I'm assuming nothing -- the party that burns 12B of taxpayer money on subsidies should show that it works. It is plausible that there are no new potential market participants as building power plants is expensive and the entrenched players don't want to compete with themselves.
1. It does not seem to be “taxpayer money” nor “subsidies”? It’s customers paying money for electricity.
2. If no new or existing market participants are willing to expand capacity, that would indicate that existing prices aren’t worth it for them to do so. Companies are willing to spend far more than the cost of building a new power plant for things like AI - and they’re often even building power generation on top of the AI build outs. So it has to be more than “It’s expensive”.
Comments
Wouldn’t that assume there are no potential market participants who want more market share in a profitable market?
I'm assuming nothing -- the party that burns 12B of taxpayer money on subsidies should show that it works. It is plausible that there are no new potential market participants as building power plants is expensive and the entrenched players don't want to compete with themselves.
1. It does not seem to be “taxpayer money” nor “subsidies”? It’s customers paying money for electricity.
2. If no new or existing market participants are willing to expand capacity, that would indicate that existing prices aren’t worth it for them to do so. Companies are willing to spend far more than the cost of building a new power plant for things like AI - and they’re often even building power generation on top of the AI build outs. So it has to be more than “It’s expensive”.