3 ms·
I don't think so. Look at these numbers: | Year | Capacity (GW) | Construction Spending | | 2015 | 0.2 – 0.3 GW | $1.8 Billion | | 2016 | 0.3 – 0.4 GW
by e40 3mo ago
I don't think so. Look at these numbers:
| Year | Capacity (GW) | Construction Spending |
| 2015 | 0.2 – 0.3 GW | $1.8 Billion |
| 2016 | 0.3 – 0.4 GW | $2.2 Billion |
| 2017 | 0.4 – 0.5 GW | $3.1 Billion |
| 2018 | 0.5 – 0.6 GW | $4.5 Billion |
| 2019 | 0.6 – 0.7 GW | $6.2 Billion |
| 2020 | 0.8 – 1.0 GW | $8.0 Billion |
| 2021 | 1.2 – 1.5 GW | $10.0 Billion |
| 2022 | 2.0 – 2.5 GW | $15.0 Billion |
| 2023 | 3.5 – 4.0 GW | $20.0 Billion |
| 2024 | 6.4 GW | $35.0 Billion |
| 2025 | 8.5 GW | $46.0 Billion |
| 2026 | 13.6 GW | $50.7 Billion |
2026 figures represent full-year capacity projections and annualized construction spending rates.
There is absolutely no way that increase was planned due to precisely planned for capacity. It's speculation.
- therealdrag0 3mo agoWhat I meant to push back on is that speculation doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It doesn’t “have to be” an “over-estimate” even if it’s obviously speculation. Any multiyear investment that depends on future demand requires speculation. Shrug. I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s part of running a business and address a market. For all we know it’s an under-estimate.