Why may the largest power plant in the future not be on Earth, but in space? ️ ARK's chief futurist believes that building data centers on Earth will become increasingly expensive as one goes further; But in space, the further you go, the cheaper it gets. Musk praises ARK's people for their foresight! There are actually two completely different investment logics behind this: one ️⃣ Earth: reverse scale effect trapped in 'involution' Building large-scale facilities on Earth, such as data centers and power plants, faces a 'resource squeeze'. The land is gone: the prime location has long been sold out, and the remaining land is either expensive or located in a remote area. Electricity shortage: The power grid load is limited, do you want an extra 1GW of electricity? Sorry, we have to compete with the entire city for resources. Approval and negotiation can help you break free. Rising costs: Just like opening the 100th milk tea shop in the city center, not only is the rent expensive, but it also faces more stringent environmental assessments. So, the construction cost of the 100th one is actually higher than that of the first one. two ️⃣ Space: Embarking on the cost reduction curve of industrialization Space is now like the early Internet, even a wasteland. Infinite space and 24-hour lighting: Space has no land fees and no day night alternation. As long as your satellite is empty, the energy is almost infinite. Cost plunge: By the time we launch our 100th orbital power station, rocket technology has become as mature as civil aviation, and space factories have also produced energy. At that time, the construction cost may only be one-third of what it is now. The energy competition on Earth is a 'stock game', while space is a 'incremental breakthrough'. When we meticulously plan for a 1% energy efficiency improvement on Earth, the real profits and scale may be hidden in the visible sea of stars. Do you think the space economy is still in science fiction?