Yeah same. Both things are true and if we’re being honest, one more than the other.
The grid is ailing, but it is data centers pushing it over the edge. A newer and more robust grid wouldn’t be hurt by them. But without them the grid wouldn’t be failing. Be honest and draw the correct causal relationship.
Yep - this is the same BS marketing campaign the Chevron tried to (succeeded actually) pull of in the early 2000's WRT global warming. There's was energy. The campaigns were like "I will take the bus to work" or "I will use my hair drier less".
It's a deflection campaign - focusing consumer attention on a thing that is true (that won't cost them money) to divert attention from another thing that is true (that will cost them money and is their fault).
Both are true - and if they want to exploit a commons (the environment, the electrical grid), then they should pay for that exploit.
It’s entirely a self own that the US has to resort to consumer subsidies and fleecing AI companies instead of just building more (green) grid capacity. We are well past the point where green energy is cheaper than fossil energy, yet we are letting knuckledraggers like NIMBYs and degrowthers hold our society back.
i really have a hard time when people say things like this.
“a bullet to the heart didn’t kill him. his hearts inability to deflect the bullet killed him.”
Yeah same. Both things are true and if we’re being honest, one more than the other.
The grid is ailing, but it is data centers pushing it over the edge. A newer and more robust grid wouldn’t be hurt by them. But without them the grid wouldn’t be failing. Be honest and draw the correct causal relationship.
> “a bullet to the heart didn’t kill him. his hearts inability to deflect the bullet killed him.”
A pretty good analogy for the grid being killed by the data centers shot at it.
Just unfortunate for the grid, as fortune would say.
Yep - this is the same BS marketing campaign the Chevron tried to (succeeded actually) pull of in the early 2000's WRT global warming. There's was energy. The campaigns were like "I will take the bus to work" or "I will use my hair drier less".
It's a deflection campaign - focusing consumer attention on a thing that is true (that won't cost them money) to divert attention from another thing that is true (that will cost them money and is their fault).
Both are true - and if they want to exploit a commons (the environment, the electrical grid), then they should pay for that exploit.
"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."
It’s entirely a self own that the US has to resort to consumer subsidies and fleecing AI companies instead of just building more (green) grid capacity. We are well past the point where green energy is cheaper than fossil energy, yet we are letting knuckledraggers like NIMBYs and degrowthers hold our society back.
Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20260328135349/https://fortune.c...
Building a single nuclear reactor in fifty years has consequences.
ALARA has been a boat anchor worse than the Jones act