| ▲ | anubistheta 4 hours ago |
| It's important to ground the increase in raw numbers. The total revenue for electricity generation was $514b in 2024. So this was a 4-5% increase in costs. And if it is being invested in better generation and our aging infrastructure, that seems fine. |
|
| ▲ | khriss 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Sure, but why should regular people pay for the upgrades needed to power data centers? The tech companies can surely afford that easily given their record profits for the past decade? |
| |
| ▲ | fsckboy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | supply and demand. there is more demand, prices go up, the market allocates, it's the best way, no other way comes close to making the overall price level to be as cheap as possible. | |
| ▲ | mlindner 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Forcing all costs on to new entrants in a market is generally a bad thing for the market and causes it to not expand fast enough. Also they may just choose to not participate in the market at all. I.e they'll bring in a whole lot of natural gas generators, put them in the parking lot and call it good, which is not a good thing long term. | | |
| ▲ | SOLAR_FIELDS 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would any reasonable governing entity (I understand we live in a world where there are not many of these) allow you to run a bunch of natural gas generators in a parking lot? | | | |
| ▲ | gravypod 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Forcing all costs into externalities is also not ideal. Right now, some state's systems, force residential consumers to pay for new infrastructure for new demand while only minimal costs are paid by the new customer. | | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | blackqueeriroh an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because they like shopping on Amazon and watching Netflix? | | |
| ▲ | raydev 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Consumers are already paying Amazon and Netflix directly. | |
| ▲ | beepbooptheory 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | But like, just hypothetically here, what if they don't? Isn't that the framing here? Like, don't get me wrong, if we want to start talking about more centralized organization of the economy that operates on the calculated total benefit it provides to people in general, I am personally all for that. But something tells me that is not quite the argument you are wanting to make here, right? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The fact they gave a raw number instead of a percent of a quantity that is a change hinted that this was the case. $23B is more impressive than 4%. |
| |
|
| ▲ | pibaker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So this was a 4-5% increase in costs …spread over an entire country. I can't find anything breakdown in the article. But from what I have heard, you either live somewhere with a high concentration of new data centers and see a massive price increase of as much as 50%, or more likely you don't see any increase at all. |
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | stevelini 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> if it is being invested in better generation and our aging infrastructure If. |
|
| ▲ | Sparkle-san 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's 4-5% increase when averaged out across the population. Some have personally faced much larger increases. |
