Because the US has levied high tariffs on solar cells, can't build their own solar cells economically enough, and has such a torrid permitting system that it can't build transmission lines. Natural gas is the only form of generation that's easy to permit outside cities (due to pipeline agreements and this admin fast-tracking natural gas generation approval) but few cities will allow one. DCs need to be built within low latency interconnect of urban areas or else they become uncompetitive.

Elon claims (which I take with a huge grain of salt because he's made endless broken promises in investor calls and interviews) that he disagrees with the administration's stance on solar and would use it to power his DCs if he could, but contends that permitting is a huge problem.

The US needs to figure out how to build again.

> This is stupid. I don't understand what's happening... specifically, what mental virus

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes"

What does that have to do with my point? Space-based data centers need solar cells too. They are just like terrestrial data centers, only more expensive. For every dollar you save on the PV array, you'll spend two more on radiators.

And you don't need permits in international waters, any more than you need them in orbit. Lease space on container ships.

The argument is that it's too hard to gain the necessary approvals on Earth such that space is faster and easier. Not sure I buy it fully (I do see it somewhat), but that's the argument.

The permitting slowdown is if it want to connect to the grid. If you want to run solar behind the meter, you can go nuts.

Sure but acquiring enough land to build solar profitably near a DC that can hook up to the big US interconnects is very expensive and will often be blocked by residents. If you want to build solar where there are few people and cheap input costs, then you need to transmit the power to the DC.

I keep hearing about brand new data centers they want to create. Seems reasonable to go to sunny, enormous, business friendly Texas and surround the data center site with acres of solar panels, batteries, emergency gas, and whatever sized grid connection you can get approved immediately.

If the DC is for training or text inference, latency seems irrelevant, so go where you can quickly plop down power.

Texas is actually absorbing a lot of the US's new generation capacity (though the grid there remains dirty)

It's fraught to make a DC for a single purpose because it reduces the value of the DC. A DC that serves multiple purposes can handle other workloads. Moreover even if inference is slow, latency does still matter, and it costs quite a bit to light up net capacity (you still have to run fiber to an interconnect and depending on how far you are, this can get expensive fast.)

I guess, but the amount of money getting thrown around is just stupid. Having to spend a few million to light up some more fiber is a drop in the bucket.

Supposedly some of the behind the meter gas turbines that have been getting installed are rated for a ten year service life. The DCs are burning them out in 10 months from rapid cycling. If they are willing to treat $10-100 million generators as disposable, cost seems irrelevant.

The middle of downtown Seattle would be greatly improved if it were replaced by a giant data center.