Electricity demand for AI data centers is soaring. The result won’t be pretty.
Chart Notes: Industrial prices for 1980-2010 only for years divisible by 5. The rest are extrapolated. I estimated the consumer cost for 2025 from the BLS consumer electricity price index.
Big Tech’s A.I. Data Centers Are Driving Up Electricity Bills for Everyone
The New York Times reports Big Tech’s A.I. Data Centers Are Driving Up Electricity Bills for Everyone That is a free link.
The tech industry’s all-out artificial intelligence push is fueling soaring demand for electricity to run data centers that dot the landscape in Virginia, Ohio and other states. Large, rectangular buildings packed with servers consumed more than 4 percent of the nation’s electricity in 2023, and government analysts estimate that will increase to as much as 12 percent in just three years. That’s partly because computers training and running A.I. systems consume far more energy than machines that stream Netflix or TikTok.
Electricity is essential to their success. Andy Jassy, Amazon’s chief executive, recently told investors that the company could have had higher sales if it had more data centers. “The single biggest constraint,” he said, “is power.”
Even as some corporate customers have been underwhelmed by A.I.’s usefulness so far, tech companies plan to invest hundreds of billions of dollars on it.
At the same time, the boom threatens to drive up power bills for residents and small businesses. Nationally, the average electricity rate for residents has risen more than 30 percent since 2020, after years of relatively modest increases. Much of that increase has been driven by utilities’ catching up on deferred maintenance and hardening grids for extreme weather.
It is difficult to predict what that will mean for consumers’ power bills. But recent reports expect data centers will require expensive upgrades to the electric grid, a cost that will be shared with residents and smaller businesses through higher rates unless state regulators and lawmakers force tech companies to cover those expenses.
A June analysis, from Carnegie Mellon University and North Carolina State University, found that electricity bills are on track to rise an average of 8 percent nationwide by 2030 and as much as 25 percent in places like Virginia because of data centers.
In some places, it is happening already. Starting in June, the electricity bill for a typical household in Ohio increased at least $15 a month because of data centers, according to data from a major local utility and an independent monitor of the electric grid that stretches across 13 states and the District of Columbia.
That has led to growing tensions.
The utilities pay for grid projects over decades, typically by raising prices for everyone connected to the grid. But suddenly, technology companies want to build so many data centers that utilities are being asked to spend a lot more money a lot faster. Lawmakers, regulators and consumer groups fear that households and smaller companies could be stuck footing these mounting bills.
Era of Flat Power Demand Is Behind Us
GridStrategies reports The Era of Flat Power Demand Is Behind Us
Over the past two years, the 5-year load growth forecast has increased by almost a factor of five, from 23 GW to 128 GW, including Grid Strategies’ estimate of recent update reports.
- The official nationwide forecast of electricity demand shot up from 2.8% to 8.2% growth over the next five years to 66 GW through 2029 — but with an additional 61 GW of growth in preliminary updates, nationwide electric demand is forecast to increase by 15.8% by 2029.
- While some of the additional growth merely reflects corrections to last year’s
incomplete forecast update, major changes have occurred in several regions. In particular, Texas (ERCOT) has recently added about 37 GW to its 2029 forecast – resulting in an updated forecast of 43 GW in load growth through 2029. The main drivers are investment in data centers and manufacturing. High-end sector forecasts suggest current load forecasts may not have caught up with growth.- Data center growth forecasts vary, with some tech industry analysts anticipating growth of 65 GW, while updated utility forecasts suggest over 90 GW.
- Manufacturing demand forecasts are unavailable – indicators suggest up to 20 GW growth.
- Other sources of load growth, including electrification, could be another 20 GW.
Sustaining growth in strategic economic sectors will require significant new investments in electric power sector infrastructure. Meeting the electricity requirements of new advanced manufacturing and data centers through new nearby generation could result in capital investments of billions of dollars per GW of new load. A more valuable and less costly approach to ensuring reliability is ensure the same reliability with increased transmission capacity to transfer power from one region to another. Capacity delivered through interregional transmission is likely to cost less than $300 million per GW of new load. With this added reliability, less new generation is required and it doesn’t need to be located close to new facilities.
Is There a Load Growth Bubble?
A recent Wall Street Journal article asked, “Internet Hype in the ’90s Stoked a PowerGeneration Bubble. Could It Happen Again With AI?” Overbuilding in the 1990s contributed to bankruptcy by major independent power generators, such as Calpine and NRG Energy. Yet the same article also notes that, “the drivers of electricity-demand growth are more tangible this time.” Companies developing data centers are making both verbal and contract commitments to pay their “fair share” of generation and transmission expansion costs.
Wood Mackenzie sampled several utilities’ announced data center demand, estimating 93 GW total through 2030. Based on bottom-up analysis of tech industry capacity, Wood Mackenzie forecasts a more realistic national five-year AI buildout to be just 23 GW. Data center developers may have such a large appetite for growth that their projects could use up any and all currently-unused grid capacity over the next five to ten years.
On the other hand, business revenues to cover the costs of the artificial intelligence investments have not yet been proven. This combination of exuberance and uncertainty raises the question of whether these projects could fail to sustain anticipated power demand. Such a failure could leave other customers with responsibility to cover costs for transmission and, in some regions, generation investments. There are economic and energy reliability risks, both from under- and over-investment.
Six Regions Drive Load Growth Through 2029
There is much more in the report that merits a closer look.
Electricity Percentage Costs for Steel, Copper, Aluminum
- Steel Productions: Electricity accounts for approximately 10-15% of the total production cost in U.S. steel manufacturing, depending on the production method.
- Aluminum Production: Electricity constitutes approximately 30-50% of the total production cost for primary aluminum production in the U.S.
- Copper Production: Electricity represents approximately 25-30% of the total production cost for primary copper production in the U.S.
Above percentages from Grok AI.
Hello Aluminum Manufactures
Alcoa says producers would need firm contractual energy-price commitments of about $30 per megawatt hour for at least 15 years to be globally competitive. (WSJ)
My lead chart shows an industrial average at or over $80.00 for the last four years.
Trump vs Reality
Canada is a global leader in aluminum production due to its abundance of renewable hydroelectric power.
“If you wanted to replace what we ship to the U.S. on a yearly basis with an equivalent carbon footprint, you would need to build six Hoover Dams,” said Jean Simard, president and CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada.
But hey, let’s make aluminum, copper, and steel manufacturing great again with 50 percent tariffs.
Nothing can possibly go wrong, except everything.
Related Posts
February 11, 2025: Trump’s Steel Tariffs Now Will Work as Good as the First Time
Q: How’s that? A: Very poorly.
August 31, 2025: Petty Package Tax Starts Now, Trump Ends the De Minimis Tariff Exemption
No order is too small to escape Trump’s tariff reach.
July 8, 2025: Copper Spikes to Record High After Trump’s 50 Percent Tariff Announcement
How Many Jobs Will Trump Create?
Assuming the US produces all the copper it needs, the answer is hugely negative.
Perhaps mining industry employment doubles, if and when US mines get into production.
But that is dwarfed by users of copper, all paying a higher price.
September 5, 2025: Trump Will Hasten the Decline of US Manufacturing Jobs
Trump isn’t responsible for the secular decline. But he will soon speed things up.
September 6, 2025: Trump’s Aluminum Tariffs Seriously Backfire Already
Tariffs did not and will not bring production back to the US.
Electricity costs are definitely rising, and AI will only add to the load with its energy-hungry data centers. That said, AI could also help us manage grids better and make renewables more efficient. The real question is whether companies and governments will use it responsibly or just chase profit.
Keeping in mind that the bulk of electricity generation is from “fossil” fuels, we have a choice to make. Build more and bigger data centres or have affordable quality food. Pick one. Going forward, we can’t have both.
Well, AI is being PROGRAMMED to worship ba’al and espouse murderous communism, like the programmers do! DUH!!!!
Those republican communists are at it again.
https://www.ohio.news/stories/republican-bill-allows-utility-companies-to-limit-customers-energy-usage/
The wonderful GOP bringing rationing to electricity for the masses. MAGA is amazing! /s
Commonwealth Edison has been running a voluntary load shedding program for years.
Sounds kinda third-worldy.
Force by law the AI builders to build their own power plants at 100% their own cost.
They can always build them elsewhere. Canada, Iceland, China. Quite a few places with cheap electricity.
Just put in more solar panel farms and windmills! Yeah!! That will do it!
Correct. The more the better. And a lot of natgas generation as well. We need ALL of the above if we want to have enough power to grow our economy.
If we slowed growth there might not be enough shortages in the future.
There is a very small percentage of the population that wants to slow growth.
What rate of growth would you suggest? One percent? Maybe half a percent.
Any idea of the implications of slower growth on jobs, debt levels, and living standards?
Growth should be matched to increases in productivity.
I am very concerned by the effects on jobs, debt and living standards caused by inflation. This is obvious for everyone to see.
Perhaps where you live jobs are plentiful, debt levels continue to go down, and housing and food become more affordable each day.
Living standards are linked to economic growth. If you want increased living standards, you need increased economic growth. And economic growth is dependent on energy growth. No way around it.
Best idea ever isn’t it? let’s deforest for 20% capacity factors some of the time. Seems like a fair trade. /S
The reason for the electricity rate increases is mandates from Democrat states and the Biden administration. Intermittent, seasonal energy production has enormous grid level costs for storage, transmission capacity, backup capacity, and grid intelligence. These costs dramatically increase as a grid approaches saturation for intermittent, seasonal power. Democrats forcing these mandates have no idea about future rate increases and feasibility of their scheme. They only know that they want to force major changes to achieve their energy utopia. The rise of AI computing needs along with Democrat demands for electrification will blowup the grid and costs. Xcel Energy in CO has proposed plans for new infrastructure that will double to trip rates in the next 10 years. Democrats have forced closure of efficient coal plants 40 years before the end of their operating life.
For the person who downvoted this, you have no idea.
I’ll agree that one of us has no idea.
While I appreciate that you feel you must blame Biden, Obama, and every Democrat in America for every problem we have, as several folks here do, that was a little over the top.
I do not vote. I don’t care who is in office. But as someone with a keen interest in energy, I will make a few comments here to provide some balance.
You have no worries now becauseTrump can fix it all. Just like he did in his first term. Back then he claimed he would bring back “beautiful clean coal” and create tens of thousands of good paying jobs in the industry.
What happened? 23.4 GW of coal fired electricity was shut down. Dozens of coal mines shut down and 13,100 coal jobs disappeared during his 4 years. A bigger decline than under any other president.
Now, I don’t blame Trump for this. The main reason was the old, inefficient coal generators could no longer compete and were replaced by cheaper, cleaner natural gas plants. Just like cars replaced the horse and buggy; coal is being replaced by cheaper, better and cleaner alternatives.
It was not some Democratic plot, as you suggest. The plants were NOT efficient as you suggest. If they were, they would still be operating.
Which is why coal generation will continue to decline during Trump’s second term as well. 14.5 GW will be shut down in 2025 vs the 3.6 GW that was shut in 2024 during Biden’s last year. In fact, more coal will be shut down in Trump’s second term, than the record amount shut down in his first term. It’s not about politics. It’s about cost and efficiency.
Regarding AI. Yes. It needs a lot of electricity. As do aluminum smelters which Trump wants. In fact, the US needs a lot of new electricity over the next five years according to all projections. If we can generate enough new electricity, we can grow our economy faster.
In 2024 we added 38 GW of new electricity. 30 from solar, 3 from wind, 5 from natural gas. And a new nuclear reactor started up which is now providing an additional 1 GW.
No one added new coal generation because it is too expensive. Which is why 3.6 GW of coal was shut down in 2024.
The problem going forward is that most of our new electricity is coming from wind and solar because it is the least expensive source. However, Trump wants to shut it down if he can. Though states like Texas plan on continuing to build more anyway. Because if we don’t add enough to meet the demand, then that will result in much higher electricity prices.
Right on.
Limit AI access to when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.
Simple.
You are not informed if you think that wind and solar are low power sources. You are simply ignoring most of the grid costs of intermittent seasonal power. These grid costs increase sharply as saturation of intermittent/seasonal power increases on a grid.
Democrats have prematurely shutdown many coal fired plants with federal and state mandates. The Biden EPA puts lots of pressure to shut down coal plants. Democrats in CO have prematurely shut down reliable, cost effective coal plants 40+ years before their expected end of life.
Natural gas has effectively competed against coal for new plants. Democrat policies have contributed to cost disadvantages of coal fired plants. China, India, and other countries are constructing many new coal plants so natural gas does not dominate coal globally.
Lol! I suggest you read a dozen of my other posts on this thread which prove everything you just said is a pile of sh*t. I can’t be bothered to repeat them to you.
Have a nice day.
Just think how much higher electricity rates would be without super cheap nat gas.
BTW…..My Nat Gas is going to raise rates 10.5% in October. They just got the go ahead from the state regulatory utility board. Not because of gas prices, but because of infrastructure. Hmmm…. 3 or 4 datacenters are being built near me. I wonder if this is a coincidence?
Correct. Natural gas generates 42% of US electricity. It is also a relatively inexpensive source.
Here’s a snapshot of the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) in the U.S. for various generation sources as of 2025, based on the latest data from Lazard and the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
📊 LCOE Comparison by Source (Unsubsidized, $/MWh)
Energy Source LCOE Range ($/MWh)
Utility-Scale Solar PV $38 – $217
Lowest-cost option in many regions; costs vary by location and scale
Onshore Wind $37 – $86 Narrow range; highly competitive in Midwest and Plains states
Offshore Wind $72 – $140 High capital costs; long lead times
Gas (Combined Cycle) $48 – $109 Efficient but sensitive to fuel price volatility
Gas (Peaker) $149 – $251 Used for peak demand; very expensive per unit
Coal $71 – $173 Declining competitiveness; environmental costs rising
Nuclear $141 – $220 High upfront costs; long construction timelines
💡 Key Takeaways:
• Solar and onshore wind remain the cheapest sources of new electricity generation, even without subsidies.
• Natural gas is still competitive, especially for baseload generation, but faces pressure from renewables.
• Coal and nuclear are increasingly uneconomical for new builds, though existing plants may still operate cost-effectively.
Anyone building wind and solar is just building gas. Nuclear is being pushed to the front after decades since we built the Gen IIIs. SMRs and advanced reactors cannot get built fast enough and the tech bros are paying (See TMI U2, Palisades, and all the new announcements for SMRs and the Executive Orders kicking the NRC in the ass). If wind and solar are so great, how come the projects are getting x86ed without their mandates and free money?
Let me know when someone finally produces a working commercial SMR. No rush. I can wait a few years.
Once that finally happens, let me know how cost competitive it is.
Not to worry Papa.
Them molten salt thorium reactors will solve everything.
Any day now.
Maybe.
Try and keep up. Maybe do some reading. Existing fission is more than mature enough to get it done. Naturally, continued improvement should always be pursued in whatever new reactor fuel sources are viable and more plentiful. Perhaps you were thinking of fusion…which we don’t even need.
I’ve watched your posts on this blog for the past few years. I can tell you don’t actually work in the utility industry. I do. I’ve already told you what is happening but you can go ahead and play your game. Whatever you think will make you profit, good for you. I’ve been in this decades and counting. Multiple utilities in the US and abroad. Nuclear and gas, not your unicorn dust, is where we are going. Anyone who thinks building more “unreliables” (to the point of literally destroying the land) to solve a literal reliability problem doesn’t get it. Don’t care how cheap you think it is. Unreliables were only ever built because of the generous subsidies. The haven’t improved energy security and have to be backed up by gas and their capacity factors are the lowest of all generations sources. Guess the EIA, DOE, etc. are all liars….
“ I’ve watched your posts on this blog for the past few years.”
Then you know that I am a proponent of ALL useful energy forms.If we want to grow our economy and improve living standards we need more energy. And the area where energy demand is growing fastest is electricity.
“ Nuclear and gas, not your unicorn dust, is where we are going. Anyone who thinks building more “unreliables” (to the point of literally destroying the land) to solve a literal reliability problem doesn’t get it. Don’t care how cheap you think it is”
I have no say in where the US or the world “is going” as decisions are made to produce that electricity. It’s not my call. I merely observe what the world is doing in regards to energy supply and demand. And as you say, I do this to make a profit; not because I am rooting for one energy form over another.
And I observe that the vast majority of new US and world electricity supply is coming from renewables, not nuclear. Again. That is an observation of what is happening.
When folks here say that nuclear is the future, I simply tell them that doesn’t fit with the observable facts. Nuclear is one of the most expensive sources of electricity. If it was cheap, the world would have a lot more of it. Which is why, even in China, where they don’t have “crazy environmentalists”, and cost isn’t as important, they are currently building 30 new conventional nuclear reactors. And they build them in half the time we do. Seven or 8 year build time vs 15 years here. That’s about 4 per year. Which adds 4GW of new supply per year. Meanwhile, China also built out 277 GW of solar and 80 GW of wind in 2024. Not because it is “unicorn dust” as you say. But because it is the cheapest and fastest way to build new supply.
When people here say that SMRs are the future I repeat the observable facts. We have had SMRs for almost 70 years now. If they were cheap and easy to commercialize, we would be flooded with them by now. Russia has had them for 50 years. China for 15 years. The observable reality is that SMRs appear to be the unicorn dust you refer to.
“ Guess the EIA, DOE, etc. are all liars….”
Lol! Yep. The world should ignore these folks and listen to an expert like you. After all you have been working in the industry for decades. I bet you have a working SMR in your workshop. Along with the carburetor that get 500 miles per gallon of water. Right?
Yep, sure am.
https://www.ans.org/news/2025-09-10/article-7357/fermi-america-looks-to-go-public-as-nrc-accepts-cola-for-ap1000s/
At least I am qualified to talk about it. The utilities I work for are the ones making these decisions so I know what is going on. Those that love renewables and the free money they got before are panicking without subsidies. Their projects have literally dried up and they are cutting costs. The utilities that never became bag holders on saving the world through wind and solar are pivoting, and will win. And nuclear is on the table in a big way.
At least we agree on the energy demand issue. I disagree on more renewables solving a problem that didn’t exist when nuclear, gas and coal were all we needed. They didn’t solve the climate change BS and they didn’t improve resiliency in the US at the expense of better forms.
Let me know when wind and solar don’t need something else to cover the 70% of the time they don’t produce, without mandates that it be bought first, with a subsidy to even get a utility interested in it to begin. Guess Warren Buffett was wrong about windmills? No, he wasn’t.
“They don’t make sense without the tax credit”.
Wind and solar do not need to be generating ALL the time.
Three reasons:
1. Storage: The world added 79 GW of electric storage capacity in 2024. China added 42 GW. The US 12 GW. Storage is growing at a faster rate than new generation. As you know this helps capture the energy when it isn’t needed and saves it for when generation stops. The cost of renewables plus the cost of storage is still cheaper than nuclear.
2. Grid connections. The sun is always shining somewhere on the planet; just as the wind is always blowing somewhere. The more we interconnect our electric grids, the more we can smooth out supply and demand. Other than Texas, where they don’t want to interconnect with the rest of the US. So they have to overbuild their surplus generation capacity to cover peaks in demand.
3. Other sources. I am a proponent for all sources. This gives us more options. So we will never be completely dependent on renewables. A good example is the Natural Gas peaker plants which come online as needed to help meet peak demand when it happens. They then shut down when not needed. We have 120 GW of these in the US.
“They don’t make sense without the tax credit”.
Buffet said that in 2014, when offshore wind’s LCOE was around $150 and onshore wind was around $50. Today offshore is around $90 and onshore around $30.
The LCOE for nuclear is around $140. It needs a lot of subsidies to justify it.
Yes, Buffett said it ten years ago. However, as an insider, my point still stands about utilities panicking now that the subsidies are gone. Some have no strategy to pivot to and they have dead, unfinished projects and debt. The market will determine their fates.
I also stated in another response that I believe every application for energy has its place. The LCOE for nuclear will also come down, even for SMRs that you keep discounting, as we build more. It isn’t as if scaling only belongs to renewables.
But here is an observable fact for you: every single day, new nuclear and gas deals are being made; not wind and solar. Certainly not at the pace we have seen the past 15 years. The article I linked to in the other response shows how quickly DOE, NRC and investors are moving their money, now that regulatory challenges are being addressed. Stay tuned, I suppose.
Mish.
My compliments.
This is the first discussion of this topic I have come across that does not even mention green energy.
Everywhere I turn the whole problem is being blamed on Dems/Woke/Greenies who supposedly are only now realizing that the sun does not shine after dark nor does the wind blow every night, even though every form of power generation has its own intermittency envelope and peak/lul cost and reserve profile, all well understood by grid engineers.
Face it. AI is the new cash furnace.
In a technology race, your competitor is buying newer faster more efficient gear while you’re stuck amortizing the hundreds of billions already sunk without a profitable business case, just betting on being positioned for huge future demand (which will be harvested by competitors with cheaper financing and amortization costs).
Like running harder to catch the horizon.
When Google, MSFT, Apple, FB, OpenAI et al build a data center, they should have to pay for the electrical generation up front. These are highly profitable companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank. They are literally leading us down to our own destruction in terms of job losses and potentially the end of humanity.
Why should the public pay for this through rising electrical rates? That’s freaking stupid.
Same for a hair salon, auto dealership, new apartment complex, etc.?
They all use electricity (some more than others). Just like they all use land, and labor, etc. (some more than others)
They are a private business making private business decisions. Don’t like ’em? Don’t use their products/services. Don’t like them increasing your local electricity rates? Move
Ben lives in an alternate reality. He thinks the world should listen to him because he has “ideas” of how things “should be”. Though they are often strange ideas.
It would more convincing if he could provide some facts or data to back up what he says. But he never provides any data or facts. Just his ideas, hopes and fantasies.
Ssme reply made this morning:
DaveFromDenver
8 hours ago
Reply to peter mackey
The total net savings still add up to zero. The plan here was to have more production (jobs) take place in the US. But it is a closed system. If manufactures pay more for power in the US, then US consumers will pay more for their US made products. (+1-1=0)
This is not to say that vast numbers of politicians don’t use this technique and many gullible voters fall for it.
I am singer and guitar player (since 70’s) and sing covers. I wrote ONE song in my entire life, even when touring with Bands (I have NO talent for writing).
My younger Bro died in1993 from HIV and it KILLED ME. I wrote a decent piece for him with tears in my eyes. EMOTIONAL TIME.
Last week, I asked CLAUDE AI to write a song to my wife (She has a unique name) and it spit out the Lyrics first and then asked me if I wanted a Time Signature (Yes, 3/4) and Chords for an acoustic guitar.
In less than 30 seconds, it re-wrote it with the latter. AMAZED and it used her Name perfectly.
I am a cretin with Poetry.
And, the Trumpster is grifting on his Crypto, too.
A pal from Texas told me yesterday that his power bill, big house, went from under $80 a month and shot up to over $300 per month.
Tell you friend to tell his TX legislator that whoever is running the crypto should pay upfront for the electrical generation capacity. That will solve the problem, in part by slowing down crypto & AI.
Stop acting like this is all Trump’s fault. It’s not.
Yes. I’m sure they will follow your suggestion.
Now remind me. Which president promoted crypto? Biden or Trump?
And whose family is cashing in on crypto to the tune of over $3 billion? Hint: Trump
And who promotes their own coins with their name on them? Hint: $Trump, $Melania
Almost as ridiculous as crypto mining… all this power spent to do stuff that humans could already do. It only makes sense if you get rid of the humans entirely.
We do have a gestapo in training here in the US, so maybe that’s the plan.
That’s why the Framers made the Presidency only 4 yrs long 🙂
The article doesn’t explain why electricity prices should increase. Something I’ve never been able to find out in articles like these.
Supply and demand. The supply requires new construction of high capital cost power plants. No, the owners of the data centers are NOT willing to turn them off at night, or to reduce power consumption on cloudy days so solar isn’t going to cut it. Adding enough battery capacity to get through a winter night adds too much capital cost to be viable.
At the moment gas turbines are the best compromise between cost, low CO2 emissions, and getting something built in a reasonable time. But now they are running out of pipeline capacity.
But capital costs can be amortized and depreciated over decades, just as it has always been done. What’s changed?
Jon, it is easy. IF THERE IS DEMAND, they can charge all that they want and the POWER LOBBY ensures it.
Surely, you were tongue-in-cheek?
It’s not that. Why wouldn’t they have increased price in a big way last year or the year before?
What exactly is the ration ale for having domestic consumers subsidising industrial businesses? After 45 of subsidy surely it is high time that the industrial rate were raised 400% for the next 45 years to pay domestic consumers back.
Because the general population is vast and stupid.
Oh, that might affect the CEO Bonuses. I was CEO at one time and my salary and perks paled by comparison to EXCEEDING OUR NUMBERS in both Gross Rev’ and Net Profits, but I also got paid on NET PROFIT MARGINS exceeding a set amount, which was negotiable. BUT, by far, the ISO SHARES allowed me to begin the course of an early retirement (before 40 – – I was fiucking out)…
The total net savings still add up to zero. The plan here was to have more production (jobs) take place in the US. But it is a closed system. If manufactures pay more for power in the US, then US consumers will pay more for their US made products. (+1-1=0)
This is not to say that vast numbers of politicians don’t use this technique and many gullible voters fall for it.
[Just got censored]
AI = FRAUD
1. AI is nothing NEW: it’s just ANOTHER term for COMPUTERS which we’ve had in their current working-on-electricity form since WWII.
2. AI is NOT intelligent: it’s INCAPABLE of producing NEW knowledge. AI is capable of parsing and reorganizing ALREADY-EXISTING data faster than humans. That’s ALL that it’s capable of doing. And like all machines, it’s not perfect nor accurate because its creator (humans) wasn’t.
3. Practically speaking, ALL that AI does is: a) Faster and more comprehensive GRATUITOUS censorship; b) WORSE customer service; 3)More realistic animated pornography; 4) more realistic FAKE images and FAKE voices; 5) Enhanced plagiarism enabling; 5) Search engine.
AI does not significantly change for the better life as we know it. It only makes it significantly worse for the most part for NORMAL human beings. For example, YouTube videos have become unwatchable due to the FAKE clipped voice-overs with unnatural accents and bad animation. All social media has broken down due to unwarranted gratuitous censoring which disrupts normal communication between human beings.
The only “POSITIVE” for AI is the excuse of (untrue) “efficiency” it supposedly provided big business and Big Tech corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Nvidia etc. to JUSTIFY firing large portions of their employees, thus raising their profits on paper, enabling insiders to sell their stocks at ever higher prices.
In short: AI =The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer
AI is nothing new.
[Just got censored as spam]
You are 100% correct. The next gimmick from tech which is misnamed and pretty useless…..and the working man on low wages have their electricity prices jacked up to subsidise that nonsense.
Unfortunately
I have my misgivings about AI, but I asked ChatGPT to wrie me two very simple (about 1 page of code) plugins for a Worpress website I run. It did so, and they both work fine.
I can’t code and a proficient coder would have written both quickly, but for a price (I wouldn’t have paid, I would have found alternative plugins, so I’ve not done someone out of a job). So I think AI does have some uses. but I can see the downsides as well.
That only works for shallow, simple systems, that you aren’t too concerned about performance of.
It’s good for writing a starting place for a domain I’m not familiar with, but even then it writes about twice as much code as is needed, and introduces very subtle bugs that take a long time to find.
I find it kind of fun to work with, but I wouldn’t say it enhances my productivity overall. I think we’re in the process of building up a huge amount of tech debt as people just give the output a cursory test, call it good, and deploy it.
Nah, AI can already mow my lawn on a hot day in Florida for me. Within 20 years, it will clean my house, wash my dishes and do my shopping.
10 years
3 years ; )
Yesterday
Amen… Spot ON
:o)
I up-voted you with one conditional comment….I was SO anti-AI until about 2 weeks ago. I have been using AI to scrub Data from ALL internet sources to two things: 1) Flights from ANY West coast Int’l Airport to ANYWHERE in Europe. This time we do not care where we land. We fly ONLY LIE FLAT business class but the costs have SOARED and I am frugal to a point. IT SPIT OUT pages of alternative departure and arrival ports and it did it in less than one minute. Mind you, this is after MONTHS of using GOOG FLIGHTS to find “deals.”
A few travel sites?
I up-voted you with one conditional comment….I was SO anti-AI until about 2 weeks ago. I have been using AI to scrub Data from ALL internet sources to two things: 1) Flights from ANY West coast Int’l Airport to ANYWHERE in Europe. This time we do not care where we land. We fly ONLY LIE FLAT business class but the costs have SOARED and I am frugal to a point.
IT SPIT OUT pages of alternative departure and arrival ports and it did it in less than one minute. Mind you, this is after MONTHS of using GOOG FLIGHTS to find “deals.”
However, my caveat is that I agree at the 99% level with your assessments and it is CRIMINAL that AI firms are NOT PAYING MORE – AND WE REGULARS LESS!
One thing I’m struggling with big time is — why would someone invest capital in any kind of infrastructure or business where they have to deal with labor, legal, competition, etc. when they can just take that capital, put it in S&P500, head to the beach and enjoy higher returns than what would be possible from said infrastructure or business without doing anything? Kind of what MSTR is doing by raising capital and putting it in bitcoin, but with S&P500 which is far more conservative, yet is and will likely continue to out perform most businesses.
In other words, I don’t see manufacturing returning to the US nor do I foresee any significant investment in infrastructure.
Here on Earth there are only 4 ways to Create Wealth: Farming, fishing, mining and manufacturing*. We are loosing ground in all four.
The top 5 reasons investing in the US is risky: Unions, Lawers, Environmentalist, Taxes and Government Regulations.
PS: AI seems to fit into Manufacturing.
And we cannot do any of those things without adequate energy.
Yup….I warned about food, insurance and have been about rising electricity. The next big show to drop will be labor cost. Unless there is massive immigration reform, there is no way all the retiring/expiring baby boomers, loss of cheap immigrant labor, and the supposed industrial re-manufacturing boom, will keep labor cost down in the USA. A recession may temporarily lower labor costs but they will come roaring back once out of recession.
The labor issue will make inflation soar over the next decade (barring immigration reform). The demographic and labor issue exists everywhere except the few places with booming populations (middle east, India, and Africa).
People that are struggling now with keeping up with inflation will howl to the moons of Neptune in 2030 and beyond.
Shoulda’ kept the white Christian boys in power, now you’ve been “browned down”, like a prep, before it’s eaten…
You want to pay people more, then the price of everything goes up to compensate.
But high energy prices are a good thing because they will encourage harder work on bringing fusion power to commercial reality.
There is also a lot of work being done in collecting power from the sun in Earth orbit and beaming it down to Earth. See:
Ha Ha.
Why don’t they wait for free nuclear fusion generated electricity?
Why don’t they just use mirrors in the Sahara with HVDC cables to Europe?
Space based. Like the people who think that if we tether a few meteors, there will be so much gold and cobalt, we would all be billionaires.
Seeing as OpenAI is now being sued not just for the child suicide but also encouraging a guy to murder his mom and kill himself. I think when the hammer comes down on AI it’ll be hard. Stuff like this ain’t popular, and AI has certainly made itself hated by the masses in record time.
Question is: How do we wrangle the technology into usefulness after the masses get this stomped down on? AI has plenty of legitimate use cases that will justify not totally banning it, but imo the writing is on the wall that it will soon be increasingly restricted. As climate change worsens in the next 20 years, I can only see that tightening electricity and water requirements in general, likely killing stupid ideas like PoW crypto (PoS is right there, so there’s no reason for PoW to exist as is).
The masses aren’t going to get anything stamped on, no more than protests are going to stop the ukraine or Gaza wars.
You can’t put AI back in a box. There are too many companies and people making use of it everyday.
That’s real cool until the bonus army marches again. I’m guessing you didn’t study the 30s much?
AI should have STRICT guardrails-as in NO POLITICS/CULTURE output.
Limit AI to ONLY STEM fields and tech.
AI: ‘Puny humans. So illogical. Useless…. MUST STERILIZE!’
The irony of the situation is that future generations of AI chips will be sooooooo much faster and efficient. They will run cooler and huge amounts of investments will be stranded.
Just wait till the AI bubble bursts!
The VIX will be a sight to behold!
>>>
How about returning to free trade and the great relationship we had with Canada?
Locate the AI data centers where energy is cheap and the climate is cool? Also, import our aluminum from them as they have the cheap energy and the smelters are already there producing far cheaper aluminum than we ever could! DuH!
Canada was our excellent strategic ally before Trump threatened them, broke the treaty he negotiated and signed. We exported printed dollars for real goods and services!
We used to buy cheap aluminum and add value by using it to make high value products. Now Canada will become the manufacture because our companies can not compete.
It’s called Trump moronomics
<<<
OMG ~ South Park was funny this week! The WOK episode! Actually, all of season 27 has been pretty good! I rarely watched it in the past but a friend insisted that I would appreciate the humor. It’s dark and funny!!! 😉
Canada is literally our ace-in-the-hole. They have so many things we need at good prices and they will gladly sell it to us for less than we can produce it ourselves. Steel, aluminum, copper, potash, lumber, oil, gas, electricity, uranium, etc.
It’s like having a discount store across the street from our home with lower prices than what we can get by driving 50 miles to another store with much higher prices. Cha-ching!
Our best strategy is to keep them on good terms with us so they don’t close up their store, move it, and sell to someone else.
And what are we doing? We’re throwing rocks through their windows, trying to get them to move. It’s f*cking retarded.
So many years of browbeating the masses to reduce their electricity consumption and nary a whisper about the wasted resources (and waste heat generated) of these industrial server complexes. Nice, steady demand will surely improve the bottom line of electricity producers.
Perhaps as electricity becomes a luxury people will restrict their consumption and then there will be enough for the machines so power outages won’t become common.
I would think now is the time to push for all kinds of energy production. It seems politicians on the rt scream for oil. Mean while 40 percent of texas and ok energy is from renewables. Its like the world is creeping toward renewable energy and the republicans and their voters are in the dark.
This biggest variable for recent electricity price increase has been the replacement of thermal power generation with renewables. Electricity cost is made up of energy+capacity+transmission costs. The recent price increase especially for PJM and MISO has been driven by capacity and transmission costs.
There have been several thermal plants forced into early retirement over past few years. These thermal plants had much higher accredited capacities than renewables. This along with data center demand has led to tightness in the capacity market. As a result, capacity market values increase this year by 800% in PJM. Transmission rates have escalated as many more low density power generation renewable plants have been added to grids.
An important factor. Just like the closing of our aging and inefficient aluminum smelters over the last several decades, the closure of aging coal, oil and natural gas generation continues. Many of these facilities have either reached the end of their useful lives or have simply become too expensive to compete. They are being replaced by new, efficient natural gas plants, or by wind and solar.
In 2024, the US closed 7.5 GW of aging capacity. We added 30 GW of solar, 3 GW of wind, 5 GW of gas, and we started a new 1 GW nuclear reactor in April.
However, if Trump continues to block new solar and wind generation, we may need to try to keep these older inefficient plants open.
They reached the end of life due to the environmental lobby.
Anything can be renovated and usually renovating is cheaper than building new, even when it comes to smelters & power plants. Instead, these industries created a term “stranded asset”, because the environmentalist forced coal plants or coal-based smelters to be shutdown.
It’s that simple. Environmentalism has demanded that inefficient assets not be updated but be replaced. As you’ve noted, this means smelters moved north to where cheaper hydro is located.
Sure, hydro once installed is probably cheaper than coal. However, if we went back in time 30 years and took the Chinese approach, most of these coal plants would be open today.
Now, it’s time to pay the piper.
If it was worthwhile to renovate an old smelter, mine, or power plant then the private sector would do it. And they do; when it’s worth it.
When they don’t. It’s because it isn’t worth it.
Example: The Century aluminum smelter is being refurbished. They will increase production by 50,000 tons per year. The reason for this is the 50% tariffs on imported aluminum will allow them to increase their prices by close to 50%, which justifies the expansion.
Without the tariff, they wouldn’t be doing this because the smelter is uncompetitive. Which is why over 30 aluminum smelters closed since 1970. They were uncompetitive.
And in all that time no one thought it was worthwhile to renovate them. Too bad they didn’t ask you for your opinion.
Oh wait. What started in the 1970’s?
Oh that’s right the modern day environmental movement.
Unfortunately, we can’t turn back time If only we had 50% tariffs on aluminum since the 1970s, all would be right in the USA in terms of independent Al production.
Don’t be a f*cking moron. I’ve just about had it with you. You repeatedly state something as a fact, because it suits your narrative without even realizing it is not true.
The main reason so many aluminum smelters have closed in the U.S. since 1970 is high electricity costs—a brutal economic reality for an industry that’s one of the most power-hungry on Earth.
⚡ Why Power Costs Matter:
• Producing one ton of aluminum requires 14,821 kWh of electricity—more than what a typical U.S. household uses in a year.
• A modern smelter with 750,000 tons of annual capacity needs more power than the entire city of Boston.
• Without long-term contracts for cheap electricity (ideally under $40/MWh), smelters simply can’t compete.
🌍 Global Competition:
• Since 2000, China’s aluminum production has exploded by over 2,000%, reaching 60% of global output by 2023.
• Chinese smelters benefit from subsidized power and massive economies of scale, making U.S. operations look expensive and outdated.
US companies ended up building smelters in Canada and Iceland, because they had cheap electricity, in order to remain competitive.
In short, it’s not that the U.S. forgot how to make aluminum—it’s that the economics of doing so got crushed by global competition and domestic energy realities.
The chicago “class of ’68” are the droids you’re looking for.
And yet, for the first time ever, we are refurbishing and restarting US nuclear power plants and the power is already purchased 20 years out. TMI, Palisades, Duane Arnold, etc. It is worth it to the Tech Bros and they have the deepest pockets now. They want gas and nuclear and they will take all of the juice. No one cares about the intermittent sources except the brainwashed who believed we could power a modern society on pixie dust. The new Cold War is energy, AI and data chips.
Yep. We are refurbishing a couple of old reactors because we are desperate for the electricity. We need a lot of electricity because of AI, crypto, EVs, etc.
The problem is that nuclear is still very expensive as I outlined in another post. That’s why we haven’t been building many new reactors. And expensive electricity is why we produce so little aluminum.
“ No one cares about the intermittent sources except the brainwashed who believed we could power a modern society on pixie dust. The new Cold War is energy, AI and data chips.”
Nope. The US added 38 GW of new electricity generation in 2024. 30 GW solar, 3 GW wind, 5 GW natgas, and one new nuclear reactor that will produce 1GW once fully operational.
And most of the new solar and wind were built in Texas. Even the biggest oil state realizes they need wind and solar.
Microsoft is also helping pay for the refurbished Three Mile Island nuclear reactor. But since that will only provide 1GW they have also procured 30GW of solar and wind. Apparently they DO want electricity from these sources. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Huh. Must be why Texas is trying be THE nuclear campus for all advanced Rx tech. Weird. It is almost as if they took advantage of all the free money for wind all those years, until the wind actually started blowing the other way to nuclear. An obvious decision. Particularly since ERCOT has literally crapped the bed in multiple ice storms in the past 10 years leading to their residents freezing to death. Yet South Texas and Comanche Peak actually performed, when the wind turbines froze, the panels had no sunshine and were covered in ice, and the gas wells couldn’t function. Texas leadership, like every state, will stick its hand out for the subsidies, but that doesn’t change the facts around performance. 2024, the last of the Green Handout Era from Biden’s IRA. We did 8 years of it; the grid didn’t get more resilient for your 30 GW, it is more fragile than ever. Or is the DOE, etc, wrong?
All sources have their place for different environments, but to relentlessly shill wind and solar just because they are cheap and fast, while the energy policy literally just completely switched directions is ridiculous. Wind and solar cannot overcome the basic physics for reliability.
Amazon, Google, NVDA, etc., aren’t interested and neither is the DOE. I don’t know what you are reading these days but it isn’t aligned with these companies or the DOE. The money is going to gas and nuclear.
I’m not a shill for wind and solar. And I am not against nuclear. I am merely an observer of what is happening in energy all over the world.
I will repeat what I mentioned to you in another reply.
The world added 10GW of nuclear in 2024, raising the global total to 505GW.
The world added 565 GW of wind and solar in 2024. More than all the nuclear in the last 70 years.
This is not something I wished for. It is merely an observation of the facts. I cannot help it if people don’t want to believe the facts. I cannot stop people from wanting to believe the future will be nuclear powered. But based on what is happening in the real world, the next decade will be dominated by growth of renewables; not nuclear.
We shall see. Gentlemen’s bet I suppose.
We were READY to go at the start of the 80’s but GHW (who would NOT release the internet to the public domain in 1976) said “no” again….(and the money went to Israel and the mid-east)
Here in IL the increase was supposed to be 30% but everyone I talked with including me got the bills for July and August double compared to June (for me from $120 to $220). Usually I don’t look at my bills as they are paid automatically but the July bill shocked me as I never ever went above $125 before. I wonder how this will affect the coming midterm elections as not everyone doesn’t care about the utility bills 🙂
The local and the federal governments should ask anyone who wants to build data center to first secure power capacity on its own expense.
President Trump should not be slowing down wind energy projects along the New England/New York Atlantic coast.
What about the impact of green energy mandates on electricity prices?
Trump is canceling wind and solar projects. He thinks they “look ugly”, unlike an oil refining plant.
Yep. Canceling any source of supply results in shortages and higher prices.
The cheapest ways to produce electricity are solar, wind, and natural gas. The more of those that we build, the cheaper the electricity. And if we “overbuild” these to create a surplus of supply, that will also lower prices.
Name one utility whether investor owned or municipal that has lowered their rates by switching to renewables.
Hahahaha! Good one!
I never said utilities would lower their prices. They have a lot of high cost legacy generation to maintain.
All I continue to say is that if you want to build some NEW electricity supply, which we desperately need, the cheapest, easiest and quickest new generation will come from wind, solar and natural gas plants.
However, if you want more expensive coal, oil, or nuclear; go for it.
Hahahaha??? What does this statement mean then?
And if we “overbuild” these to create a surplus of supply, that will also lower prices.
That implies utilities, the producers of the electricity are going to lower prices.
Yep. It means what it says.
Utilities always build out enough generation capacity to meet peak demand plus a safety buffer.
But peak demand only happens occasionally. When demand is very low, they often have surplus power available and they frequently sell electricity at much lower rates; especially to power hungry businesses.
Which is why many utilities have” time of day pricing”. Cheaper prices during the times of lower demand vs supply. Which is why some power dependent businesses run as much as possible during off peak times to lower their costs.
If a utility adds too much new generation capacity because they anticipated demand that didn’t happen, then they can be left with a larger surplus, and they have to discount their prices even more.
Hope that helps.
This is literally the litmus test for intermittents. The responses tell you all you need to know.
Here in PA, it’ll be interesting. We are a net exporter of electricity and natural gas, yet both are exported (saving Maryland, for example, and Europe for NG all for profit)
Two MAGA republicans are now pushing a bill in PA to allow datacenter developers to skip a vast majority of permits to push for more datacenters.
…and we PA residents sitting on all these resources? Getting screwed in increasing costs because we’re allowing the export of of electricity and NG (supply and demand).
How about starting 3 Mile Island back up not for the people of PA, but for Microsoft’s new data center???
This is ridiculous
Let’s see what happens when the datacenters have priority over electricity and the residents have to suffer brownout and rolling blackouts.
Ah remember when the energy crises back in the day. When congress made laws saying gas produced in the us had to stay in the us. Then came the saying fracking for American energy independence. Then they changed the laws so they could export that energy.
I do.
Apologies, but honestly don’t understand your point. Obama lifted the export restrictions, that Trump took credit for.
We’re exporting wealth (both in PA and nationally) for the sole benefit of corporations at the expense of US citizens and companies, and that’s just not right.
The result of unfettered capitalism.
It’s compli, er, commutarded….
You seemed to understand perfectly. We were fed a line about America energy independence . Then the politicians and industry screwed us.
Obama may have been president but congress changed the rules. Not sure which party sponsored it. I would assume republican since they more represent business.
It’s compli, er commutarded, and they have to hide a “legal” genocide (>300 million whites/Christians/men) at the same time.
If I remember correctly, I recently heard on a podYou need 40 square miles of solar to power one of these Gigawatt datacenters and up to 150 to 160 sq miles of wind.
Also, nobody mentions the water requirements.
Highlights:
LOL Probably a scare article but this talks about datacenters putting a strain on the Great Lakes. LOL
Report: Data centers, industry could stress Great Lakes water | News, Sports, Jobs – The Daily News
The analysis by the nonprofit Alliance for the Great Lakes found data centers may withdraw as much as 150 billion gallons of water nationally over the next five years. The report said that’s the equivalent of water consumed by 4.6 million households.
All the water that has been, is still on the planet. Unless the astronauts peed out a porthole on the space station.
The water is used to cool the data centers by absorbing heat. The heat is dissipated into the atmosphere. The water can then be returned to its source. H2O therefore isn’t “consumed”. It is moved, heated, cooled and returned. Really not a big deal.
Heat is removed from water by evaporation so some is “consumed” unless it happens to fall as rain back into its source. I don’t think it is a significant amount. More serious is introducing warm water to cooler bodies of water as it can effect aquatic life.
I was thinking the same thing. Lets say they tap into a local reservoir. This is also like 10k more new homes with straws sucking from the same reservoir. So it is somewhat of a big deal if the source cannot handle that massive datacenter straw. Same with the local underground Aquifer.
If you’re “crying for water”, you’ve been “fooled”….
Depends on the amount of power needed. It’s complicated, but I try my best to simplify things for folks here. I like to use 1 GW as an example (which equates to 8.76 TWH per year of energy consumed)
The large data centers use around 1 GW of power. (Aluminum smelters also use roughly that amount).
A single nuclear reactor produces about 1 GW of power. It takes up about 1000 acres of space.
A 5000 acre solar farm will also produce 1 GW. Which is about 7.8 square miles.
Wind farms are tricky. A 1 GW wind farm may need 160 square miles because of spacing, but the actual footprint of the windmills is less than 1% of the total area. Which is why they are often placed on barren land, farmland, grazing land for cattle and sheep, or offshore.
A 1GW natgas plant takes up only 200 acres, but the gas field that supplies the plant would be about 2000 acres.
Hope that helps.
So is land getting cheaper? Did I miss something?
Granted, traditional nuclear isn’t cheap. But, the equivalent solar farm requires 5x the land. What about on-going maintenance costs?
Like I point out above, if MSFT is forced to install their power upfront to meet their data center’s demands, then they’re going to spend a lot of money to accelerate SMRs, which will have the smallest footprint / cost, once each staller gets to about their 3rd installation.
Moreover, in about 5 years, IF (granted there MIGHT be delays), once SMRs are really starting to lift off, solar & wind are going to start seeing their industrial scale investment dry up.
Again, you keep saying SMRs are 10-15 years down the road. This all could happen within 5 years, not 10-15.
“ So is land getting cheaper? Did I miss something?
Granted, traditional nuclear isn’t cheap. But, the equivalent solar farm requires 5x the land. What about on-going maintenance costs?”
Lol! You are sure trying hard to justify not using wind and solar.
But no matter what excuses you pull out of your butt, wind and solar are going to continue to be the dominant new source of electricity generation all over the world because they are the fastest and cheapest to install and maintain. Sorry to burst your bubble. Unlike you, it’s not because I wish it to be this way. It just is.
Why else do you think a big oil and gas state like Texas keeps building so much more wind and solar every year?
You keep talking about SMRs in 5 years because you are so desperate for it to happen. Microsoft and other tech companies would like to see that as well. But, unlike you, they also know that HOPE is not a strategy. Which is why they are hedging their bets. Besides supporting the development of SMRs, they are also supporting conventional nuclear with the restart of Three Mile Island. They are also signing deals for natural gas generation. And they have already procured 30GW of renewables and are going to be signing deals for a lot more.
“ This all could happen within 5 years, not 10-15.“
Yes. And you “could” be elected President.
You argue like a 5 year old.
When Mish posts charts and figures to prove a point, your response is; Yes, but you “might” be wrong.
Do you ever provide any alternative data to prove him wrong? Nope. You just stomp your little feet and say that you are entitled to your opinion. Therefore Mish is wrong. That’s how a child argues.
Now, for the sake of this argument; let’s say that SMRs come bursting on the scene in 5 years and they become the cheapest source of power; just like in your fantasies. Then great. Problem solved in 5 years.
But what do we do in the meantime? Electricity demand is still growing. And we need it now. Telling everyone to be patient and wait 5 years for SMRs is not a solution.
Again, I’m not saying to stop deploying wind & solar. For the 10th time, I’m saying it’s a great idea that Trump is shifting government funding from solar / wind to SMRs.
If companies want to continue to deploy wind & solar to TX, have at it. It’s funny though how I never hear about TX begging for subsidies. Maybe they’re asked for & received, but if so I’d bet they’re getting a lot less money per capita than other states.
But let me say it for the 11th time, it’s time for government monies to stop flowing to these projects.
DO YOU HAVE MY POINT NOW?
Wind & Solar are mature technologies. You seem to be struggling with this concept which is unequivocally true.
2-3 SMR companies are going to have their first deployment within ~ 3 years. Over the next two years from then, probably every company working on an SMR that receives DOE approval with be in the middle of deployment(s).
Until then keep deploying the HELL out of wind & solar. I could care less but stop the government subsidies.
If you think wind & solar are going to be the dominate energy investment in 10 years time, I’m officially declaring you crazy.
As for Mish, I agree with a lot of his ideas. He’s a smart guy, but I do have a different opinion in some areas, especially tariffs. Just because he throws together a graph doesn’t mean he’s got it all figure out.
You do remember that said the TWO full years that the US was in a recession. Well, he can call it a recession all he wants, but the NBER are the ones who make that call, not Mish. Finally, he stopped talking about the US being in a recession.
As for arguing like a 5-year old, that’s hilarious. Just because I believe SMRs are going to be game changing technologies within 5 years doesn’t make your opinion right.
You keep acting like I haven’t answered your question.
I have. All of the existing power generation technologies that are currently receiving investments are going to continue to do so. However, it’s looking like under Trump, very little if any government money is going to go to wind & solar. And again, the two east coast projects will get completed.
As for data centers / AI, my position is that Trump should make them fund this upfront & pay the cost of the generation they’re going to need. Of course, he’s not going to do that, but it’s certainly an option, and a good one that I know most consumers would get behind.
You haven’t answered my question. You never do. i guess it’s because you don’t have an answer. So instead you make up garbage statements and throw them around like they are facts.
First:” It’s funny though how I never hear about TX begging for subsidies. Maybe they’re asked for & received, but if so I’d bet they’re getting a lot less money per capita than other states.”
What’s actually funny is how you randomly think something and then say it as if it was true. If you don’t know, then stop saying such stupid stuff. You do this over and over again.
Texas has received more money in federal wind and solar subsidies than any other state: $141 billion.
Second: “ If you think wind & solar are going to be the dominate energy investment in 10 years time, I’m officially declaring you crazy.”
Wow! That’s an amazing statement. And said with such confidence. And completely wrong.
Let me help you out.
🌍 The largest global investment in energy over the next decade will be in clean electricity technologies, with a projected surge in spending on solar, wind, nuclear, grids, storage, and electrification.
🔋 Key Highlights from the IEA’s World Energy Investment Report:
• By 2025, global energy investment is expected to hit $3.3 trillion, with $2.2 trillion going toward clean energy—twice the amount spent on fossil fuels.
• Solar energy is the single largest investment category, forecast to attract $450 billion annually, outpacing oil production.
• Battery storage is gaining momentum, with spending projected to reach $66 billion, driven by the need to stabilize intermittent renewable generation.
• Electricity grids, though underfunded, are expected to become a major investment priority, needing to match generation spending by the early 2030s.
🌐 Who’s Leading the Charge?
• China is the top global energy investor, responsible for nearly one-third of clean energy investment—almost as much as the U.S. and EU combined.
• India and Brazil are emerging players, with India on track to meet its 2030 non-fossil generation goals early.
💡 Why This Shift Matters:
• The focus is no longer just climate mitigation—it’s also about energy security, industrial competitiveness, and supply chain resilience.
• Investments are expanding beyond supply-side generation into demand-side sectors like buildings, transport, and industry.
In short, the next 10 years will be defined by a tectonic shift toward electrification and clean energy infrastructure.
Next:
In a perfect world there would be NO government subsidies. Much like Mish, I would prefer no government subsidies for any type of business.
But as we have recently discussed, many here think that government subsidies may be necessary for strategic industries; like pharmaceuticals, agriculture, steel, aluminum, copper, rare earths, energy; and others. So I am no longer 100% against all government subsidies.
Having said that, I agree that in the case of energy; subsidies are not needed. So they could remove every subsidy from oil and gas, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, SMRs etc. Lets have a completely even playing field.
So if Trump wants to end all energy subsidies, I say go for it. End solar and wind subsidies. But end subsidies for nuclear and SMRs as well. And for coal, oil and gas.
But here is the part that you never understand. If they remove all subsidies from all energy, we would still be building massive amounts of wind and solar because they are the cheapest way to add new electricity generation. And they keep getting cheaper every year. While other sources get more expensive.
Now. How about answering my question.
Trump keeps trying to stop renewables by any means possible. It’s not just about subsidies as you keep saying. Because subsidies are just a small part of what he is doing. It’s more about cancelling projects and refusing permits, so they can’t be built at all. If he is successful in stopping all renewables, where we will we get the electricity to meet rising demand over the next 5 years?
Maybe you will finally answer my question.
Ah, you’re right. I was getting ahead of myself. I should have done a quick search. But from the research you’re probably quoting, here’s a very important point:
IN TEXAS: Wind energy has required about 48 times more in subsidies than oil and gas per unit of electricity generated, while solar energy’s dependency is even higher, needing roughly 168 times more subsidies. This disparity highlights a fundamental issue: renewable energy, especially solar, struggles to remain competitive without substantial federal support.
I could care less what the WORLD & CHINA are doing with their capital as it relates to wind & solar. I care about the US & my electric & gas bills, as do most Americans.
YES, I ANSWERED YOUR 60GW QUESTION.
Here it is again for the last time:
Over the next 5-7 years, it’s going to come from the same sources that have been driving the supply: NG, solar, wind, coal, nuclear, biomass, etc.
As we approach the 10-year mark, things are going to start to change rapdily, IMHO. However, it’s my belief that between now & Jan 2029 solar & wind will have to figure out how to pay the cost that the federal government has been playing. And this makes sense, IMHO.
Solar takes vast swaths of land & requires 168 times more free money to survive. A similar untenable requirement can be applied to wind. For now, are these fantastic sources of energy? Yes absolutely and will continue to be so for a long time, until nuclear fusion kicks them to the curb.
Now, my prediction about solar does have a caveat. There may be an incredible breakthrough technology that, for example, doubles efficiency or makes it super inexpensive to put solar panels on just about anything with very long durability. Now if / when this happens, then solar will get a longer lifespan, and I’m not suggesting it’s going to go away. But it’s relevance will “probably” diminish over time.
BE THAT AS IT MAY, NUCLEAR NOT SOLAR OR WIND IS THE STRATEGIC LONG-TERM FUTURE POWER GENERATION TECHNOLGY FOR THE USA.
As your data above points out, 2025 still has most of the money going to solar & batteries. And that’s fine. We’re just going to see that 168 times go down. The grid obliviously will need hundreds of billions of dollars to be modernized. But in terms of the actual down the road power investment, it won’t even be close in 10 years’ time.
It’s a prediction, so there’s no tangible data, for now, to know if I’ll be right or wrong.
Cheers!
I suggest you look at another post I put on this thread. It shows the UNSUBSIDIZED cost of generating electricity using all sources. Solar and wind are the lowest cost.
Which is why I say; take away all energy subsidies and let each project stand on its own.
Now the fact that Texas took the subsidies is simply because it would be foolish to not take free money from the federal government. And ten years ago, it was more reasonable to subsidize renewables because they were more expensive back then.
But the costs have plummeted as the technology got better. Solar costs has decreased from a low of $140/MWH to today’s low of $38/MWH. Onshore wind has dropped from a low of $85 to today’s low of $30.
Subsidies are not needed.Which is why solar and wind will continue to dominate, unless Trump finds a way to stop them.
Which is why I say; take away all energy subsidies and let each project stand on its own.
Ah! Finally after 10 posts, we finally agree. No more federal subsidies for solar & wind which appears to be what Trump is trying to pull off, re-allocation of resources.
You are still confused and willingly blind. It isn’t just that Trump is stopping subsidies for renewables. He literally wants to stop the build out of ALL renewables. He is cancelling projects, revoking existing permits, refusing new permits and anything else he can think of to stop renewables completely. Odd that you keep avoiding admitting this. Why is that?
Which means almost no new electricity generation in the US other than from natural gas. Too bad the wait list for natural gas generators is 3 years long due to incredible demand all over the world. Why? Because natural gas generation is as cheap as renewables and everyone needs generators. And the companies making them can’t fill the demand.
Also, don’t forget; no subsidies for any energy; coal, nuclear, oil, SMRs, etc. The oil and gas industry worldwide gets $7 trillion in subsidies per year.
He is cancelling projects, revoking existing permits, refusing new permits and anything else he can think of to stop renewables completely.
Sources please and don’t quote me the two east coast offshore projects. I believe they are going to be completed.
I don’t pay attention to this like you do, but I will admit Trump’s administration is crazy, if they’re canceling permits. That’s a given. Solar & wind need to be deployed at scale up until the point nuclear is ready to take over.
I could be wrong, but I doubt this is the case. Looking forward to your reply with proof that NO NEW INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND & SOLAR WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE US UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AS YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING.
No, I am fully onboard with SMRs getting lots of federal funding over the next 10 years, at which point the support needs to go away. It’s a nescient industry just like solar & wind were 30 years ago.
Of course you doubt it. It doesn’t fit with your narrative. Here you go.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/08/20/trump-says-us-will-not-approve-solar-or-wind-power-projects.html
And I didn’t say “ NO NEW INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND & SOLAR WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE US UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AS YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING.”
I said Trump is doing everything he can to stop them. But I suspect many states will figure out ways to still get some wind and solar built because they are desperate for the power. Same for data centers.
For a guy claiming to be such an expert in energy and profiting from it, you are also not seeing the forest for the trees. Look who was in the Executive Office when the Orders were signed to streamline the NRC. The CEOs of CEG, OKLO, etc. Nothing beats nuclear in energy density; the NRC is being taken behind the shed for driving up the cost of nuclear. INL and DOE are fast tracking everything, including materials testing for TRISO fuel and other advanced designs. NuScale and TVA are aligned for 6GW. NuScale has TWO approved designs that are licensed now. BWXT is getting order after order. Westinghouse is building 10 GW in the US. And on and on. No one serious about energy security gives a rats about wind and solar. Batteries are managing grid voltage and can’t power a major city for any real timeframe. Tech Bros are paying, nuclear is being fast tracked like it was in the 70s and the DOE, national labs, and the utilities have their marching orders. No one is interested in intermittent power with capacity factors of less than 30 percent. You ain’t making chips or keeping data flowing with these garbage Chinese solar panels and windmills. Stop looking backwards. Nuclear and Gas will get rubber stamped the next four years while these intermittent technologies go in the ditch.
Yep. I know a fair bit about energy. And I know that nuclear (conventional or SMR) is too expensive. Which is why we haven’t been building very many of them.
We’ve been working on SMRs for 50 years now and we still can’t get them to be cost competitive.
Which is why we currently have zero commercial SMRs running in the US today. There are many companies that have been promising to produce their first operating “test” SMR “soon”. The dates keep being moved back. Let me know when one is actually up and running. Once that happens, then let me know how cost competitive it is.
Feel free to check out a couple of my other posts which describe how wind and solar will be the dominant new source of additional power for the next decade.
We still can’t get them to be cost competitive. Which is why we currently have zero commercial SMRs running in the US today.
That’s BS!!! The reason why we don’t have SMRs is because of the environmental lobby. Period. Full stop!.
There’s nothing fancy about most of the SMRs designs. When environmentalist turned politicians & public opinion away from nuclear, then the industry faced MASSIVE barriers to market entry & cost reductions.
If we had gone down the path of nuclear 40 years ago like we should have, we would have already driven down the cost of traditional nuclear power plants which would have then spurred interest into solving the major issue with widescale deployment:
Access to water, since modern light-water reactors are designed to use water for cooling
When this happened, SMR design & production would have taken root, mostly like by the year 2000.
Lol! What a dumb f*ck you are. Falling for all the cult nonsense.There are many countries working on SMRs. Like Russia and China. They would love to beat us in the race to develop efficient, and inexpensive SMRs. And they don’t have environmental groups stopping them.
Russia has been using smrs in ice breakers since the 1950s. They could have built tens of thousands of them and powered their entire country by now. But they haven’t. Why not? Not because of environmentalists. It’s because they are too expensive compared to other alternatives.
China has been working on SMRs since 2010. But they still only have one working test unit. And they are currently constructing 30 conventional nuclear reactors. Not SMRs. Why not SMRs? Same reasons as Russia. Not environmental.
The US has been using SMRs (or their equivalent) in navy subs and ships for close to 70 years now. We should have built enough of them by now to power the entire planet. But we haven’t because they are too expensive compared to the alternatives.
Dumb f*ck.
While the environmentalist in the early deployment of Gen IIIs did play a part in killing large nukes in death by regulations (frivolous lawsuits), they weren’t the only reason. TMI and Chernobyl were bigger reasons to stop us from deploying the 400 planned reactors, followed by Jimmy Carter’s horrible leadership. As a Rickover graduate, he knew better, but that is politics.
I agree with you on Russia, China, ice breakers, and our Navy. However, the military application is not an apples to apples comparison. You get to run a sub for 30 years on almost pure fissile material without refueling. Civilian designs are only now exploring HALEU and up to 20% enrichment types. I would also counter that China and Russia have said they will beat us in the nuclear race. Russia literally said last week they will help China overtake us. That means all reactor types and technologies. I do not believe the US and the tech companies took this statement lightly. Follow the money.
While there are some benefits to higher enrichment, we don’t even really need all that. NuScale’s design is the future and their deal with TVA will be first. They have two licenses (50MW and 77MW) and will deploy. ENTRA1 will build and since it can scale, the utility can better manage the risk. Existing light water that is mature is more than enough. Build to scale, build repetitively, cost comes down. This is the same argument wind and solar people were saying 15 years ago, but now say it when nuclear comes up. Double standard.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/tva-entra1-energy-team-up-for-smr-deployment
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/aalo-breaks-ground-for-experimental-reactor
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/x-energy-military-to-advance-microreactor-technology
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/work-starts-on-pele-microreactor-core
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/oklo-vertiv-team-up-on-data-centre-power-and-cooling
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/westinghouse-plans-ten-ap1000-reactors-in-the-usa
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/kairos-power-installs-third-test-unit-reactor-vessel
And on and on….this from 2 minutes of looking in one place. These aren’t pipe dreams. The DOE and DOD have been greenlit to use their approval process to permit instead of NRC. Outsiders like you who don’t actually work in this industry probably don’t know how significant that is with respect to timeframe reduction on reducing the regulatory burdens the NRC has plagued nuclear with.
If you think the new Energy Secretary doesn’t have serious pull with the current administration, you are wrong. Everything is being expedited under the national emergency clause for energy security. You think that has to do with cost competitiveness when you have the EOs and the loan guarantees from DOE and the streamlining of permitting?
This is before the tech companies throw their money in the pot, knowing the power will be there for the taking.
I respect your usual posts and perspectives that I see on this blog but I think on this one, you should reconsider your position on nuclear. This is happening, it has bipartisan support, and the current administration, the DOD, the DOE and the NRC are all moving faster than they ever have. To your usual points on this blog, you should see how you can profit from it, if you haven’t already. I have.
I am not “against” nuclear or any other energy source. I simply observe that they do not appear to be the primary answer to our growing need for more electricity.
In 2024, the entire world added 10GW of new nuclear generation. This increased the global total from 495 GW to 505 GW.
In 2024 the entire world added 452 GW of solar, and 113 GW of wind. That’s 565 GW of new supply in one year. More than the total of all nuclear over 70 years.
Facts are facts.
While there may be trading opportunities in SMR stocks, based on my observations, I do not consider them good long term investments. I could be wrong. I could miss the boat. I can live with that.
I also tried some renewable investments a few years back. Bought a few shares in each of 20 renewable companies. Just to be able to follow their progress. I think 12 went bust, 6 were stagnant and only 2 did reasonably well.
I still find better opportunities in those dirty old oil and gas stocks. An area that I know and understand pretty well. Too bad they aren’t environmentally friendly.
I have purchased SMR, LTBR and others. Accident Tolerant Fuel is almost licensed by multiple companies and assemblies are either in current reactors or have been pulled for final study. Once NRC licenses the winner, watch the price of nuclear insurance fall on utilities, boosting confidence in replacing even existing Gen III cores with an entire core of ATF.
I also keep positions in pipelines, oil and gas. Energy will never not make money.
Data centers are subject to drone attack.
Don’t sweat it. Your local utility will install smart meters in your home and initiate variable time-of-day rates. Then you can consult AI via data centers to know when to get up and do your laundry or turn on your furnace. Maybe midnight EST is best?
You’re probably not that far off reality.
But why should ‘initial’ inhabitants get to use the electricity solely for their own needs? Why restrict new users/businesses/consumers? If you want to use electricity whenever you want to do so, great. Just pay the ‘real’ cost.
BTW, I think AI is way overrated. I have turned off those automatic searches on my computer because I don’t want to waste anyone’s energy (even if the data center is not in my locality) for what it gives me 90% of the time
GPU paid for the plant on the back of taxpayers, Constellation (CEG) shut it down because it wasn’t profitable anymore based on renewable mandates and subsidies, and is now firing it back up, well after it was paid for, to give all the juice to MSFT who will gladly take all 800+ megawatts for 20 years. Didn’t see anybody complaining when CEG did what it said it would do if PA didn’t pay up for CEG producing the most reliable and clean energy PA has. Now you want the power to lower your bill? Those electrons kept PA bills low over decades and it was all good, but no one spoke up when intermittent sources were forced to be bought first on the market over nuclear. You can’t have it both ways. Either support the long view for stable, low cost energy that works in all conditions, or sit on the sidelines while your lawmakers sell you out for the party’s green dream.
Maybe the power producers are the investment of the future…not sure on the distributers though
I think I looked at global shitcoin mining elec costs and it took up the equivalent household electricity needs of MN, WI, IL, IA, NE, ND, SD and more yet it’s not useful or used by anyone I know for anything in their daily lives. Such a waste.
Now add in data centers.
And the destruction of domestic coal (while China quadrupled theirs as a bridge to massive renewable production).
Yeah, we’re headed for a showdown.
I use less and less and still pay more than ever.
Not just the bitcoin mining but block chain in general
Using this calculator, the breakeven point for bitcoin mining is about $0.12/kWhr. I just used the default values for the other parameters and adjusted the price of electricity
https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/calculator?h=390.00&p=7215.00&pc=0.115&pf=0.00&d=136039872848260.00000000&r=3.12500000&er=1&btcer=112066.37360000&ha=TH&hc=13699.00&hs=0&hq=1
Aren’t the electricity rates in many locations at or even higher than $12/kWhr?
(1) Feds / Government flood the economy with money.
(2) Trillions of dollars of this money end up on the balance sheets & capitalization of Tech firms
(3) With near infinite money at their disposal the Tech firms fund projects that gobble up anything and everything they want, including electricity, no matter the cost.
(4) Electricity rates skyrocket and the cost of everything increases. Inflation erodes the purchasing power of the consumer and the economy weakens.
(5) In response to the weaker economy the Feds / Government flood the economy with money ……
Imo its not the feds fault. I blame it on squarely on congress lack of a balanced budget for all these years.
Is there really a difference between the criminal and his willful enabler?
Don’t worry. The fed is going to lower rates regardless of future inflation. Taco will be happy. What else matters?