Comment by dalyons
8 hours ago
I don’t understand how it could have realistically been different. In say 2001 how can you possibly make the case for very expensive grid expansion for future loads that haven’t been invented yet?
8 hours ago
I don’t understand how it could have realistically been different. In say 2001 how can you possibly make the case for very expensive grid expansion for future loads that haven’t been invented yet?
Thats fine. If we did not need it, then we didn't need to build it out using what was at the time more expensive technology. But in 2026 we should not be pretending that the rate at which the grid expanded in the 1980s was caused by alien technology transfers. We can easily repeat or exceed that expansion. Even the most outrageous predictions for IT loads do not exceed what we did in the 1980s.
absolutely agree with that. However, its not so much the capability, its the cost. In 2026 big projects cost a lot more, whos gunna pay for it? In the 80s we all paid for it, but we roughly all benefited as we got more and more electric capacity and day-to-day use cases. Today, it looks like we are all gunna pay for it, but only the datacenter owners are going to benefit. That model is broken.
Well, I don't think the evidence supports that. According to two recent LBNL reports consumer prices are lowest in states with huge demand increases (Texas), and highest in states with shrinking demand (California). The existence of large consumers tends to amortize the cost of grid updates.
3 replies →