zlacker

Mostly benefiting the fossil fuel industry. How are they going to power this? Gas is the only option that can be implemented within single years. And this is going to need a lot of power.

Who cares about the planet, anyway.

>>jwr+(OP)
Trump just rescinded licenses for offshore wind farms via an EO. We're fucking cooked (and I mean this literally)

>>jwr+(OP)
For $500bn they can build a nuclear power plant dedicated to these data centres

>>andrep+14
Before downvoting the OP and, for more information, see:

https://apnews.com/article/wind-energy-offshore-turbines-tru...

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-offshore-wind-leasing...

>>second+i7
They can build a couple. With nuclear money is rarely the issue. It is that it takes forever because reasons.

>>Reptil+M9
It's not like the current admin respects the rule of law anyways...

>>jwr+(OP)
There probably will be a clause of mandatory consumption of a given percentage of power generated from coal ensuring continued coal generation of a given minimum providing excellent talking-points for broadcasting to the incumbent's base.

>>jwr+(OP)
> Who cares about the planet, anyway.

Maybe at some point they are going to AI themselves out of climate change. Well.. except for the part where they don’t believe in man-escalated climate change.

>>second+i7
Ah so it's commissioned in 2040 and renewables already made it obsolete.

>>andrep+14
> Offshore wind is among the sources of new power generation that will cost the most, at about $100 per megawatt hour for new projects connecting to the grid in 2028, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration. That includes tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, which reduces the cost of renewable technologies. But onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources, at about $31 on average for new projects.

I mean, I can see how numbers wise this decision makes sense.