474 GW!!! Good God that's at LEAST the 5x our peak winter demand for the entire state.
And they want to mostly power it with on site GAS?!
What is even happening.
And they want to mostly power it with on site GAS?!
What is even happening.
In 2025, Texas vented or flared enough natural gas to generate roughly 2 gigawatts of useful electrical power continuously for the same period.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_PROD_SUM_DC_STX_MMCF_A.htm
A lot of gas is burned off simply because it cannot be delivered. Pipelines have a maximum capacity and short term storage is limited.
Most of the state's electricity comes from NG, so clearly there is a market for it. Not to mention heating, cooking, exports, ...
Think about it this way: when OpenAI was founded, it was a public benefit corporation. It had to take into account the "public good" - which is nebulous, but whatever - and capped returns for shareholders at 100x initial investment. It has since been converted into a for-profit corporation and I recall reading that the earnings cap has been done away with, but that should give you at least some idea of the stakes.
According to these guys [0], there has been a total of $180 billion invested in OpenAI since its founding. Assuming there's not been a change in what the shares were sold for to each round - which is a fairly large assumption, I know - for them to reach the 100x threshold that was apparently too low to be followed, the company would have to reach a valuation of $18 trillion dollars.
For what it's worth, the year-on-year GDP of the world's largest economy, the United States, was $32.56 trillion in Q2 2026. [1]
You don't reach a little over half of the economic output of the US in valuation by cutting costs.
[0] https://tracxn.com/d/companies/openai/__kElhSG7uVGeFk1i71Co9...
I don't think it's that big of a trend. There are a lot of people around forums like this who use it (I am one) and a lot of business leaders who want it so they can tell people like me that they need to find somewhere else to work. For the average person, it feels like living in Uncanny Valley and puts their livelihood at risk. They don't like it.
The resistance to AI is real. You don't see moratoriums and protests like this come out of nothing. People don't want to subsidize the infrastructure construction costs for an industry known for its insanely wealthy individuals, especially not if doing so could realistically put them out of a job within the next decade.
They're mostly not opting into some change from no appliances to a houseful of hardcore gaming, they're being led from a houseful of servicable traditional appliances to a houseful of elaborate whizzbang futurist appliances that don't actuallg change much about what they get done in a day.
And all the absurdly more costly resource demands of these received whizzbang doohickies are off-site, so yes, people get pretty shocked and confused when confronted with those extreme hidden costs.
> many of the people using it are using it becuase somebody else (a product vendor or employer) decided to put it in front of them
This doesn’t change the usage without a pendulum changing direction, and it doesn’t currently seem to be.
Food ? Clean Air ? Clean water ? A walk on the beach ?
If those incentives come from that taxpayer then this is a roundabout transfer of tax money to gas companies.
This is a bubble. AI just got hot a few years ago and it takes years for the semiconductor industry to design and produce new kinds of chips at scale. I expect tons of new chips to hit the market in 27 and 28. These will run models much faster with less power because they are designed for this specific use case.
Meanwhile there’s constant ongoing research on more efficient models and ways of quantizing them without performance loss.