples where new data center projects had helped reduce local property taxes or electricity rates. 
And he railed against data center opponents, calling them “radical left communists” who “would not lower your electricity bills.” 
His administration has moved to encourage data center development on lands owned by the Energy Department, which could offer a smoother path for approval. 
The Environmental Protection Agency has also taken several steps to make data centers easier to build, such as loosening limits on smog-causing pollution from the gas turbines that often power the facilities. 
Separately, the Interior Department recently approved plans for the first-ever data center on federal land near Boulder City, Nevada, on a site where a large utility-scale solar array had previously been permitted. 
The agency said it did not need to conduct a new, time-consuming environmental review for the project because the data center would have impacts similar to the original solar facility. 
The approval was originally reported by Heatmap, a climate news site. 
Two environmental groups filed a legal challenge against that decision this week. 
“By cutting the public out of the process, they’re trying to hand over Nevada’s desert to billion-dollar tech companies without anyone getting a say,” said Olivia Tanager, executive director of the Sierra Club’s chapter in the Toiyabe area of Nevada. 
In Kentucky, the new data center will sit on portions of a 3,556-acre Energy Department site that produced low-enriched uranium for both military reactors and nuclear weapons since the 1950s. 
The enrichment facility, which used a now-obsolete gaseous diffusion method, closed in 2013. 
The Energy Department said the project’s new gas-fired power plants would produce more electricity than the data center needed and could provide the surplus to local communities. 
The project is expected to be completed in 2031. 
The Trump administration has sought to use more natural gas to power the AI data center boom while cracking down on wind and solar energy. 
Natural gas has become the largest source of America’s greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet. 
A report issued Wednesday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm, found that U.S. emissions declines could potentially slow in the coming years because of faster data center growth and rising gas demand. 
This article originally appeared in The New York Times. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.6%Brad Plumer: 0.7%Las Vegas Sun: 2.7%Confirmation Bias2.6%This article: 1.0%Brad Plumer: 0.3%Las Vegas Sun: 0.9%Anchoring Bias1.0%This article: 10.5%Brad Plumer: 2.6%Las Vegas Sun: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.5%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Brad Plumer: 6.3%Las Vegas Sun: 5.4%Framing Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Brad Plumer: 2.6%Las Vegas Sun: 1.6%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 6.1%Brad Plumer: 2.1%Las Vegas Sun: 1.5%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 10.2%Brad Plumer: 6.7%Las Vegas Sun: 7.7%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 3.4%Brad Plumer: 0.9%Las Vegas Sun: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.5%Las Vegas Sun: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Brad Plumer: 1.7%Las Vegas Sun: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Brad Plumer: 1.3%Las Vegas Sun: 1.3%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Brad Plumer: 2.2%Las Vegas Sun: 1.1%Ad Hominem2.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.5%Las Vegas Sun: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Brad Plumer: 0.7%Las Vegas Sun: 3.1%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 2.9%Brad Plumer: 1.6%Las Vegas Sun: 1.3%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.7%Brad Plumer: 1.5%Las Vegas Sun: 3.9%Hasty Generalization3.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.4%Brad Plumer: 1.3%Las Vegas Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon5.4%This article: 6.8%Brad Plumer: 4.5%Las Vegas Sun: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion6.8%This article: 4.6%Brad Plumer: 1.1%Las Vegas Sun: 0.6%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 3.1%Brad Plumer: 0.8%Las Vegas Sun: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Brad Plumer: 0.5%Las Vegas Sun: 1.7%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Brad Plumer: 0.9%Las Vegas Sun: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.2%Brad Plumer: 1.1%Las Vegas Sun: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 4.1%Brad Plumer: 1.0%Las Vegas Sun: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 1.1%Las Vegas Sun: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.5%Las Vegas Sun: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Plumer: 0.0%Las Vegas Sun: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

874 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers18%attributed speech716writer words
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words12% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.