Not a defense of the indefensible, but the 400k/year job is probably after stock grants(mine at Apple def. was). In cash it was probably substantially less, and living near Google campus is _very_ expensive

Are we sure that Nvidia isn’t doing mark-to-market, and booking future sales as current profit?

If I were doing it, I would do multiple substations and bring them online in phases over time. You’re not going to get 1GW from a single grid connection anyway(you’ll congest upstream substations); better to pull from multiple independent grid ties.

There are two main factors: transformer build time, and interconnection. Planning a (much smaller) substation in the past, we assumed 12-24 months for transformers, and 12-48 months for interconnect--it takes a long time to run new transmission, and 1GW will need a bigger wire than 200MW will.

It’s the maximum power required by the entire facility at any moment during a single year. It originated from power providers who use it to plan transmission and generating capacity.

It’s almost certainly being misused by techbros who don’t actually understand what they are doing or why.

When the AI bubble burst, a lot of hard asset companies will feel the effects: datacenter operators, construction firms, and power utilities have all hitched their wagon to a continued, never-ending growth in AI. And when the AI fails, all these other companies are going to start eating it. Hard.

We switched from a gas-fired furnace to an air-source heat pump with electric backup last year, and my winter-time humidity was higher, but not by a huge amount.

OTOH no gas in my home, and my local utility offers a discount rate for heat pumps, so I ended up saving quite a bit.

Wait: openAI is going to rent a chip that depreciates in 18 months? and then what? does nvidia take the chips out of the data centers or something?

Someone make this make sense

Altman sounds very much like a guy who doesn’t understand what a gigawatt actually is.

I think the point of mentioning this is that CF isn't actually "solving" the problems with CCS or anything; they are just offloading their emissions to Exxon.

Is this *better* than not doing it at all? Sure, I buy that. But it isn't really saying anything about CCS that we didn't already know.

I'm not particularly opposed to CCS, but worth mentioning that the actual mechanism that CF is using for CCS is enhanced oil recovery in partnership with Exxon.

I don't actually know if CCS-EOR is systemically carbon negative or not, but worth pointing out.