The Data Center Arms Race: From Natural Gas To Nuclear Power With Pete DiSanto – RFP 60 Transcript
Gordon Lamphere (00:05): Hi, I’m Gordon Lamphere, and welcome to The Real Finds Podcast, the podcast where we have real conversations with key entrepreneurs, activists, and researchers shaping the real estate industry and, as a result, our world. On today’s podcast, we’ll be speaking with Pete DiSanto. Pete is executive vice president of data centers at Enchanted Rock, where he’s focused on meeting the growing power demands of current and future data centers. On the podcast, we discuss all things data centers and power. If you’re interested in dipping your toe into the data center space, today’s episode is well worth a listen. Pete, thank you so very much for hopping on the podcast today.
Pete DiSanto (00:48): It’s a pleasure. I appreciate it, Gordon.
From Marine Engineering to Microgrids
Gordon Lamphere (00:51): Pete, how do you go from marine engineering to microgrids and data centers? That seems like a huge leap.
Pete DiSanto (01:00): It isn’t, is it? I studied marine engineering at Massachusetts Maritime Academy. I was actually a Naval Academy reject. I tried to get into the Naval Academy, and they said, “Why don’t you take a year to figure your life out?” The Blue and Gold officer helping me said, “Go to Mass Maritime for a year, get above a 3.0, and then reapply to the Naval Academy, because your nomination from the senator is still good for two years.” So I went to Mass Maritime, got above a 3.0, sailed across the North Atlantic to Italy and the Canary Islands, and had an absolute blast. Then the Blue and Gold officer called and said, “You got good grades. Do you want to get into the Naval Academy?” I asked, “Do I have to start all over again as a freshman, a plebe?” He said, “Absolutely, that’s part of the experience.” I said, “I’m going to stay right here at Mass Maritime.” So I had a great time in Mass Maritime’s four-year engineering program, and my first job out of college was refueling reactors on Navy submarines for the government.
But to really answer your question: in marine engineering, you’re standing watch, you’re out at sea, you’re at a panel board in an engine room, and there are no spare parts. It’s mission critical just to get home. You have to be resilient in your thinking and solve problems, figure out how to put the bits and pieces together when there’s a problem, think on your feet, and move fast. You don’t have time not to make a decision. So it was really good training in how to solve problems and how to interact with people. When I think about where I am now, and what I’ve done in my career since, because I didn’t do that forever, it was a really good foundation and mindset. You don’t get to take a day off. You have to solve it now. It’s not going to solve itself. You have to figure out how to get to the finish line.
What a Modern Data Center Is
Gordon Lamphere (03:03): One finish line we’re all trying to reach is developing data centers to power this world of high-tech data, and the way we get there is through power. Our audience is generally made up of very sophisticated investors, but they’re not necessarily data center people. Could we start by talking about what a data center is? Some sophisticated investors’ eyes start to glaze over when they hear “data center.” Can you give us a brief description of what the modern data center looks like?
Pete DiSanto (03:50): Sure. I’m from Boston, so I’m going to drop some R’s, and I apologize to the listeners.
Gordon Lamphere (03:57): Go right ahead.
Pete DiSanto (04:00): A data center, in general, is the backbone of our economy and of everything we do. We’re on the internet right now doing this podcast, and somewhere there’s a server in a rack with blinking lights. The data center itself is a collection of servers and gear that generates a lot of heat,
Pete DiSanto (04:20): needs cooling, and is a power hog. It definitely needs power to run and operate, and it needs high-quality power, with no fluctuations in voltage. It also needs unbelievable reliability. In day-to-day life, if a data center lost power, you might not be able to swipe your credit card, and your cell phone might not work. We’re all hinged to a data center of some sort. It’s the backbone of what we do. Probably around 75 percent of the world’s data centers are in the United States, for certain reasons. So it’s a big concrete shell filled with racks, cooling equipment, and backup power, including UPS, uninterruptible power supplies. It’s simple, but it’s not an easy thing.
Getting Power to the Site: The Interconnection Queue
Gordon Lamphere (05:14): Speaking of simplicity, one thing that seems simple to people but isn’t in reality is getting all that power to the data center. We work primarily with manufacturers, and we often have the conversation where we say, “We’re going to need another transformer,” and they’re blown away that we can’t just add more power. How do you go about getting more power? Does it also come down to factors like site selection, since there are places where power is needed but may not be easy to get?
Pete DiSanto (06:09): I’d say there are two scenarios. One: you have a piece of land and want to bring power to it to build a data center. The other: you have an existing data center you want to expand, or you want to upgrade to more power-hungry, higher-output racks. I’ll start with the piece of land you want to develop, because it’s the cleanest.
You can’t just call the power company and say, “I need some power, I want to build something.” There’s an interconnection process. You have a design, and you say, “I want to put a hundred megawatts of load on the grid.” Load means consumption: you want the wires and poles to deliver a hundred megawatts so you can build something that consumes a hundred megawatts. You work with the transmission supply company and the ISO, the independent system operator, and say, “Utility, I want a hundred megawatts.” You apply for a load interconnection and get put in the interconnection queue. They do a feasibility study of how much capacity is already available on the line and at what transmission voltage, and they tell you how long it will take to give you firm, uninterruptible service for the hundred megawatts.
In the late nineties and early 2000s, that was probably a much faster process, because we had overbuilt power plants and wires in the United States. But now everybody is trying to hook up 500-megawatt or gigawatt-scale data center campuses, massive amounts of load, and in certain areas it can take six or seven years in the interconnection queue before power reaches your land. That’s an unbelievably long time. If you want to build a data center, put in tenants, and earn an economic return, everything is driven by power. If you don’t have power, you don’t really have much of anything. That’s how you hook up to the grid.
Pete DiSanto (08:32): It’s a lengthy process, with infrastructure involved. A lot of times, the utility solves for the full hundred megawatts, the peak load, even though you might start at five megawatts as you build out, then go to thirty, then seventy-five. There’s load growth as the site builds out, but the utility bases its timeline on the peak.
The other thing is that you could put in an interconnection request, I could put one in, and some developers are stacking applications. Your project might never happen while mine does. So what’s real and what isn’t? Everybody is submitting these applications and clogging the system. It’s a convoluted process right now. It’s definitely getting streamlined, but that’s it in a nutshell: you apply for a certain amount of power, and they come back and tell you how long you have to wait in the queue for firm power.
Bridge Power and Speed to Power
Gordon Lamphere (09:31): You mentioned ramping up power, which we’ve done for a couple of manufacturers. How have you seen that ramp-up process play out? And are there alternative ways to band-aid the power supply? We’ve talked to people who have done alternative on-site fueling. Is that done regularly, and can you explain how it works?
Pete DiSanto (10:06): It happens all the time, because, as I mentioned, you might get a response to an interconnection request saying six or seven years. Then you ask, “How do I solve this problem? I don’t want to wait six or seven years. How do I get power in twelve to fourteen months, while I’m building the data hall and getting a customer in? How do I marry the construction schedule with the power schedule while I ramp up this space?”
That’s speed to power. You hear everybody talking about “bring your own power” and speed to power, which has really taken off in roughly the last twenty-four months. There are a bunch of prime movers that can create electricity: gas turbines, solar panels, batteries, fuel cells, wind turbines. A data center needs a certain quality of power, and certain prime movers have operating characteristics that suit data centers better. As the load and the data center are being built, as long as you have the right fuel source, you can bring in temporary power: packaged or temporary gas turbines, reciprocating engines, and a few other prime movers.
They call it a bridge period. You’re bridging from when the load is there to when utility power arrives and you have firm utility service. The bridging options I’ve typically seen are turbines, reciprocating engines, or a combination, so some form of natural gas. It all comes back to natural gas being the firmest option. You can put in solar, but it takes up a ton of acreage, and you have to couple it with a lot of batteries, because the sun only shines part of the day and you can’t shut the data center off at night. By the time the batteries discharge, you’re stuck in a discharge-recharge cycle that doesn’t necessarily work. You can add gas turbines, and again,
Pete DiSanto (12:28): it becomes an algorithm of adding the right prime movers that you can actually get. That’s the next piece: what’s actually available? Everybody is asking for the same gas turbines and the same reciprocating engines, and the supply chain gets messy. When a land developer or developer calls me, the first thing I’m solving for is power, which means natural gas. How far away is the gas pipeline? If you’re in Chicago, you call Nicor and find out where the gas is. If I’m in Texas, it’s Energy Transfer, Enbridge, or Kinder Morgan. How close is the gas, and how much can I get, in megawatt terms? If I know I can get fifty megawatts of firm gas, I can build a fifty-megawatt data center with a solution running on natural gas, and at least I know what my path to powering the site looks like. That’s a lot of what everybody is doing right now: figuring out how much power, how fast, whether they need natural gas, and what that natural gas solution looks like.
The Fully Subscribed Pipeline Problem
Gordon Lamphere (13:36): How do you determine that, and how do you actually get natural gas on site? I don’t think it’s as easy as some people make it out to be.
Pete DiSanto (13:46): Not at all. Anecdotally, people have told me, “I have an option on a piece of land with a forty-two-inch gas pipeline running through it.” And we say, “Okay, give me the coordinates.” We make a couple of phone calls to find out whose pipe it is. We have a whole team that does nothing but natural gas solutioning. They do their homework and call whoever owns the pipeline, Enbridge, Energy Transfer, whoever. Then you go back to the developer or customer and say, “We called about that forty-two-inch pipe. It’s fully subscribed. There’s not a molecule of gas in there available for you.” And you get, “What do you mean? It’s a forty-two-inch pipe, and there’s no gas in it for me?” “No, it’s fully subscribed. It’s all spoken for.”
Maybe you can try to duke it out with an LDC, a local distribution company that buys the gas, and maybe they’ll give you a couple of megawatts’ worth, but that gets really messy. So one option is that there’s capacity in the pipe and you get gas that way. Otherwise, they have to bring in another lateral, which gets expensive. They might have to run miles of pipe to bring a feed to your location. They’ll charge you for that, either an exorbitant amount or whatever it costs them to build the infrastructure. And you’re adding time, because they’re not just going to build a thirty-six-inch lateral, a three-foot-diameter pipe, and run it five, six, or seven miles to your site. That’s one piece. They also need gas to put in the pipe. Upstream, is there enough supply or storage to give you the additional gas without drawing down the pipeline? There’s a lot of hydraulics involved in ordering and supplying the gas.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some creative solutions. If you have enough land, there are companies that will bring in temporary liquefied natural gas, with LNG
Pete DiSanto (16:06): delivered to the site daily and run through a vaporizer that turns it from liquid back into gas so you can run it in your gas turbine. That’s a risky proposition, and you’d need a lot of redundancy, but it’s a way to go if you say, “I still want to go fast and have power, so I’ll bring in temporary gas or LNG and operate that way until utility gas comes in, while I wait for utility power.” So there are options, though some are exotic and probably more expensive. Pipeline gas and transmission-level electricity from a substation are the cheapest gas and the cheapest electricity, so you’re bridging until those utilities come in. But normally we’re solving for gas. Anytime somebody calls and says, “I think I have land for a data center,” we look at the gas infrastructure.
Why Redundancy Matters: Chasing Five Nines
Gordon Lamphere (17:07): Ultimately it comes down to resilience, redundancy, and scalability, and bringing in natural gas on trucks isn’t necessarily the most scalable or resilient approach. You mentioned redundancy. Can you talk about why redundancy is so important for data centers and what methods exist in the market?
Pete DiSanto (17:39): Sure. Data centers are always looking at the worst-case scenario, which is loss of power or loss of cooling. They do all the math on their current arrangement, whether that’s backup generation, multiple substation feeds, or multiple gas pipes coming from different sources. They want a belt-and-suspenders, overbuilt solution, measured in nines of reliability. They’re always striving for five nines, which means 99.999 percent reliability. That’s a lot of reliability.
For perspective, utility power is typically three nines, or 99.9 percent. With 8,760 hours in a year, you can calculate how much time the electricity potentially won’t be available. At five nines, the potential interruption is a very short period. Meanwhile, you have twenty-four to forty-eight hours of diesel fuel on site for full-scale backup diesel generation, plus UPSs, uninterruptible power supplies, and all these other systems that can supply power if the utility feed is interrupted by weather or anything else. It’s all overbuilt, belt and suspenders, just to make sure there’s no blip in the lights and the power never goes out.
Gordon Lamphere (19:19): Why is a blip in the lights so important for an investor?
Pete DiSanto (19:27): A lot of this happens sub-cycle, in fractions of a second. Without the right gear, that power quality issue or interruption trips everything off and shuts it down. You might not even notice it, but if you’re running a large language model or a big computation and there’s a blip, even a fraction of a fraction of a second, that’s lost time, and you may have to start over. That interruption costs money, and if you’re the customer whose data is there, you won’t be happy. Across the whole stack and supply chain, that’s bad business for anyone supplying a data center or data hall to a tenant. What you’re selling is the number of nines and the infrastructure you have. If you’re the Cadillac of data centers, that’s what you build your brand on. If you’re a hyperscaler, like Microsoft, do you want to be a tenant in a data center with continuing power interruptions? Probably not.
Cooling: The Move Toward Closed-Loop Dry Cooling
Gordon Lamphere (20:48): Probably not. Something else we don’t want is data centers getting too hot. That’s a huge conversation. What are you seeing in data center cooling these days? Is it liquid cooling, dry cooling? What’s being used, and how does it affect power in general?
Pete DiSanto (21:16): I’m seeing a lot of innovation around moving toward dry cooling to reduce water consumption. Certain cooling methods consume water, and evaporative cooling uses a lot of it. With the focus on environmental sustainability, a lot more is being done with closed-loop dry cooling to reduce water use.
Meanwhile, the chips and racks keep getting denser. You hear about AI and large language models. Fifteen years ago, a rack might have been fifteen kilowatts of power and heat. Now racks are going to two or three hundred kilowatts, potentially up to eight or nine hundred kilowatts, or a megawatt per rack or cabinet, as the gear gets bigger and more compact. It still produces a lot of heat, and you have to do something with it. Historically, that’s meant evaporative cooling or immersion cooling, but you still need heat rejection, running all those condensers, and that’s where a lot of power consumption comes from too. Cooling and power are intertwined. The more cooling you need, the more power you need for that non-IT load. So they’re really trying to move toward dry cooling, a closed-loop process with less water consumption, getting the best bang for the buck and the best heat transfer to reject heat from the data center.
Renewables, PPAs, and Carbon Intensity
Gordon Lamphere (23:00): When we talk about data centers, we’re talking about moving toward more progressive, more efficient facilities, and part of that has been looking at all sorts of alternatives. You mentioned solar panels. How have you seen alternative fuels play out, and on top of that, how have you seen nuclear power play out for data centers?
Pete DiSanto (23:29): There’s been a lot of innovation. Sometimes it’s done through PPAs, power purchase agreements. I think it was Google that just signed a massive solar PPA. That means the power they purchase comes from a solar farm. They wouldn’t necessarily have solar on site, because of its operating characteristics. They’d still need to solve for when the sun goes down, which means a lot of batteries on site. Fuel cells are another option, but they run on natural gas. I still see more opportunity for renewables, and there’s a concept that if data centers have flexible capacity on site, they can actually use more renewables from utility power. Things are moving in that direction. Having dispatchable resources on site, used for the bridge period and then kept on site so they can flex power back to the grid, is becoming more and more common. And a lot of them are still investing in small modular reactors, because they’re very green and low in carbon intensity. They all have net-zero carbon hopes, aspirations, and targets they’re shooting for.
Gordon Lamphere (25:01): Can you dive into that and explain a little more?
Pete DiSanto (25:04): Sure. They look at carbon intensity. When they think about power and how they build their data centers, they look at a CI score, a carbon intensity score, and they want to get to net zero. That means going carbon negative in some areas to balance things out. They look at how the electricity is produced, its carbon intensity, and how they purchase it, with the goal of getting as close to zero as possible. A lot goes into solar PPAs and accounting for where their power comes from.
A lot of the time, the cleanest and probably most reliable electricity is utility power. So they ask what they can do to stay on utility power, because it will be the greenest and probably the cheapest electricity they can procure. Think about Texas and other areas I’m more familiar with. There’s a lot of wind and solar on the Texas grid. At certain times of year, Texas will have upwards of twenty thousand megawatts of wind on the grid and tens of thousands of megawatts of solar. Very green. You hear the same about California. But you still need dispatchable resources to fill the gaps at night or when solar ramps off. It’s a pretty green grid, but there are constraints. What if the wind doesn’t blow? At certain times of year in Texas, you might have only five hundred megawatts of wind on the grid. So you still need dispatchable generation to fill those valleys. A lot goes into how they procure power and what else they need to firm up wind, solar, and other renewables. You can get so much during the day from wind and solar, but you still need something else to make sure there’s no dip in power.
Small Modular Reactors: Nuclear in a Conex Box
Gordon Lamphere (27:19): And when we talk about small modular reactors, we’re not talking about the huge, Chernobyl-esque reactors of the seventies and eighties. As somebody who grew up close to several power plants in Illinois, I think people sometimes misunderstand what a modern nuclear reactor looks like. How have you seen that play out? And, which I think gets into our last question, where does the public generally misunderstand small modular reactors?
Pete DiSanto (27:59): Great question, Gordon. You mentioned Chernobyl, which was a Russian-style RBMK reactor in Ukraine. Traditional commercial reactors from the seventies, eighties, and nineties, the Westinghouse and General Electric designs, are pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors in the 600- to 1,000-megawatt range: big, monolithic steam plants with tons of concrete, primary containment, acres and acres of land, and in some cases those big, curved cooling towers.
With small modular reactors, we’re talking about Conex-sized packages. A couple of technologies are being demonstrated, I think at Idaho National Laboratory now, and they’re all somewhat packaged in a Conex trailer. Instead of a gigawatt of electricity from a large, traditional commercial reactor, we’re talking about 50 megawatts thermal, or about 17 megawatts electric, in a Conex trailer. You could put four or five of them in a row feeding one common steam plant to generate electricity. You can take one Conex trailer off site to refuel it and bring it back, and if you have five in a row, four keep running while one is being refueled. Refueling wouldn’t happen on site. You’d probably refuel off site, drop in another nuclear battery, another small modular reactor, and keep running. So they’re very small and compact.
I think there will still be NIMBYism, not in my backyard. I don’t know that everybody will be excited to have a small modular reactor in their backyard. But I honestly think that’s the way it’s going to go. The challenge, as always, is that we want the technology today, and it’s still six, seven, eight, maybe ten years out from being fully commercialized and adopted, with questions like who refuels it and who brings it back,
Pete DiSanto (30:18): what the headcount looks like, and who maintains, operates, and controls it. The fuel cycle and all of that still need to be figured out. But I’m a firm believer that it’s coming, and coming fast. I still have some runway left in my career. I started out refueling Navy reactors on submarines, and I wouldn’t mind finishing my career doing small modular reactor microgrids and moving away from natural gas at some point. I think it’s definitely coming and will change the landscape, and I’m glad we’re accelerating in that direction. We just got Vogtle Units 3 and 4, the last two large-scale commercial reactors, operational in Southern Company’s territory. That was a long time coming. It’ll be good to move away from those very expensive, very large power plants toward smaller, scalable modular reactors. That’s going to change how we consume electricity.
The Perception Gap: What Communities Gain From Data Centers
Gordon Lamphere (31:21): Speaking of how we consume electricity, one of the biggest things we’ve talked about is the gap in how the public perceives data centers and the power process. What are the biggest gaps between how ordinary investors and the general public see data centers, and how the people actually in the arena working on them see them?
Pete DiSanto (31:54): Good point. The perception issue stings sometimes. I dealt with it early in my career in nuclear. Not everybody understands nuclear, even though it has an unbelievable safety record. When a data center goes in, with all the redundancy we talked about and the interconnection queue we mentioned, the utility upgrades the poles and the substation during that interconnection. They put in more resilient, larger equipment, and if equipment was aging, they replace it with something brand new. What doesn’t get communicated to the community is that its equipment is getting upgraded too, whether residents know it or not. So there’s a real benefit to the community beyond the tax base and revenue.
It’s the same with nuclear. People say, “I don’t want that reactor in my backyard,” and overlook the tax revenue it brought in for schools and the community. I’ve seen the same perception with data centers: “I don’t want that big data center in my backyard, because it’ll use all the electricity and there won’t be any left for me.” But given everything we said about resiliency and availability, it actually means fewer brownouts, blackouts, and power interruptions for the community the data center is in.
You see stories in the news. Think about Puerto Rico. The whole island lost power a couple of days ago, and on New Year’s Eve too. That’s terrible, and you can’t have that
Pete DiSanto (34:00): in a data center. The community it’s in gets the benefit of that reliability as well. Don’t get me wrong, I know data center developers and operators do a lot of outreach. But a lot of it comes down to listening to the community and what it needs, and communicating the features, benefits, and value of having that data center there.
The Final Four: Data Centers as Good Grid Citizens
Gordon Lamphere (34:11): One of the ways we get value on this podcast is a little thing at the end called our final four. There are some tough questions, and we won’t let you out of any of them. Really tough. Our first, and one of our favorites, is where you see data centers going ten years out. You probably have a pretty good idea, because some of these data centers are five, seven, or ten years in the planning. What are you seeing for the future of data centers?
Pete DiSanto (34:49): I don’t have a crystal ball, but here’s what I hope to see: data centers as good grid stewards and good grid citizens. The normal base load for other consumers would be wind, solar, and batteries, and data centers, as these large loads, would provide flexible capacity, turning on their generation and pushing it back to the grid when needed. The bulk of the electrical system would run on very renewable energy, which isn’t the case today, with behind-the-meter resources at data centers providing the flexibility. With some of these large campuses being built, I see them restructuring how the grid is actually put together, including using nuclear on site. I see a future state of low carbon intensity, tons of renewables, green energy being produced and consumed, and data centers really being the backbone of the grid. They’re not going away, and a lot of them are being built. So why not harness them? Instead of having all those assets sitting idle on site, hoping the utility power never goes out, let’s exercise them, use them, manage that load, strengthen the grid, and make data centers more valuable to the community.
Advice for Young Professionals: Learn Electricity
Gordon Lamphere (36:24): Another way we get a lot of value is by learning about the men and women in the arena at the start of their careers. A large portion of our listeners, not the vast majority by any means, but a big share, are probably under thirty-five and at an early stage in their careers. If you could go back to the beginning of your career, what advice would you give?
Pete DiSanto (36:54): Maybe save one extra paycheck a month and put it into NVIDIA or Amazon back then.
Gordon Lamphere (37:04): Don’t we all wish.
Pete DiSanto (37:06): No, there’s not much I’d change, but I’d tell my younger self to put more effort into understanding electricity in general. I was a marine engineer, like we said. I loved steam plants and gas turbines, that kind of mechanical and marine engineering, and the adventure of going out to sea. I wasn’t a terrible student, but I probably would have spent more time on electric machines. I think I picked the right major, not electrical engineering, but I’d whack myself on the back of the head and say, “Buckle down more on the electricity side.” I didn’t see that everything was going to be electrified at some point. A better understanding of electricity would be useful for anybody given where we’re heading. Everything is electrified these days, or has telemetry, sensors, and AI, so I’d spend a bit more time on that foundation.
Gordon Lamphere (38:14): I think that’s tremendous advice. For me, it would be very similar with code. I can code at a basic level, some Java and Python, and it’s been immeasurably helpful in my career. When I look back at learning to code in high school, I always think I should have taken a couple more coding courses.
Pete DiSanto (38:44): I can code in Pascal. Nobody’s using Pascal anymore, are they?
Book Recommendation: Traction
Gordon Lamphere (38:47): I’ve heard of Pascal, and that’s about all I can tell you about it. Besides learning code or electricity, we also look for books that have influenced our guests, something to pick up and read or listen to. Is there anything that’s shaped your mind, your career, or your worldview?
Pete DiSanto (39:19): There are a lot of Jim Collins books out there, like Good to Great. But one near and dear to me is Traction by Gino Wickman. It’s about the Entrepreneurial Operating System. Somebody gave it to me five, six, or seven years ago. I was traveling in Italy with my family on vacation, on a high-speed train from Naples to Rome, and I read the book in two hours on the ride. I couldn’t put it down, and it really spoke to me. It was probably the best business book I’ve read. It’s about the Entrepreneurial Operating System: boiling things down into understandable, bite-sized chunks, how you structure meetings, and how you extract value from them. It was easy to read, and the concepts were great. It reshaped my management career, how I work within a team, and how I build teams. Do they get it? Do they want it? Do they have the capacity to do it? It’s how you evaluate talent. It really spoke to me. So, Traction by Gino Wickman.
Who Should Be Our Next Guest?
Gordon Lamphere (40:31): We’ll have to pick it up. There’s one final question, and there’s no way we’ll let you out of it. It’s the whole point of the podcast. Scary, scary, scary. We feel strongly that the men and women in the arena, doing things, researching, and getting their hands dirty, tend to know the next best person to reach out to. Who’s the next person we should reach out to about real estate, data centers, electricity, or anything else you can advise us on?
Pete DiSanto (41:06): Man, that’s a good question. I’d say Bill Kleyman. I’ve met him a couple of times. He’s on the data center circuit: Data Center World, DatacenterDynamics, and all of that. He’d be really fun and entertaining, and he can go really deep on a whole lot of data center topics.
How to Reach Pete DiSanto
Gordon Lamphere (41:28): We’ve got to reach out to Bill. As we wrap up, we have one final question, and it should be relatively easy: if somebody wants to get in contact with you, Pete, what’s the best way to do so?
Pete DiSanto (41:41): The best way is LinkedIn. I’m pretty active there. I post a lot of articles and comment on a lot of things, and I’m usually pretty responsive. If you send me a message or connect with me on LinkedIn, that’s probably the best way to reach me.
Gordon Lamphere (41:58): Pete, thank you so much. We learned a lot about data centers today, and we have to have you on in the future.
Pete DiSanto (42:02): Sounds good. Thanks, Gordon. Appreciate it.
Gordon Lamphere (42:05): Thanks again to Pete. We appreciate his insights. If you enjoyed the podcast, please give us a like, a five-star rating, and a review. Your comments, interactions, and subscriptions truly matter and help us continue to bring on quality guests. You can find us on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. I’m Gordon Lamphere with The Real Finds Podcast. Thank you for listening.
Van Vlissingen and Co. has been the Midwest’s oldest commercial real estate brokerage, development, and management firm since 1879, and today is independently ranked the #1 commercial real estate agency in Chicagoland, home to the #1 independently ranked agent, Gordon Lamphere, and the region’s #1 ranked commercial property management team. If you own, manage, or invest in energy-adjacent, mixed-use, or transit-oriented property across Lake County, the North Shore, the Northwest and O’Hare corridors, DuPage and the I-88 corridor, Will County, or southern Wisconsin’s Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha, and Racine markets, contact Van Vlissingen and Co. at 📞 847-634-2300 or 🌐 vvco.com. For a market-wide view of where these dynamics sit today, see our State of the Chicagoland Commercial Real Estate Market for Q3 2026.