In Europe, we approach energy generation as a political, or climate problem. We are building solar and wind power sources, not to make energy cheaper, or to make grid more resilient, but to fulfill an ideological goal.

The results are, not great, to be honest. The energy prices have increased substantially, and are now driving our chemical industry bankrupt.

Edit: I do not dispute the climate change. I am only highlighting impacts of current policy.

Without enforcement it will happen continuously with snail pace

2.2-2.5 GWdc solar capacity which at 600W/panel amounts to 14-17sq mi plus additional 8-12GWh of storage to deal with nighttime, two-three days of cloud cover is not going to work with these numbers.

Ballpark 5-7BN$

Nuclear otoh, 1GW continuous - gives constant power, badly managed first of a kind (or first one after decades) build will be at around 10-15BN and that’ll cover two 500MW data centres.

There’s also the second/third degree order effects nuclear power stations have of creating jobs and industrial manufacturing demand. To run a nuclear power station you need to employ 1000 people (engineers plus support staff) - that’s a small town’s worth of adults. So you’ll need a town with a school, hospitals, stores - those need staffing as well.

Unfortunately building nuclear is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning.

So gas turbines it is at around ~1BN$

Sometimes they ignore the transportation costs, as for example: capital costs for transporting 1 GW of electricity over 1,000 km using High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology costs more then the 1 GW peak solar power plant attached to the power line.

China builds everything solar, coal, wind, hydro, nuclear. So if you want follow the example of China, then you have to, like China, build everything and don't just pick one part of Chinas energy strategy.

Also I would not present China as an example of market capitalism, they have a very strong government capitalism. Probably the strongest government capitalism in the world.

I find that it's just a shame to be so close to energy abundance - through renewables - to only be set back by the installation of "temporary" gas turbines. The economic incentive is so great that delaying the datacenters in order to power them cleanly isn't even considered: there's no incentive to do so. This may sound a little alarmist, but if it's GW of capacity in 2028, it's TW in the mid 30s.

I'd much rather live in a heavily compute-constrained world for the next 5 years or so than in a world that keeps increasing its gas consumption.

There's just no way to force our incentive to align with preserving our climate, and it's making me extremely depressed.

By your logic we shouldn't question any development, at any cost, including if it contributes to making our world uninhabitable for billions of people within our life's timescale?

Not in western Europe, because they spent almost all their excess economic output over the past few decades on welfare/transfer payments.