US Solar Boom Continues, But It's Offset By Rising Power Use (arstechnica.com) 83
In the first 11 months of 2024, solar energy generation in the US grew by 30%, enabling wind and solar combined to surpass coal for the first time. However, as Ars Technica's John Timmer reports, "U.S. energy demand saw an increase of nearly 3 percent, which is roughly double the amount of additional solar generation." He continues: "Should electric use continue to grow at a similar pace, renewable production will have to continue to grow dramatically for a few years before it can simply cover the added demand." From the report: Another way to look at things is that, between the decline of coal use and added demand, the grid had to generate an additional 136 TW-hr in the first 11 months of 2024. Sixty-three of those were handled by an increase in generation using natural gas; the rest, or slightly more than half, came from emissions-free sources. So, renewable power is now playing a key role in offsetting demand growth. While that's a positive, it also means that renewables are displacing less fossil fuel use than they might.
In addition, some of the growth of small-scale solar won't show up on the grid, since it offset demand locally, and so also reduced some of the demand for fossil fuels. Confusing matters, this number can also include things like community solar, which does end up on the grid; the EIA doesn't break out these numbers. We can expect next year's numbers to also show a large growth in solar production, as the EIA says that the US saw record levels of new solar installations in 2024, with 37 Gigawatts of new capacity. Since some of that came online later in the year, it'll produce considerably more power next year. And, in its latest short-term energy analysis, the EIA expects to see over 20 GW of solar capacity added in each of the next two years. New wind capacity will push that above 30 GW of renewable capacity each of these years.
That growth will, it's expected, more than offset continued growth in demand, although that growth is expected to be somewhat slower than we saw in 2024. It also predicts about 15 GW of coal will be removed from the grid during those two years. So, even without any changes in policy, we're likely to see a very dynamic grid landscape over the next few years. But changes in policy are almost certainly on the way.
In addition, some of the growth of small-scale solar won't show up on the grid, since it offset demand locally, and so also reduced some of the demand for fossil fuels. Confusing matters, this number can also include things like community solar, which does end up on the grid; the EIA doesn't break out these numbers. We can expect next year's numbers to also show a large growth in solar production, as the EIA says that the US saw record levels of new solar installations in 2024, with 37 Gigawatts of new capacity. Since some of that came online later in the year, it'll produce considerably more power next year. And, in its latest short-term energy analysis, the EIA expects to see over 20 GW of solar capacity added in each of the next two years. New wind capacity will push that above 30 GW of renewable capacity each of these years.
That growth will, it's expected, more than offset continued growth in demand, although that growth is expected to be somewhat slower than we saw in 2024. It also predicts about 15 GW of coal will be removed from the grid during those two years. So, even without any changes in policy, we're likely to see a very dynamic grid landscape over the next few years. But changes in policy are almost certainly on the way.
AI and Crypto (Score:5, Interesting)
How about we force the companies mining crypto and running AI server farms to pony up to build out more resources? Crypto is a massive electricity user with limited to no social value and arguably is a substantial detriment to society. Whether AI has a net negative or positive effect on society remains to be seen. Still, since multi-billion dollar companies are doing it, I see no reason they shouldn't pony up to build out the resources they will use to profit.
Re:AI and Crypto (Score:5, Insightful)
since multi-billion dollar companies are doing it, I see no reason they shouldn't pony up to build out the resources they will use to profit.
Thinking? That is a recipe for trouble. Why we just socialize the costs and privatize the profits, it’s very fashionable among multi-billion dollar companies.
Re: (Score:1)
All the big cloud compute platforms are already targeting 100% renewable in 2025 and from what I understand bitcoin is getting better and the rest have mostly moved to proof of stake. That 3% spike in demand didn't come from AI or crypto.
Re: AI and Crypto (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the big cloud compute platforms are already targeting 100% renewable in 2025 and from what I understand bitcoin is getting better and the rest have mostly moved to proof of stake. That 3% spike in demand didn't come from AI or crypto.
s/are/were/g
Re: (Score:3)
How about we force the companies mining crypto and running AI server farms to pony up to build out more resources?
Umm, don't they? They pay for the electricity which funds the power plant.
Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you owned a electricity production plant and a bunch of people wanted electricity, would you 1. waste your profits building new power plants OR, 2. would you just charge whatever amount people are willing to pay for it and profit off the scarcity?
OPEC is hugely profitable for a reason.
Paying the electricity bills only causes prices to rise, especially since the electricity producers have a monopoly because they worked with legislators and environmentalists to ensure nobody can build new power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
And they say capitalism will doom us all because it externalizes the long term costs in the pursuit of short term profits. Laughable!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not really capitalism, because it is collusion with a governing force to ensure competition can't create new supply.
Re: (Score:3)
If you owned a electricity production plant and a bunch of people wanted electricity, would you 1. waste your profits building new power plants OR, 2. would you just charge whatever amount people are willing to pay for it and profit off the scarcity?
I'd run the numbers to see (1) if I build a new plant I can sell more electricity (at a reduced price because demand curves slope down) and that might generate more net profit or (2) decide that a new plant doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for itself.
This is basic business and basic economics. Every business does this when deciding whether to expand production.
Finally, scarcity, in the sense that there's never enough of anything to satisfy everyone's desires, always exists. People always have to consi
Re: (Score:2)
If you owned a electricity production plant and a bunch of people wanted electricity, would you 1. waste your profits building new power plants OR, 2. would you just charge whatever amount people are willing to pay for it and profit off the scarcity?
In most of the USA, they only are allowed to profit from new generation capacity. That's why there is still so much interest in nuclear — it costs the most to build, and profit is capped at a percentage of costs, just like profit in the health insurance industry under Romney^WObamacare. When they do a shit job and make things more expensive, the law allows them to collect more profit.
Re: (Score:1)
If you owned a electricity production plant and a bunch of people wanted electricity, would you 1. waste your profits building new power plants OR, 2. would you just charge whatever amount people are willing to pay for it and profit off the scarcity?
If you owned land in "tornado alley", um... I mean the "wind corridor", and you saw prices falling on some crop you were growing (wheat, oats, and cotton might be examples given a quick look at some 10 year charts) would you: 1. Switch to another crop? (Corn, sugar, seed oil might be examples to try.) 2. Put up windmills on your land. 3. Put up windmills then plant a new crop around the windmill pedestals?
There's many other options that someone with private land out in rural areas to profit off high e
Re: (Score:2)
If you owned a electricity production plant and a bunch of people wanted electricity, would you 1. waste your profits building new power plants OR, 2. would you just charge whatever amount people are willing to pay for it and profit off the scarcity?
In (most of) the USA, electricity is regulated. You cannot simply charge what the market will bear. You can only charge what the local energy regulator approves -which is based on your costs to provide the energy, plus a fixed % of profit. If you want more profit, you must increase your expenses.
In theory this incentivizes power companies to continue to invest in increasing production and maintaining equipment. In practice it rewards inefficiencies.
Re: (Score:1)
How about people stop having kids? Every efficiency/eco gain over the past 40 years has been wiped out by the increase in population.
Re: (Score:1)
Ask China how their one child policy worked out.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we all stop consuming as much as we can afford, people have stopped having children the world population will lag since there a fewer old people dying than children being born. But while a significant portion of must have the newest gadget, the latest fashion, crypto, AI, all efficiency gains will just be swallowed up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the specific energy uses you mention, while they may increase electricity usage (which is not even certain for heat pumps because some people already use electricity for resistive heating, so their usage will actually go down), decrease primary power usage. In other words, electricity usage goes up, but electricity usage is just part of what is called primary power usage and primary power usage goes down by more than electricity usage goes up. This is because that 60kWh on a regular basis is abou
Re: AI and Crypto (Score:1)
Maybe a stupid question, but shouldn't the prices they're paying for power be that?
I mean, if you use "a whole powerplant's output" your electrical bill should be essentially slightly more than it costs to a) run the plant, b) buy the fuel, c) maintain the plant, and d) put away a small amount for the future replacement of said plant (incl waste disposal, cleanup, mitigation) at end of life.... Shouldn't it?
That just went right out the door (Score:2)
Also the head of the current administration is all in on grifting people with crypto. There's a guy floating around Reddit freaking out because you took his granddad's million dollar inheritance and blew it all on the meme coin from that head of state. His wife left him after pleading with him to cut his losses. She apparently went on Reddit because she knew he
Re: (Score:3)
How about we force the companies mining crypto and running AI server farms to pony up to build out more resources?
How about we just outlaw crypto? Substituting "proof of work" for actual work is irredeemably a grift to its very core.
I'm not against alternative currencies, nor am I against subverting government control of value exchange under certain circumstances. But burning energy on crypto which might otherwise be spent on moving people and goods - or on refrigeration, lighting, or any of a zillion net benefits to society - is gob-smackingly stupid and criminally anti-social.
Re: (Score:2)
Naaaah, continue sticking the burden for some private benefit on the public's back.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we force the companies mining crypto and running AI server farms to pony up to build out more resources? Crypto is a massive electricity user with limited to no social value and arguably is a substantial detriment to society. Whether AI has a net negative or positive effect on society remains to be seen. Still, since multi-billion dollar companies are doing it, I see no reason they shouldn't pony up to build out the resources they will use to profit.
Not to overthink, but maybe that's what the "drill drill" mantra is about. Fuel for generation of electricity for processing crypto for his benefit. Screw everyone else. Unless you're buying. You're awesome. Wait for the screw, you. /s
Drill, baby (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That blog is from 2018, so quite old given the speed at which renewable costs have dropped. Regardless, in that time, solar PV now provides about 5% of the worlds electricity; given the rate of installation it will surpass nuclear power within the next few years; it is already not "niche".
This is solar PV, so doesn't include concentrated or solar thermal. Those will probably remain a bit niche.
Re:Drill, baby (Score:4, Interesting)
That blog is from 2018, so quite old given the speed at which renewable costs have dropped.
It's worse than that. McMann has been posting that tired old link for years. The graph is supposed to be from the DOE Quadrennial Energy review. Except, if you actually look that up, you'll find the 2017 one, except it does not contain that graph. So that suggests it's from an older version. I can't even find that, but simply subtracting four years suggests 2013. So, yeah, it's a bit out of date. Also, it's a bit weird. It puts things in terms of materials per TWh, as if the construction materials were consumables that the power generation method consumes over time. Now, while it is true that the materials any of these things are constructed of do have finite lifespans, the assumptions that are made are a bit important here. Specifically, what are they using for the lifespans for the power sources. If they say that the nuclear plant will last 100 years and the solar plant ten, then the bar for solar gets to be ten times as high as the bar for nuclear even if all other things were equal. This is the problem that you get with people talking about lifetime for wind turbines vs. nuclear plants. Nuclear advocates will take one part of the wind turbine (the turbine itself) and say that it has say a 20 year lifespan, while comparing against the supposed lifespan of a nuclear plant (usually exaggerated) while completely ignoring that all the other parts of the wind turbine (pad, tower, etc.) have basically the exact same lifespan as the similarly constructed parts of a nuclear plant, and that the turbines in the nuclear plant need to be replaced too. Basically, they're answering the ship of Theseus question differently for the two power generation methods. For the renewable, they will claim that the ship ceases to be the ship of Theseus as soon as you replace a single part, whereas for the nuclear power plant, they will claim that it is still the ship of Theseus no matter how many parts are replaced.
So, we see in this chart evidence (though we don't have the original data, just the chart) that the same argument is being applied. The materials listed for solar are cement, concrete, steel, other and glass. If you have ever seen a solar panel, it is obvious that it is mostly glass by weight (about 3/4ths). So the rest of the material listed would be a ground pad, mount and other infrastructure all there just to mount the solar panel. Basically the same materials are listed for the nuclear plant. Well, I can see steel and concrete anyway. I can't for the life of me figure out what all that cement is that's supposedly used for solar installations. I would think the concrete number would include all the cement used for the concrete, so how is it using about 15X as much cement as conc threte? Heck, how is it using about 7X as much "other" as concrete? In any case, solar panels do have a limited lifetime and it is less than that for a nuclear reactor (which is just a small part of a nuclear plant though, with many, many other parts that actually do have similar lifespans to solar panels), but all of that other stuff has a lifespan very similar to the material of a nuclear plant. So, even if the lifespan is only set at say ten years, the only thing you have to replace every ten years would be largely represented by the "glass" section. Basically, without knowing the assumptions, measurements, statistics, etc. used to make this graph, it's pretty suspect.
Oh, the other big problem with that graph is that "fuel" is not even visible for the nuclear plant. That seems reasonable at first glance because nuclear plants use so little fuel, right. Except that McMann goes on to complain about the mining for the materials for the solar plant. Somehow though, he forgets that the tiny amount of fuell for the nuclear plant is mined from a huge amount of other material and traditionally extracted by processes like heap leaching with huge amounts of sulfuric acid, for example. If you actually include the material waste that goes into producing that nuclear fuel, it would be a decently wide bar on that graph.
Re: (Score:2)
solar panels do have a limited lifetime and it is less than that for a nuclear reactor (which is just a small part of a nuclear plant though, with many, many other parts that actually do have similar lifespans to solar panels), but all of that other stuff has a lifespan very similar to the material of a nuclear plant. So, even if the lifespan is only set at say ten years, the only thing you have to replace every ten years would be largely represented by the "glass" section
And it isn't! Modern solar panels are warrantied to produce their rated output for at least ten years, expected to lose 10% or less by twenty years, and are guaranteed against failure for 20-30 years. If they get replaced before then, it will be because it was more profitable to increase capacity by replacing them than by building a new facility, due to improvements in efficiency.
Most solar panels which have been replaced in large installations were still functioning, and they got resold when they came out
Re: (Score:2)
That blog is from 2018, so quite old given the speed at which renewable costs have dropped. Regardless, in that time, solar PV now provides about 5% of the worlds electricity; given the rate of installation it will surpass nuclear power within the next few years; it is already not "niche".
This is solar PV, so doesn't include concentrated or solar thermal. Those will probably remain a bit niche.
Good point, but two different sides of the proverbial coin... PV is not guaranteed production and has a daily sharp rise and fall (the more involved, the sharper said rises and falls are). Nuclear is a base supply for base load.
Maybe sending electricity across the pond(s) like telecom but different, can help balance the supply and make it a base. At least a base with occasional drop-outs due to weather and failure; nuclear has the same on the grid - reliable but occasional drops from component failure (t
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the next POTUS will dump a bunch of money into solar power but that will run into a material supply problem. Look at Figure 2 on the web page linked below. It's a chart from a US DOE study showing the material costs for different energy sources for the same energy output. Solar power rates poorly on this metric. There's other metrics that don't look kindly for solar power but material costs alone will keep solar as a niche energy source.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
That material has to come from somewhere, and that means mines. If mining is bad for the environment then we'd want to take measures to limit it.
Other resources to be concerned over would be labor needs, freshwater use, land use, and perhaps more that will impact cost and environmental harm.
Good presentation. So let's team up and come up with a cool idea that a narcissist can always be taken by...
Here's what I have: Talk him in to how having solar on his propert(y|ies) can reduce his electric bill and get him some tax writeoff credits. Maybe he will restore and enhance the solar credits for his benefit and we can sneak in get just a little. Then, get him to purchase all Solar panels being made for himself; holding them in stock can guarantee him a high-priced selective sale later. Here's t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil is rapidly becoming obsolete. I get the objection to LNG power generation but with rapidly advancing battery technology and an increasing will to repair the power infrastructure (personally I'm predicting the president after Trump will pour a trillion into new solar panels and HV lines) we need to bridge the gap somehow...
Oil is rapidly becoming obsolete. I get the objection to LNG power generation but with rapidly advancing battery technology and an increasing will to repair the power infrastructure (personally I'm predicting the president after Trump will pour a trillion into new solar panels and HV lines) we need to bridge the gap somehow...
Trump will sue because it was his idea.
Next phase begins soon. Over the 4 year term, throw out so much word salad that any phrase can be found in the mess and be prior art or copyright violation. Not to mention how bad it hurts him and his wealth for someone to steal that from him. Speaking of stealing, a new....
I'm going to just fucking stop now. /s
Sounds familiar (Score:4, Informative)
US Solar Boom ... Offset By Rising Power Use
Every time you add lanes to highways, traffic increases.
[ Try that in Sim City. :-) ]
Re: (Score:2)
US Solar Boom ... Offset By Rising Power Use
Every time you add lanes to highways, traffic increases.
Srsly? As a Los Angeles resident, drivers like me try to plan our drives in the lulls, but the lulls are getting fewer and farther in between. Pretty soon our only option will be around 2am on Sunday mornings, which is when CalTrans tries to schedule closures for maintenance. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, more infrastructure enables more transportation of goods and people, more economic activity and growth? No shit Sherlock, also, why are you saying it like it's a bad thing?
Roads and cars are unsustainable. Building new highway lanes is allegedly done to decrease traffic pressure, but it doesn't do that, so that's what the shit Sherlock.
Long trips should be made by rail, because in that case there's no drawback. We should be sending absolutely all long-haul freight by rail. But we're too stupid and incompetent to build more of it, we let the corporate masters decide what our society will do to the detriment of all [wikipedia.org] including the wealthy, but even they are too stupid to realize
Re: Sounds familiar (Score:2)
I see that you don't bother to read the link. You're a bigger coward than an AC.
No buts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar boom continues *but* it's offset by soaring power use?
No, the two are not connected. The "soaring power use" would have happened with or without solar.
A better headline would be something like "Solar boom continues, offsetting rising power use."
Re: (Score:2)
How is power use soaring when it's been flat or declining since 2000, according to https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... [eia.gov] ?
Re: (Score:3)
From the Ars Technica story cited in the summary:
In the first 11 months of 2024, the US saw its electrical use grow by 2.8 percent, or roughly 100 Terawatt-hours. While there's typically year-to-year variation in use due to weather-driven demand, the US's consumption has largely been flat since the early 2000s.
The "soaring" demand is over the past 11 months, while demand has been roughly flat since 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the bottom graph on the eia.gov energy facts explained page, why is 2023's 94 quads + 3% still lower than the 100 quads we saw in 2004 or so?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, pick a fight with the article's author.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the author is pushing an electricity scarcity story that fits with mainstream economic assumptions of scarcity everywhere by necessity, but that's really a psychological mood affiliation not reflected in actual numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
So what? The fact remains that solar power is increasing, and that fact is not connected to whether energy use is increasing or decreasing. If energy use is decreasing, as you suggest, then that means that the share of energy produced by solar power is increasing, and that's still a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is confusion on all energy use versus just electrical use.
Total energy use could be going down with electricity use going up if electricity is making a larger portion of the total over time. This trend could easily continue if people are replacing furnaces with heat pumps, ICEVs with EVs, and so on. It can also see a reversal if relative prices change, government energy policies change, weather changes (more electricity for cooling than natural gas for heat), and more.
Re:No buts! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you look at the Sankey energy diagram for the US in 2023, will you see that a two-thirds of electricity generated is "rejected" or effectively sent to ground? Because that relationship holds in Washington State too which should have near 100% efficiency due to the abundant hydroelectric power that is curtailed because it is so superabundant, is that two-thirds rejected electrical energy not due to efficiency losses, but oversupply?
In short, is the electricity scarcity story a fairytale that is predicted by mainstream economics but belied by actual facts?
Re: (Score:2)
> If you look at the Sankey energy diagram for the US in 2023, will you see that a two-thirds of electricity generated is "rejected" or effectively sent to ground?
No, roughly two thirds of the energy that goes into electricity generation is waste due to inefficiency. You're just not reading the chart correctly.
You add up all the inputs and get 32 quads. From that you get 13.3 quads of output as electricity and 18.9 quads of waste. This is because coal, gas, petroleum, geothermal, biomass and nuclear are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're partly right, but there's other factors to consider as well. If energy's cheap, people use it in different ways. For example, I'm fortunate to live in an area where long car trips in a nice machine can make for a wonderful holiday. Whether we choose that as an option or take a much shorter holiday at an all-inclusive resort definitely depends on the price of gas.
Re: (Score:2)
The story focuses on electricity use, so my comments were limited in scope to that.
As EVs proliferate, the price of gas will have less influence on people's travel decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
I was using the price of gas as an example. When it's cheap, we use more of it. I would expect electricity use to fluctuate in the same way...lower cost, higher use.
Re: (Score:2)
In this scenario, it would be a *good* thing if people are encouraged to use more electricity because it's cheaper, because that means they aren't using a dirtier form of power.
Re: (Score:2)
On this, my friend, we are 100% agreed. I'm riding this car into the ground. My next one will be an EV.
Energy abundance (Score:2)
I was listening to an interview with an economist (who's name escapes me. John Cochran?) who asserted we shouldn't just be looking to replace existing power generation with wind/solar, we should be looking to triple the amount of power available to everyone. The hallmark of modern civilization is the availability of cheap and reliable energy for light, heating, manufacturing, and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the type of economic thinking that leads to screens on Walgreen frozen food section doors that end up being a dumb, wasteful idea done just because they could?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the type of economic thinking that leads to screens on Walgreen frozen food section doors that end up being a dumb, wasteful idea done just because they could?
Sorry, I'm lost. How is that economics? Walgreens tried an experiment which could have worked but in fact did not. That's economics only in the sense that economists observe people are constantly trying to discover new ways to add value and reduce costs. Since it's a discovery process, lots of attempts fail.
Re: (Score:2)
He's correct. That requires upfront investment and is limited by materials. Do tripling is not necessarily possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow look at that stellar grammar and sentence construction. What is Do tripling anyway? But yes, tripling the amount of power available to everyone may not be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That requires upfront investment and is limited by materials. Do tripling is not necessarily possible.
In reverse order, I don't know why tripling is necessarily impossible. We've tripled before, probably more than once. Humans are clever too: if a material gets scarce, we are pretty good and beavering up alternatives.
But yet, investment is part of his point. As we invest in solar and wind, we're paying the opportunity cost of not creating incrementally new power sources. That's not a new point. What thought was new was him pointing out the scale of the issue we're ignoring.
Re: (Score:2)
The US
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If an appliance such as a hot water heater could load shift, DIY installation would be easy and current regulations would make it poss
Re: (Score:2)
> That would reduce installation costs
It would almost certainly increase the number of structure fires, collapsed homes, and deaths of various preventable causes. Turns out most people are not qualified to do most things, and this is one of those situations where incompetency can hurt more than just the person attempting the work.
> Panels are cheap on the order of 50 cents per watt. If we could get an integrated battery inverter solar panel for about the same cost
So... magic? If the panel is 50 cents
Re: (Score:2)
All good stuff, thank you for your thoughts. You make great points.
The economist is right in terms of what is needed for the macro-economy but what they are missing is that such a thing would not be profitable for current electric companies.
I will add he wasn't just thinking about the US or Europe. He was pointing out we should be thinking in terms of ensuring everyone in Africa, Asia, and South America also has that much power available. One can reasonably argue that a key factor in the first world standard of living is having access to lots of cheap power for light, heat, manufacturing, food handling, transportation, and the like.
One interesting point he made to put this in p
Re: (Score:2)
While he is not completely wrong, what he overlooks is that power generation and distribution is subject to diminishing returns for reasons that cannot be fixed. Hence the other factor is efficient power use. Overlook that and do irrational unlimited growth and you will fail.
Re: (Score:2)
While he is not completely wrong, what he overlooks is that power generation and distribution is subject to diminishing returns for reasons that cannot be fixed. Hence the other factor is efficient power use. Overlook that and do irrational unlimited growth and you will fail.
I wish I could find the podcast. Sadly I can't.
He was well aware of marginal analysis. That was his point: we're focused so much on replacing fossil fuels with green sources, we're missing the opportunity of shifting the entire supply curve down by a lot. Further, he believed there was no reason we could not because that's what we've done for the last 250 years. A classic example might be "forget solar, build 10,000 small modular nuclear reactors on a production line and make the marginal cost of electricit
Re: (Score:2)
They don't look at how can we dramatically expand the amount of energy we have available.
They do, actually. And they found we cannot. The cost for the grid is already approaching or larger than the cost for energy generation. And grid cost does not raise linearly. Due to complexity, it gets more expensive per capacity unit the larger it gets.
Asking AI for directions (Score:2)
If (Score:2)
If you build it, they will come.