The US can not build a unified grid. Japan still suffers from the moronic 50/60 Hz split. Energy rich regions in the eastern Russia have tiny energy links with the energy hungry regions of China. And you still want to seriously claim that the world grid could be practical in this century?

Instead of building a trillion dollar superconducting distribution network to overcome the inherit flaws of intermittent, low density renewable energy, invest it into clean nuclear and drop it in where we already have coal and gas.

And second, maybe instead of spending so much on consultants with insanely bad takes like this one, we can spend it on STEM education, and train the next generation of nuclear engineers.

The dymaxion projection is my favorite map projection, and I love the idea of more resilient energy grids (and solar panels, while we're at it). But the problem here is that the dymaxion projection turns out to be terribly misleading in this context. By relying on the dymaxion projection alone it makes it seem inevitable that you'd have to have to traverse the bottleneck of the Bering Strait, but in the realm of what is both practical and achievable it makes absolutely no sense to make that the lynchpin of a global grid. Presumably the idea is that when the western hemisphere is lit it would be sending power to the eastern hemisphere (and vice versa), but, no, you're not going to be building a global backbone capable of powering half the world at a time across five thousand miles of near-uninhabited wilderness. You need infrastructure that pays for itself by connecting geographically-proximal, densely-inhabited population centers. And that might very well mean that it's more realistic to run a cable between (for example) Boston and Ireland, which is not apparent from looking at the dymaxion projection.

The global grid concept is a fascinating piece of infrastructure engineering.

But the anti-market rhetoric here feels completely backwards. The article cites Shell building Europe's largest renewable hydrogen plant, BP's $30B Australian investment, and major moves by other energy companies... then somehow spins this as evidence that corporate involvement is problematic?

Market incentives and existing energy infrastructure expertise are exactly what's driving the current clean energy buildout at scale.

I wish this was presented as the interesting systems engineering challenge it is, rather than wrapped in reflexive anti-corporate ideology. The technical aspects deserve serious analysis without the political baggage.