Essay by Eric Worrall
“… China is outstripping America in constructing new capacity, adding 429 GW in 2024 compared with just 51 GW achieved by the land of the free. …”
OpenAI tells Trump to build more power plants or China wins the AI arms race
‘Electrons are the new oil,’ ChatGPT maker claims, demanding 100 GW per year
Dan Robinson
Tue 28 Oct 2025 // 17:20 UTCOpenAI wants the Trump administration to build 100 gigawatts of additional electricity generation capacity per annum to avoid the US being overtaken by China in the AI arms race.
The highly-valued generative AI biz says electricity is “a strategic asset” critical to building the AI infrastructure that will secure US leadership on “the most consequential technology since electricity itself.”
However, China is outstripping America in constructing new capacity, adding 429 GW in 2024 compared with just 51 GW achieved by the land of the free.
…
“We believe the Trump Administration should work with the private sector on an ambitious national project to build 100 gigawatts a year of new energy capacity,” OpenAI says.
…In related news, Google signed a deal with NextEra Energy to restart Iowa’s Duane Arnold Energy Center, the state’s only nuclear plant. Once operational — expected in early 2029 — Google will purchase power from the 615 MW facility as a carbon-free energy source for its cloud and AI infrastructure. The company says the move may also strengthen local grid reliability.
…
Read more: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/28/openai_100gw_power_demand/
This is nothing short of a Silicon Valley capitulation to the MAGA agenda. To save their skins, big tech traded their climate virtue for continued global relevance.
The remnants of their former green allegiance are still showing through, for now at least they are restarting old nuclear plants when they can, and flinging money at speculative nuclear fusion startups, rather than focusing all their resources on coal and gas. But fusion is still decades away, and they are running out of old nuclear plants to recommission.
As Facebook’s recent commissioning of a new 2GW gas plant demonstrates, access to affordable energy is now more important to big tech than climate virtue.
One thing is clear, we are now in a new winner takes all AI cold war with China, with battle fronts in commerce, industry, political influence and military technology. The AI Military Industrial Complex is rapidly dominating the global agenda. The green movement is finished, along with any political party or group which promotes green virtue over easy access to cheap energy.
For years big tech social media gatekeepers punished conservatives and climate skeptics, and did their best to bury any narrative which undermined radical left wing causes like climate action, but for now that situation is reversed. Big tech needs us to secure their affordable energy supply lines. I can’t imagine big tech search and social media allowing the rise of any narrative which impedes their dash for energy, which they desperately need to fend off Asian AI rivals.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hot or cold — subsidize it or choke it — what a stupid way to do anything. The best way is to just get out of the way. Unfortunately, because 2029 continued support isn’t guaranteed, no private business wants to take the risk, so they come begging to Uncle Sugar.
What a mess. Government makes a mess of everything it touches.
So true
Not just everything it touches, but everything it thinks about touching. As you point out, the mere fact that the next Democrat administration might resume the resume the effort to ban fossil fuels is enough to keep sane people from investing in the industry.
I’m from the government and I am here to help.
Run away! Run away! Run away!
You can’t run AI on intermittent Wind and Solar … and China knows that which is why they began installing 94GW of Coal in 2024. The US, through the Obama/Biden years, has been neutered on reliable FF energy and forced to install unreliable Wind and Solar (which doesn’t work for AI and China knows it). No Coal, No Nuclear and little Gas which offers the reliability AI needs. The only way for the US to outstrip China in the AI game is to install far more reliable FF generation AND Nuclear Generation.
Ask Germany 😁🤗
If Germany may have some lack of electricity, they just built up some new windmills, or solar panels.
So AI and Germany is an oxymoron, same as NI (natural intelligence) and Gernany. QED 😂🤣
“However, China is outstripping America in constructing new capacity, adding 429 GW in 2024″
Yes. But Google tells me how they did it:
“In 2024, China’s new energy generation was overwhelmingly dominated by solar and wind power, which together accounted for 83% of the record-breaking 429 GW of new capacity added to the grid.”
Ai doesn’t run on non intermittent energy, same as most other industrial processes
Eric,
Your article is telling us that China is outstripping US in power addition, and thus threatens to overtake the US in the AI arms race. Here (source) is more detail on what they did to create that danger:
If Renewables are “All That” then why is China adding another 94GW of Coal Capacity this year?
?
In short, they Firm Up unreliable generation with reliable Coal.
And that 94GW of coal will almost certain produce more usable electricity, when needed, that all that wasted wind and solar capacity.
In 2024 the US consumed 4,101TWh of electricity while China consumed 9,852TWh more than twice the US production and emitted 32% Global CO2 emission load. In 2025 China is set to emit more than 34% of total global emissions. Why is the biggest emitter treated as a Climate Hero while the rest of the developed nations are expected to genuflect to them as Climate Subjugates?
Socialist CO2 good.
Capitalist CO2 bad.
OMG I forgot all about that particular point of fact.
China also built a city no one lives in, and a virus that was supposed to empty more. It is not surprising they waste resources on other things that don’t work.
How much electricity did each of these sources produce?
Hmmm, I wonder what percentage of their Nameplate was achieved by source.
They may have installed 277GW of Solar but it won’t produce more than 54-55GW per hour for 4 hours a day. Solar requires MASSIVE over building to stand a chance of producing anything near 100% of combined nameplate of 20% of installed capacity
Oil, gas, coal provide almost 80% of all electricity to China
Climate Energy Finance Org. does not sound like an energy / engineering / science organization.
Fossil fuels FAR out perform wind and solar in China
2024 wind and solar were still below 10% of China’s energy supply
Coal above 50%
I just try to imagine, what AI answers at sunset, ‘I’ll give you the answer tomorrow after sunrise, I’m just out of power in 5 minutes’
When capacity factor is taken into, the newly added conventional generation will likely generate as much energy per year as the the newly added wind and solar.
Then the Chinese are not such a threat?
They know about capacity factor.
Or they are just putting out numbers for the useful idiots to run with.
One of those useful idiots is posting on this site today.
It was WUWT that quoted the 429 GW figure, saying that it threatens to leave the US behind in the AI race. I just point out whta the components are.
As you have shown, a large proportion of the 429GW is totally useless for AI.
You can’t do this with wind and solar….
My comment had nothing to do with whether the Chinese are or are not a threat. My point was when dealing with intermittent sources of electric power the amount of electrical energy generated by intermittent vs dispatchable generation will be quite different than what is suggested by installed nameplate capacity.
One could use wind/solar to power AI servers if one is willing to power down the servers during dark and windless periods. That would involve buying more processors to get the same throughput.
“My point was …”
Then take it up with WUWT. They cited the 429 GW figure, to say that China threatened to overtake the US in AI. I just point out the components of that figure.
In what way do you think a nation of over a billion people comprises a “threat”? Why are you scared?
If THAT needs to be explained to you, you’ll never see or choose to
believe it!
So you’ve just realised you don’t know why you’re scared, is that it? Ignorant, gullible – or just stupid?
Do you look in the Mirror much?
Or simply suffer from Psychological Projection??
Communism is the threat. Over 100 million people murdered as “a threat to the collective” in 100 years.
It really doesn’t get more threatening than that.
If you are terrified of becoming converted to Communism, maybe you embrace National Socialism. The National Socialists in Germany didn’t like Communism, either. They managed to exterminate around 27 Million Russians during World War 2.
Or do you prefer a Government which assassinates, tortures, attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments, murders people in international waters without benefit of trial, supports genocidal governments and dictators, but only manages to exterminate less than half a million people a year internally through allowing preventable medical mistakes to continue unabated?
As Winston Churchill said –
And life goes on. Live in fear if you wish.
The longest running governments are all Monarchies
Japan since 660 BCE
Britain since 871CE
Norway since 872CE
Denmark since 900CE
Sweden since 970CE
Longest running communist countries
Russia 1917 – 1991 … 74 years
Korea 1948 – now … 77 years
China 1949 – now … 76 years
Viet Nam Rooted in 1945 but officially 1976 – now … (80) 49 years
Cuba 1965 – now … 60 years
Laos 1975 – now … 50 years
25 other countries with Failed Communist Governments
20 former Russian States with failed Communist Governments now independent not Communist
Communism has ultimately failed in 45 of 50 countries where it has been tried.
Constitutional Democratic Republics on the other hand…
San Marino Founded in 301CE and officially constitutional since 1600 … 425 years
United States 1789 – now … 236 years
Switzerland 1848 – now … 177 years
New Zealand 1852 – now … 173 years
And functioning in 72 other countries.
Communism, good or bad, simply hasn’t been made to work anywhere it has been tried and only remains in 5 countries over 80 years while Constitutional Democratic Republics have flourished for over 425 years and function well when Communist states don’t try to interfere.
Well, even longer if you include democracies like Ancient Greece and Rome. England flirted with democracy under Cromwell, but came to its senses, and reverted to a monarchy. Not the only one, either.
Seeing that communism is a fairly recent -ism, it’s not altogether surprising that Communist governments (in the Marx-Engels sense), haven’t been around long. Communal living, on the other hand, has existed for thousands of years.
No system “works” indefinitely. The form of government you prefer is a matter of personal choice – like religious faith, or fashion.
As I’ve mentioned before, it’s curious that officially “Communist” China seems to be practising unbridled Capitalism to a degree. There are supposedly more than 1400 billionaires in China, which is not bad, considering that under Mao Tse Tung there were none at all.
Do you think those cunning and devious Orientals stole their money making ideas from poor downtrodden American workers?
Who cares? Not me – I have no desire for anything other than a quiet life, so I’ll stay where I am. China and the US will have to get along without me. I’m sure both countries will manage.
It isn’t simply that Communism hasn’t been around long it’s more important that it has Failed 45 out of 50 times it was tried. Currently a 90% failure rate and all in less than 80 years…so far.
Hahahagaga…solar/wind on the front lawn, 24/7 coal at maximum output in the backyard…that’s China.
Nick you are truely amongst the most clue and brainless parrot that is out there. I wonder if your own reflection in the mirror shakes it’s head when it sees you…it certainly has more brains than you.
Google’s true name is Foolgle
Google has an agreement with the UN to promote UN climate articles ahead of everything else. Fact.
Yes, little Nikki, China and India are building coal fired electric generation plants faster than anyone else on the planet. Glad you pointed that out. Oh, wait, you just repeated lies, yet again, about windmills and solar.
At least that is what they publicly claim.
As opposed to what they claim in secret, I suppose, which you wouldn’t know because it is – secret!
Do you actually bother to think before you start pounding your keyboard? Or are you trying to be humorous on purpose?
China, over the next 20 years, at current rates is scheduled to add more net nuclear generation than solar. The solar domestic installations died a permanent expansion death June 1, 2025 when feed in tariffs ended. Based on the rate of solar additions for June, July, August and September a reasonable projection for 2026 and beyond for the next 20 years is 100 GW/year x 20% capacity factor=20x100x0.20=40GW. Turn out the (solar) lights, the party is over.
Copilot
Here’s what the latest data and projections indicate about China’s nuclear power expansion:
Current Status
Near-Term Additions
Medium- to Long-Term Targets
Now that China have that small modular pebble bed reactor technology working efficiently and safely,
..it is only be a matter of time before they are running a lot of it.
Just use multiples of the one design to get what ever output they want.
China is doing it right in building dozens of nuclear plants, based on American Westinghouse technology, bought at auction by Toshiba and licensed to China. Punitive regulations destroyed the American nuclear power industry. Now, we must build from scratch. The Clintons, among others, were in on this theft, and even sold our uranium in our ground!
I believe the first nuclear power station connected to a grid was Russian. The first commercial nuclear power station was British.
Maybe the US stole the IP from the Russians or the British? <g>
Much ado about nothing. If you don’t want your IP to be stolen, you should have protected it better. Surely you are smarter than the thieves?
Fascinating theory you got there. If anything is stolen, it’s your fault for not protecting it better.
You know, the only people I have ever heard spout that philosophy, were all behind bars at the time.
I will remember your words on reading about the latest data breach.
The “funny” thing is that those Open AI guys are most likely green AGW fagots,
who, just like google,
would have never ever asked for a single watt of more energy for Americans,
let alone the nuclear way as google does,
but as soon as it is for their own purpose – here they are, pretending they want to outcompete china(ain’t that racist by lefty standards).
They didn’t mind when the manufacturing could not compete with China,
but as soon as it is about a pillar of future globalism they are all in it.
(my guess is they will get what they want as the AI is just 50% of what’s really going on
as the other 50% are for the energy needs of the military industrial complex, but that’s not something people are willing to go along with )
Electricity is not “a strategic asset.” The ability to generate electricity on demand is a strategic asset. That is a very different capability.
Of course they would. “Work with” is a synonym for “subsidise” – the private sector will take the profits, the taxpayers will absorb the losses.
Obviously the AI companies are incompetent, and cannot stay in business without government subsidies. Whatever happened to capitalism and free enterprise?
Whatever happened to capitalism and free enterprise?
Clinton-Gore
Obama-Biden
Biden-Harris
You left out both Bush presidencies. Full conservative in their speeches, full socialist in their programs. The Clinton presidency was actually to the right of the Bush’s, thanks to the leadership of the House led by Gingrich.
Thanks. I need to read up on the war-mongering Bushes.
AI…the next artificial hype and bubble…I would rather focus on the old fashioned brain and hands, those even work if someone “accidentally” trips over the power cord all overated AI is plugged into 😉.
Old fashioned sarcasm
I work with AI, there’s a l lot of fools being separated from their money right now, but AI is real.
Beside the probably fact, that search engines may use AI, I personally never used AI ’til now. I use my brain, important things are burned in there, and I use my capability of logical thinking.
But as I’m retired I’m not obliged to work somewhere or somewhat. Therefor the need of AI is zero.
“A.I.” is mostly –
“Aggregated Imputations” so far.
If you limit the sources, then any AI queries are biased to the views of those who limit the sources.
Open AI based on all sources
I’ve only used the ones that are optionally appended to common browsers.
They all seem to give Wikipedia a thorough workout for info / references.
Pass!
Maybe it would be a good plan to start teaching our kids HOW to think rather than WHAT to think.
Let them have it. Let them drink deeply from that poisoned chalice.
The green movement has a tiger by the tail
“It is very easy to fool people but difficult to
convince them that they HAVE been fooled!”
Mark Twain
They aren’t going to go quietly into the night.
But go they will-but not until alot of grief, blackouts, and probably death occurs first…and finally, hopefully, the sheep wake up.
It is easy to manufacture pitch forks and torches…. when the time comes.
It’s worse than that, of course, as the American civil population is estimated to own half a billion guns.
I may have said that wrong. “It’s better than that….”
🙂
At least one consumer item which is unlikely to have been made in China.They obviously were unable to steal the intellectual property of the American gunmakers.
I have a few of those things myself
How about firing up coal plants which are now on standby, and used only during emergencies and instead running them full-time, plus re-starting coal plants which are sitting idle, waiting to become expensive grid-destroying solar and battery installations.
America needs more renewable energy! Gas, coal, oil, hydro and nuclear are the ONLY renewable energy sources and we need more of all of them.
Nice play on the word renewable, even it it is the according to Oxford. 🙂
typo
even if it is not the definition according to Oxford.
They are, in fact, the only renewable energy sources. Oh, and wood, of course. Windmills and solar panels are nothing more than dead end failures.
We are on the cusp of Skynet with AI-enhanced killer drones roaming the landscape looking for targets. And some analysts worry we aren’t advancing killer drones fast enough: if we don’t make them by the millions Russia, China and North Korea will.
Absolutely true – but abandoning the field of battle because you don’t like this new kind of mechanised warfare doesn’t lead to a happy outcome for anyone you care about.
What scares me is those killer drones imbued with artificial intelligence will be directed by politicians imbued with natural stupidity.
Except for those areas that installed wind and solar, the US is a country that is already electrified. China one the other hand is still largely agrarian and there are large sections that are barely electrified.
China ceased to be an agrarian land 20 years ago. Now, the Chinese urban population fraction is approaching that of the USA.
The US government shouldn’t subsidize AI, any more than it should be subsidizing Ruinables. The only exception is with coal, due to the fact that the government waged a war on the coal industry, so now it needs to take responsibility for building coal back up again.
10 nuclear plants, each with two 1000 MW reactors, each year
10 coal plants, each with three 600 MW units, each year
NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
By Willem Post
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Year 1 Cost
O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Coal = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Total = 1.130 b
Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b
Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh
Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
Nuclear Plant Construction cost comparisons
.
Recent studies and reports highlight the dramatic cost difference in newly completed projects:
.
Historical trends
.
A visualization based on a recent Nature study shows the divergent paths of nuclear construction costs since the 1970s:
.
Factors driving the cost difference
.
Several factors contribute to China’s ability to build reactors faster and cheaper:
After all the hoopla and selective reporting China still grew their fossil fuel use beyond what the ROW cut back and remain the largest user of fossil fuels in the world and steadily increasing.
New adage: Just because it’s AI that doesn’t mean it’s not biased.
Not only biased:
AI and Hallucinations: Why Are So Many Answers Wrong?
It is known that AI hallucinates and makes mistakes. It is also known that AI providers have no solution for the problem. A new study by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) now shows how many answers are simply wrong when it comes to news. According to the study, every third answer from common chatbots contains errors. The reasons for this are varied, but they all have in common that there is currently no solution for them.
Disclaimer for Google AI –
What’s the use of AI, then? Any point in asking what mistakes it’s making?
All depends on the sources on which AI answers are based
Maybe, maybe not. If one source says “it’s black” and the other source says “it’s white”, what the AI bot supposed to do? And usually, there’s just different shades of gray.
Of course the answer lies deep within its programming, not to be revealed to the public: why, it just follows it’s programmer(s) BIAS to “distinguish” (hah!) good data from bad data (aka, truth from fiction) because its only other option would be to judge the credibility of different information sources based on the current “popularity” of the various answers . . . and anybody with an IQ above room temperature knows the problems with doing THAT!
It’s amazing how AI came along with its massive energy needs and in a blink they just dropped ‘climate.’
https://x.com/feelsdesperate/status/1983377063789658583
waiting for the other shoe to fall.
aka expect the unexpected
there will be unintended consequences. what those are are not known at this time.
For the record, I support reducing reliance of WTG and WV to niche applications and/or minor supplements to the grid.
Coal, hydrocarbons, hydro-electric, and nuclear are the path forward until new technology provides us with equivalent or better systems.
Are you talking about those “unknown unknowns”?
— tip of the hat to Donald Rumsfeld
In this case we know there will be unintended consequences, but not what they are.
That is different than unknown unknowns.
It’s apparent that you missed the sarcasm in my post, but by all means please explain the exact meaning of “unknown unknowns” and how those are different from just plain, simple “unknowns”.
Dan Yurman of the Neutron Bytes nuclear news blog asks the question, what happens if the AI boom is a bust?
OPINION – What Future for SMRs if the AI Boom is a Bubble? (Neutron Bytes, October 19th 2025)
Harping on the topic of what the AI promoters are really up to — what they are actually doing, and why — for me personally, Yurman’s article is another piece of evidence that the big AI data center corporations are locking up access to new-build gas-fired and reactivated nuclear capacity because they believe the electricity itself will become the most valuable product of their investment.
At some point in the future, these AI firms will be selling their access rights to the new-build and reactivated generation capacity at a considerable profit. Or become power marketers themselves, if our electricity regulators allow it.
What about the capital costs of nuclear?
How to reduce the capital cost of nuclear is an exceptionally complex topic. Just how complex that topic can be is explained in this JohnS substack article from January 2025 which looks at costs of building First of a Kind (FOAK) versus Nth of a kind (NOAK) nuclear plants:
How the US can make nuclear energy cheap again (January 2025)
JohnS says in his article:
“To dramatically lower the cost of building a new reactor design, we have a paradox – we have to build many versions of it, but no one wants to build the next few because the cost will be substantially higher than the NOAK cost. For most products, companies can afford to lose money on their new product until they reach N-th of a kind (NOAK). It’s an expected cost of doing business. But in the case of nuclear energy this cost is too high. “
The claim made by many that simply by eliminating most of the NRC’s regulations, we can substantially reduce the capital cost of nuclear enough to make it competitive with gas-fired generation — that claim is complete nonsense.
Here in the United States, the capital cost for new-build nuclear for both SMR’s and for AP1000-size large reactors is currently running at approximately $18,000 USD per kw. Capital cost for new-build gas-fired generation is now running at $2,000 to $2,500 USD per kw.
Recent cost studies claim that the capital cost of nuclear for both SMR’s and for the large AP1000-size reactors can eventually be reduced to $7,000 per kw, maybe even less than that. But only if somewhere between ten and twenty firm orders for each reactor type are on the books so that production volumes can reduce unit costs for the various subsystems needed for each reactor type.
A socialized approach to constructing and operating nuclear energy, as was implemented in France in the late 1970’s, is a total anathema to free market energy advocates.
IMHO, only the federal and state governments have the financial resources needed to place an initial ten or twenty firm orders for each reactor type with the reactor vendors, either SMR-size or AP1000-size.
Which means that reestablishing the nuclear construction industrial base in the US at its most efficient production rate is strictly a public policy decision which will require a socialized energy market approach to building additional nuclear capacity.
Slow down. I don’t put much stock in big tech talk, just a year or two ago big tech was pushing wind, solar and storage. How did that work out? The US should build the generating facilities that we need but only ones that work. Wind, solar and storage don’t work, stop pissing away our time, money and resources on stuff that doesn’t work. Big tech has lots of money, they need to put their money where their mouth is. One more thing name plate is meaningless, wind and solar have showed us that, the thing that matters is how much energy will actually be produced. I wouldn’t care if China built thousands of gigawatts of generation so long as it was wind, solar and storage. Can’t think of a better country to waste their time, money and resources away than China. Go for it boys.
Just why should the Government be building power plants? Can’t private industry, or regulated utilities do it, and do it better? Why, oh why, is it always assumed that the Government has to do things?
Because government is now your mommy and daddy, dictating your morals and just waiting to provide you with more stuff.