There are a dozen different contractors and companies that can build out electricity supply for you in a relatively sensible timeframe. Most of the major components are off-the-shelf.
S3 has eleven 9s of durability. That alone is bonkers. Sure, let's say you replicate that and staff it up to keep it working ongoing.
I didn't say "replicate S3", I said "replicate a significant portion of AWS". A lot of the value of AWS doesn't come from using _a_ product, there are alternatives for most of what they offer, it comes from having the whole ecosystem of tools integrated and available in one place.
So now you need to go build out a highly available, redundant queuing service like SQS that supports FIFO delivery and up to 20k inflight messages.
And a highly available, redundant notification service with integrations not only with the web/email/etc but also SMS.
And a geographically redundant database service with multi-master, instant snapshots, point-in-time restore, etc, etc.
And... well, pick whatever other handful of AWS services you're using in your specific use-case.
And wrap it all behind tools for management. And hire a whole wackload of ops staff to keep it all going. And pay 10x as much because you don't get the economies of scale that AWS does.
I'm not ignorant of the difficulties in setting up generation and storage for electricity. But I'm also not ignorant of the absolutely massive task it would be to replicate AWS if you're it for more than a really expensive VPS hosting service. I would 100% choose to work on off-grid electricity generation before rebuilding AWS.
I am sorry but this read like a report from fantasyland. In the past 3 years I have seen several AWS failures but not a single powercut.
You entire take is based on the idea that AWS replacement has to be superbly reliable and scaleable, while your grid replacement does not.
Lets compare like for like, your grid replacement has to have redundancy so that generators can be repaired without power loss, it has to support megawatt scale spikes in demand in case several friends with electric cars come to visit, it has to have mean time between failure measured in years, withstand extreme weather, and be renewable. Also you need to have black start capacity and logistics to replace equipment promptly when it fails.
How is the cost for that going to compare to using the grid?
S3 has eleven 9s of durability. That alone is bonkers. Sure, let's say you replicate that and staff it up to keep it working ongoing.
I didn't say "replicate S3", I said "replicate a significant portion of AWS". A lot of the value of AWS doesn't come from using _a_ product, there are alternatives for most of what they offer, it comes from having the whole ecosystem of tools integrated and available in one place.
So now you need to go build out a highly available, redundant queuing service like SQS that supports FIFO delivery and up to 20k inflight messages.
And a highly available, redundant notification service with integrations not only with the web/email/etc but also SMS.
And a geographically redundant database service with multi-master, instant snapshots, point-in-time restore, etc, etc.
And... well, pick whatever other handful of AWS services you're using in your specific use-case.
And wrap it all behind tools for management. And hire a whole wackload of ops staff to keep it all going. And pay 10x as much because you don't get the economies of scale that AWS does.
I'm not ignorant of the difficulties in setting up generation and storage for electricity. But I'm also not ignorant of the absolutely massive task it would be to replicate AWS if you're it for more than a really expensive VPS hosting service. I would 100% choose to work on off-grid electricity generation before rebuilding AWS.