It's close to 90% of their revenue. They will sell about $115B this year, $180B in 2026 and $230B in 2027, with margins staying fairly constant. Their only real competitor is Broadcom, who has slightly worse margin on AI chips.
If advances in solar continue, yes. Currently, the IRA provides very lucrative investment and tax credits for green hydrogen projects (solar and wind powered electrolyzers). Power producers like AES are already building multi-billion dollar projects, and there are a lot more in the pipeline. One day the tax credits may not be needed for this to be economically feasible.
Companies like terraform industries are doing something similar, but creating natural gas. With enough cheap solar, all hydrocarbons are pretty much on the table as well.
It'll be a decade or more until this is scaled up and not dependent on subsidies.
The mention of air travel was strange. I wasn't aware of anyone who thought long range flight would ever be electrified. At least not without some fundamental breakthrough.
S-curves are hard to predict. Basically every time someone attempts to do it, they are way off. This [0] is a neat paper that addresses the question. We've blown past every single prediction.
The comparison to Oil is interesting. Because people have also been saying we would hit a production wall there, and have been saying that for about 90 years now.
Agreed, it's amazing what you can do with an idealized grid. But that grid does not exist, and is still quite far away from ever existing. Meanwhile, the costs they present are for today.
When the public (and even policy makers who know should know better) see these numbers, they fairly assume that the sources are being measured by the same criteria.
Right, but the plan has still failed. If all the key players are on board and you can't even begin to implement the plan, then it was a bad plan, and the people who developed it had little comprehension of reality. We should not attempt this elsewhere.
I think this can be misleading in the same way some charter school results are. The easiest way to improve a school's results isn't to improve the education provided, it's to get rid of the worst performing kids.
Charter schools do this by various selection effects, and artificial barriers, like ending at noon on a Wednesday. So the only kids who go there have two parents, one who probably is stay at home and can pick the kid up.
The same type of thing is in play in military schools. There will be few-to-no kids of poor single moms. All the kids will be well fed and groomed and socialized. Is the education better, or have they just selected better performing kids? The article touches on this. But I don't think takes it nearly seriously enough.
2nd paragraph starts with: "We used Claude and Allium"
And later on: "With that obligation written down, Claude traced every path that runs after gyros_busy is set to true"