[noosphr]

The power bill going up is because the US, and the West in general, bet on renewables and a low energy future.

Neither of those things turn out to be a good fit for the new economy. The only thing left for people who derided nuclear for the last 40 years is to hope this is a bubble that sends us back to the 17th century when it pops. Anything else means we have to invest trillions in nuclear right now.

[DavidPiper]

Genuine question from a non-American: What is "the new economy"?

[noosphr]

Malthusianism for computers.

Moore's law is dead. The only way to increase compute is to increase the power we feed to computers. AI is just the shiniest example. Everything else will follow suit until electricity costs increase enough that it doesn't make sense to throw any more computation at it.

Any country that doesn't have energy to spare will be in the position of countries which didn't have food to support armies before the industrial revolution.

[fooker]

Interesting point. I can see this could turn out to be true.

If we needed, for example, 1000 TWH to power AI for a huge drone swarm but could not do it while China could, this would be problematic.

It requires a future where MAD with nuclear weapons is obsolete though, with some futuristic new missile defense tech. I don't see that happening until some currently unknown physics makes it possible.

[jimbob45]

What’s your beef with solar? Both parties seem to like it just fine, despite it not covering as much of the total demand as anyone would like.

[noosphr]

Both parties like it better because it turns the electricity market into another casino that lets you take billions from the parts of the economy that do things.

I worked as a quant in the electric market. There wasn't a single dataset I saw where more renewables resulted in lower total costs for consumers.

[Drblessing]

The amount of money being invested in AI should've been invested into nuclear, both fusion and fission. The AI bubble will burst, but the energy bubble never bursts.