Makes it pretty clear generation capacity was never a real argument against EV adoption. We'll recycle rusty jet engines to get it done when there's real money on the line.
Utility monopolies have been raising rates, and profits, for a long while now, to the point where making you own power is cheaper. On average, 15 cents per dollar directly into profit [1].
This is off-topic and I'm no fan of xAI or any company circumventing rules to allow them to use dirty energy sources.
That said.
> Normally, that would be enough to keep around 15,000 homes up and running.
Am I the only one who finds this kind of comparison meaningless? Like it's supposed invoke a feeling of "15K homes worth of power! How absurd that a data center use that much!" but that kind of how all centralized things work. That datacenter does work for, one would assume, way more than just 15K homes and if those homes wanted the same "work" output they'd use the same, or most likely, more energy to accomplish the same thing.
In many/most cases they aren't using electricity just to use it, they are using it because people are paying them for the output. With economies of scale I would guess a datacenter is many times more efficient than if we were all running local models at home.
Again, not an argument for data centers as much as I find this comparison always pointless.
As always, remind yourself: "the outrage is the product". The entire point of slotting something like that in is to get eyeballs and produce outrage on tap. It's the new dopamine. Justified or not is irrelevant, what matters is to have a talking about you can use to rile things up, no matter how pointless it is.
Makes it pretty clear generation capacity was never a real argument against EV adoption. We'll recycle rusty jet engines to get it done when there's real money on the line.
Utility monopolies have been raising rates, and profits, for a long while now, to the point where making you own power is cheaper. On average, 15 cents per dollar directly into profit [1].
[1] https://energyandpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Payin...
This is off-topic and I'm no fan of xAI or any company circumventing rules to allow them to use dirty energy sources.
That said.
> Normally, that would be enough to keep around 15,000 homes up and running.
Am I the only one who finds this kind of comparison meaningless? Like it's supposed invoke a feeling of "15K homes worth of power! How absurd that a data center use that much!" but that kind of how all centralized things work. That datacenter does work for, one would assume, way more than just 15K homes and if those homes wanted the same "work" output they'd use the same, or most likely, more energy to accomplish the same thing.
In many/most cases they aren't using electricity just to use it, they are using it because people are paying them for the output. With economies of scale I would guess a datacenter is many times more efficient than if we were all running local models at home.
Again, not an argument for data centers as much as I find this comparison always pointless.
As always, remind yourself: "the outrage is the product". The entire point of slotting something like that in is to get eyeballs and produce outrage on tap. It's the new dopamine. Justified or not is irrelevant, what matters is to have a talking about you can use to rile things up, no matter how pointless it is.