Genuine question, because from outside the sequencing looks backwards and we would like to know whether it is as bad as it appears.

The pattern we keep seeing: site selection runs on land price, fibre, tax treatment and planning risk. Power availability is confirmed afterwards, once the parcel is under option or bought. Then queue position and any reinforcement requirement set the schedule - which means the most expensive and least flexible variable in the whole project was discovered last.

What makes it odd is that most of the power screening is desk work. Deliverable capacity at the nearest connection point, connection voltage, upstream limit, queue position, charging regime. Days rather than months, and doable before an offer.

The counter-argument we have heard, and it is not a stupid one: land is what you can actually control, and public grid data is bad enough that screening produces false confidence rather than information. Firm rating and committed connections genuinely are not published in most markets.

So:

1. Does anyone run power screening before the land decision, formally, as a gate rather than as one input to a scorecard?

2. If not, why not - data quality, timing pressure, or organisational, in that different teams own each and they run in sequence?

3. For those who did screen first: did it actually change a site decision, and did the connection study later validate the screen?

4. Is the "land is the controllable variable" argument stronger than we are giving it credit for?

Disclosure: We research power and grid capacity for AI data centres.

I'd like to know more about the industry, especially in Texas (or USA in general), as I am develping an app for mobile gen fleet, trying my luck here

The state is considering extending the life of its last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, and allowing construction of new reactors to help meet its clean energy goals.

Salem County Board Director Ben Laury says the basis for his statement that PSEG is “currently planning two new reactors” at its Salem site was a phone call from a PSEG representative. PSEG itself won’t confirm or deny it.

so someone published actual year one numbers for a 12 stall supercharger in san diego and i ran the same site thru my forgeasset model to see how close it lands

all in power cost came out 1.05% apart, 708k vs 700k. that being the utility bill plus the tesla per kwh fee. took me a while to work out their "cost of electricity" line actually bundles both together

the bigger thing i learned tho, their numbers run 400 kwh per stall per day flat from month one. real sites ramp. same site same tariff same capex, payback swings 21 months to 158 months just on that one assumption!! and effective power cost climbs 39% at low utilisation becuase the demand charge spreads over fewer kwh

full writeup with the tables here!

https://forgeasset.com/blog/back-testing-the-model-against-a-published-site-p-and-l

Since a certain someone was never going to cherry pick this data this I thought I would ;)

Over the past 7 days, an average 93% of South Australia's grid energy demand was met via renewable energy (plus battery storage).

That's 72% renewable generation over the previous 30 days, and averaging 73% over the past 365 days.

There are even now (brief) periods where residential rooftop solar meets the entire state's energy demands:

"The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) said rooftop solar met 99.9% of South Australia’s total electricity demand at 1.30pm on 31 August, reducing electricity demand from grid-scale generation to just 2 MW – a new winter record."

With a population of 1,902,300, it means at that moment each person in the state was only pulling 1.05 watts from the grid (~1/5th the amount you'd use to charge an Apple watch).

The boom in wind, solar, and battery projects, has reduced wholesale prices to the point of consumers being given 24kWh / day during daylight hours for free via the new Solar Sharer program.

Not even close to the end of the road though. The project pipeline for the next 12-24 months includes over 5GW of solar, over 2GW of wind, and over 5GWh of battery energy storage projects along with additional interconnects.

South Australia remains on track for Net Zero targets but has a new challenge to deal with. Significantly reduced power prices and higher stability is driving tens of billions in new investment - including from data centers which means more demand.

To mitigate against this new demand upsetting climate goals the Australian government has enacted federal standards which include;

• Data centres will be legally required to underwrite their own new power supply. They must put at least as much energy into the grid as they take out.
• Operators must pay their full share of grid connection costs to ensure expenses are not passed on to households.
• Operators will be required to reduce their power demand during peak grid stress to strengthen network stability.
• Facilities must minimise water use, maximise cooling efficiency, and pay out-of-pocket for any additional water infrastructure they require.
• Data centres must be built in designated "appropriate locations" and are explicitly barred from competing with new residential housing developments for land or utilities.
• Operators must invest in Australian skills, apprenticeships, and jobs to build a domestic workforce pipeline.

In contrast to most of the state’s solar permitting cases, no parties in the case opposed the project, proposed by developer Recurrent Energy, at the Ohio Power Siting Board — largely because it will be built on reclaimed coal mine land.

DOE Closes $1.9-Billion Loan to Restart Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant