I believe you may have misread your own source.

For example, the world’s fastest supercomputer, Frontier, draws 8 megawatts when it idles — a quantity that could simultaneously power thousands of homes

If this was the basis for your saying this…

several hundred supercomputer megaclusters and sucks more power than a thousand suburbs.

… then you misread AND misstated.

Misread: this “thousands of homes” energy use was in reference to Frontier, which is not a quantum computer but based on more conventional architecture, the kind the article goes on to say might eventually be improved upon by quantum computing. Eg:

Consequently, experts are looking to new strategies that can rein in energy use while continuing to improve computing performance. One proposed solution: quantum computing.

Misstated: “thousands of homes” != “thousands of suburbs.”

A suburb is not a home but a a collection of homes, a region of a city even. See definition:

an outlying part of a city or town. b. : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city. c. suburbs plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town.

So in your zeal to make your point you demonized quantum computers, which could be a solution to the problem you’re ostensibly so concerned about, and in the process you misstated a metric by at least one order of magnitude.

So yeah… I don’t know what to tell you. You really messed up here. Your problem is with LLMs and big compute, not necessarily quantum computers.