Comment by bcrosby95
2 hours ago
Put another way: if the average US citizen doesn't subsidize the costs of these trillion dollar companies, China is gonna come get you. Funny that you talk about being afraid of your own shadow.
I have some exposure to utility regulation and from what I can tell some of the AI companies are "good actors" and willing to shoulder some of the burden. But others are pretty adversarial and want a free lunch.
Power is foundational to pretty much everything. Cheap power is going to give China a massive advantage in everything; AI is just incidental.
Cheap power at what cost for our planet?
Not long ago we were crying death to bitcoin, it’s going to destroy the planet.
Come AI, with unlimited power demand. Everybody screaming we need more power.
We need infrastructure, clean energy, even nuclear. We are doing all in the wrong order.
China added 315GW of solar in 2025.
For context, EU added 65 and US 43.
In one year, China _added_ almost the total capacity EU has.
China is the one place where AI actually can use clean energy…
China is the leader in solar?
> Put another way: if the average US citizen doesn't subsidize the costs of these trillion dollar companies, China is gonna come get you.
The future is blatantly going to be electric. Between cars, heat pumps, ranges, etc, the quantity of kilowatt hours consumed will rise dramatically per capita because they are replacing burned fossil fuels.
We don't need to subsidize the trillion dollar companies, we can settle for just not cancelling wind and solar projects, and generally updating the grid infrastructure.
A rising tide lifts all boats. If the subsidies go to common infrastructure, that's good for everyone. There's no need to complain about a road being paved because it will benefit FedEx in addition to everyone else.
All public infrastructure benefits the public but the role of our governance is to correctly prioritize. $100 billion spent on nuclear power plants is $100 billion being withheld from other critical social services.
The US could very causally spend a couple $100B less on their military and not have a real reduction in capability.
No, the money is not coming from a fixed box. When the US wants to do something (typically starting a new war), they never ask where the money is coming from. This tells you everything about how the decisions are made, if it is a priority for them, they will spend the money first and ask questions later. If green infrastructure was a real priority they would invest the money and later find ways to pay for it.
> $100 billion spent on nuclear power plants is $100 billion being withheld from other critical social services.
What? No it isn't.
There are many places the government could use to appropriate funds, not just social services. The military, for example. Other subsidies. Tax credits. Simply increasing the debt.
> not cancelling wind and solar projects
Tell it to the guy doing just that, as much as possible.