←back to thread

The AI Investment Boom

(www.apricitas.io)
271 points m-hodges | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source | bottom
Show context
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.41896346[source]
Reading this makes me willing to bet that this capital intensive investment boom will be similar to other enormous capital investment booms in US history, such as the laying of the railroads in the 1800s, the proliferation of car companies in the early 1900s, and the telecom fiber boom in the late 1900s. In all of these cases there was an enormous infrastructure (over) build out, followed by a crash where nearly all the companies in the industry ended up in bankruptcy, but then that original infrastructure build out had huge benefits for the economy and society as that infrastructure was "soaked up" in the subsequent years. E.g. think of all the telecom investment and subsequent bankruptcies in the late 90s/early 00s, but then all that dark fiber that was laid was eventually lit up and allowed for the explosion of high quality multimedia growth (e.g. Netflix and the like).

I think that will happen here. I think your average investor who's currently paying for all these advanced chips, data centers and energy supplies will walk away sorely disappointed, but this investment will yield huge dividends down the road. Heck, I think the energy investment alone will end up accelerating the switch away from fossil fuels, despite AI often being portrayed as a giant climate warming energy hog (which I'm not really disputing, but now that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, I believe this huge, well-funded demand will accelerate the growth of non-carbon energy sources).

replies(21): >>41896376 #>>41896426 #>>41896447 #>>41896726 #>>41898086 #>>41898206 #>>41898291 #>>41898436 #>>41898540 #>>41899659 #>>41900309 #>>41900633 #>>41903200 #>>41903363 #>>41903416 #>>41903838 #>>41903917 #>>41904566 #>>41905630 #>>41905809 #>>41906189 #
ben_w ◴[] No.41898086[source]
> but now that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, I believe this huge, well-funded demand will accelerate the growth of non-carbon energy sources

I think the renewables would have been built at the same rate anyway precisely because they're so cheap; but nuclear power, being expensive, would not be built if this bubble had not happened, and somehow nuclear does seem to be getting some of this money.

replies(3): >>41898253 #>>41898260 #>>41903672 #
synergy20 ◴[] No.41898260[source]
based on my reading nuclear power is much cheaper overall compared to wind solar etc?
replies(2): >>41898377 #>>41898565 #
1. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.41898565[source]
Not at all. Old paid of nuclear plants are competitive but new builds are insanely expensive leading to $140-220/MWh prices for the ratepayers before factoring in grid stability and transmission costs.[1]

The US has zero commercial reactors under construction and this is for one reason: economics.

The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding.

They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines. [2]

[1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

[2]: https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-...

replies(2): >>41898819 #>>41899855 #
2. floren ◴[] No.41898819[source]
> leading to $140-220/MWh prices for the ratepayers

I'm on PG&E, I wish I could get my electricity for only $0.14/kWh

replies(1): >>41898926 #
3. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.41898926[source]
That cost is excluding grid stability and transmission costs.

From what I’ve understood PG&E’s largest problem is the massive payouts and infrastructure upgrades needed from the wildfires, not the cost of the electricity itself.

replies(1): >>41911465 #
4. synergy20 ◴[] No.41899855[source]
Thanks! I always thought it is due to people's safety concerns here instead of economic reasons. After all, nuclear plant is quite 'popular' in Europe, and China too these days.
replies(2): >>41900266 #>>41903154 #
5. dalyons ◴[] No.41900266[source]
It’s not popular in Europe at all.
replies(1): >>41900320 #
6. synergy20 ◴[] No.41900320{3}[source]
France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy.

For Europe overall is 22%.

replies(1): >>41903810 #
7. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.41903154[source]
We built a lot of nuclear back in the 70s and 80s which we still rely on with long term operation upgrades.

For modern nuclear power the only nuclear reactor under construction in France is Flamanville 3 which is 6x over budget and 12 years late on a 6 year construction timeline.

Hinkley Point C in the UK is in a similar quagmire and Olkiluoto 3 finally got finished last year after a near 20 year construction timeline.

Politically there's some noise from conservative politicians who can't hold a climate change denial position anymore, but still need to be contrarians.

The problem is the horrendous economics.

8. rsynnott ◴[] No.41903810{4}[source]
That French capacity was largely built a long time ago, though. Only a couple of nuclear plants have been built on Europe in the last decade, and they've generally overrun _horribly_ on costs.
9. RF_Savage ◴[] No.41911465{3}[source]
Ain't that a direct result of them not investing in their infra for decades and all that technical debt catching up to them?