Not that many probably haven't been doing it all along. I dumped Apple for Linux back in 2019 years ago when they started FORCING users to use the iCloud to transfer data between a laptop and iPad. Though system updates did break a number of the programs I used for doing that work. Notes for story ideas. Notes for inventions and other patents. Don't store that on any cloud service.

We've landed in the Gulf of Mexico and our ride's late. Could you pick us up?

Some galactic jets can be analyzed from the perspective of currents. This approach goes back further than most people realize: Electric Universe: Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet

Arp's discordant redshifts were dead in 1975 when it was realized a uniform distribution of galaxies in a volume created the 1/z distribution of angular separation. Arp and supporters always ignored this. Details described in Discordant Redshifts: A Post-Mortem. Support among professionals has been rapidly dying off, in every sense of the expression, leaving mostly nothing but 'fanboys'.

One of Electric Universe claims greatest problem is where the power comes from to drive the claimed currents (see Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'...).

Astronomers explored electric fields in cosmic enviroments before the name 'plasma' was coined for an ionized gas.

Claims that galaxies, or stars, are actually powered by giant electric currents have more problems than 'dark matter' because such currents emit microwaves. We don't detect these microwave streamers passing through stars or galaxies. For stars like the Sun, such currents create all kinds of severe problems for satellites and astronauts.

For more details, see the "Death by Electric Universe" series at: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'.

And the big question is where is the battery or generator that powers all this? Where does it get its power!?

1) Astronomers do know about electric fields in space. I have written much on this topic. (Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?).

2) The standard of science is the numerical results of the mathematical models must match the observations. If you claim the 'Birkeland' model works better than the standard model, then you must meet that standard.
Where are the numerical results from the model you advocate? Can you tell me the proton and electron density and energy or magnetic field at Earth's orbit predicted by your model and show how it is calculated? Where is the solar spectrum computed from first principles by the model you advocate? The lives of astronauts depend on you being able to demonstrate this!
If you can't meet that standard, then your model fails. Game over.
The ACTUAL track record of "Electric Sun" models making testable numerical predictions is dismal (Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model, Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III)

3) I see a number of errors on your page. SDO first light images were not completely calibrated for intensity or scale information. Have you looked at more recent images on their site?
a) Doing science analysis on JPEG images or MPEG movies is just inviting embarrassment. You have to go back to the original data after the instrument has been calibrated.
b) Your sunspot data has obvious problems (Sunspot Number). Did you just make it up? And why only data to 1980? Are you trying to hide something about the more recent data?

And that's just what I could determine scanning your page before I realized some text was being clipped in my reader due to your lousy page formatting. I suspect I have hit just the beginning of your errors.

If you can't find responses to their claims, then you haven't been looking very hard. Basic conservation laws and Maxwell's equations accessible to high school physics students reveal serious problems. See http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

The EU "Electric Sun" makes no testable predictions. When asking EU 'theorists' about the value of the magnetic field around the Sun according to their Z-pinch model, and how it is calculated, so we can compare to spacecraft measurements, we get no answer. Attempts to build a model based on their descriptions generate values that are factors of thousands to millions of times larger than the measurments.
That is not a characteristic of a working theory.
If we ask about the particle energy and flux of particles based on the EU solar 'cathode' model, we get no answer. Attempts to build a model based on their descriptions generate values that indicate that if such currents existed, they would be fatal to satellites and astronauts.
This is not a characteristic of a working theory.
For a quick summary of the failures of EU, see
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

Electrically-powered Sun claims have far more severe problems than the standard solar model. The standard model difficulty in a thin layer above the photosphere. Electric Sun problems extend from the photosphere to the heliopause (~100 AU) and impacts everything from conservation of particle number and energy to radiation exposure of astronauts. Much of it can be demonstrated at the level of high-school AP physics.
See:
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I. II. III.
Electric Cosmos: Predictions

There are those who do exactly that: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy. A surprising amount of rebuttals don't take more than high school physics.

Don't presume we are all atheists. That can be hazardous to your Salvation.

(Matt 5:43-47, Matt 7:15-23).