We're using plane engines to generate electricity and my residential bill is almost $0.20/kWh because we invested in chat bots instead of the infrastructure the chat bots need.

Make it make sense.

Natural gas turbines are pretty common (power plants, large on site/mobile generators) and the efficiency levels of these are the same as what you'd see in similar use cases. Turbines don't really care what they're doing (within reason), these just happen to share a lot of parts with a plane engine.

The cost issue is completely unrelated to supply or usage, there is a cyclic issue of power companies using their profits for lobbying in order to push through measures that allow them to further increase their rates. It is often far more than is publicly disclosed.

For example, last year in this state my power company made billions of dollars and claims they spent less than a million on political contributions. But if you look at their donations, grants, and development programs there is over a hundred million dollars mostly going to companies and nonprofits owned in part by the same politicians or their family members, as well as the municipalities where the policymakers live.

In my state the combined total of rate increases in the past five years for both electricity and natural gas is >1.5x compared to inflation. Each time it is framed in the press as a good thing "we reached a solid deal, for less than half as much of what they were asking!". Every year the profits exceed their expectations by a few percent, each year more people are having their power shut off.

Jealous sitting here in MA, where we pay $0.35/kWh and burn a ton of methane to get that.

I can rustle up some environmentalists and we can shutdown some more of the infrastructure. Shall I?

To quote one such government official:

> Sex is good but have you tried having your country shutting down its last nuclear power plants in 30 mn?