"In some instances, AI data centres are powered completely by renewable energy. Unfortunately, unless the data centre builds new renewable energy sources to supply 100% of its power, this still results in an increase in fossil fuel usage. Why? Because if the data centre is using pre-existing sources for renewable energy, it is taking that energy away from other consumers that need it. To pick up the slack, we must generate more energy, and most of that generation is done using coal or natural gas."
-- strangely I had never actually thought about this
Because it's a very strange way to view the economics. Yes, AI uses energy. But using energy itself isn't an inherently bad thing. It'll also incentive people to invest more in renewable energy too.
> Additionally, many residents who live near AI data centres are seeing increased electricity bills due to the amount of electricity those data centres use.5 That's right, trillion dollar companies are using you to subsidize their power bill!
I'm glad the author put this paragraph early into this article though. Saved me a few minutes reading the rest.
There is a reason for that. Its not especially true. In fact, the more renewables you deploy, the more natural gas you use. And that's before you consider that most renewables are sited so poorly that it likely doesn't reduce CO2 emissions at all. This guy also seems to think that water is somehow destroyed when its used for cooling. This also isn't true. I really wish the author hadn't started with these claims that he clearly doesn't understand. There are good points much farther down, but he buried the lead under 20 feet of misunderstandings.
Yes, AI datacenters do actually use evaporative cooling. The water isn't destroyed obviously but it is made unavailable for other purposes (like keeping people, animals, and plants alive) and depletes water tables that can't be easily replenished
Eh, somewhat reductive thinking. Demand for renewables causes an increase in the build out of new renewables. Yea, it's not instant, but that's how markets work. Coal/fuel is expensive, so this drives demand for more wind solar, especially during high demand times that bring the highest power prices.
The problem with this essay is thinking power demand is bad. It is not when we can deploy massive amounts of renewables. Not only for AI, but for other industrial workloads that user power.
If the rest of the dipshits around here hadn't elected the dumbest mother fuckers on earth, we'd be pushing out subsidies to build out renewables at 10x the rate we are now. But hey, coal jobs matter.
> Eh, somewhat reductive thinking. Demand for renewables causes an increase in the build out of new renewables. Yea, it's not instant, but that's how markets work.
Funny how this line of thinking is indistinguishable from crypto.
> It is not when we can deploy massive amounts of renewables. Not only for AI, but for other industrial workloads that user power.
Funny how this line of thinking is indistinguishable from crypto. "Yes, we build a lot o power which is immediately consumed by us, but see how this is good? See? SEE?!"
> we'd be pushing out subsidies to build out renewables at 10x the rate we are now.
And these would be gobbled up by crypto and AI data centers, right?
I get that these data center companies are in a race right now and speed is the name of the game. But if they really want long-term acceptance for this technology, I think they will need to basically be fully self-sufficient with renewable energy, in a completely isolated power grid, so that we don't have to deal with the above issue.
AI is clearly useful, but usefulness doesn't automatically justify unlimited deployment, opaque training practices or turning every public service and workplace into an experiment
I don't understand the water argument? I thought places like data centers would use something akin a closed loop and a radiator. Are they taking water from the town pipe, heating it once, and then launching it into the sun? Is there some other use for the water other than cooling?
Apparently, data centers typically use evaporative cooling (I guess like a Swamp Cooler but on a whole different scale). This is cheaper than using compressed systems like we use on our homes. The water evaporates.
At a global level the water stays around but at a local level it "vanishes into thin air".
A large portion of data centers use open loop cooling. That is to say evaporative cooling. So they take fresh drinking water, make it hot, and dump it in the air.
It's a lot cheaper than closed loop cooling.
Unlike a lot of anti-AI writing I have seen which can drift into the territory of reactionist rhetoric, this feels very grounded. As a student entering the job market, I personally am quite conflicted about my usage of AI, due to all the effects you have said. Especially when testing out more recent “agentic” coding tools where they do literally all the work, not only are there the moral qualms but they’re also not enjoyable to use.
However, in the tech bubble I live in to use these tools for as much as possible in order to “make it” in some sense and actually be employable. Like you said it is a game of chicken. Perhaps the best strategy (for me) is to campaign for institutional guardrails on usage while continuing to individually try to be competitive?
-- strangely I had never actually thought about this
> Additionally, many residents who live near AI data centres are seeing increased electricity bills due to the amount of electricity those data centres use.5 That's right, trillion dollar companies are using you to subsidize their power bill!
I'm glad the author put this paragraph early into this article though. Saved me a few minutes reading the rest.
"most renewables are sited so poorly that it likely doesn't reduce CO2 emissions at all" -- source?
The problem with this essay is thinking power demand is bad. It is not when we can deploy massive amounts of renewables. Not only for AI, but for other industrial workloads that user power.
If the rest of the dipshits around here hadn't elected the dumbest mother fuckers on earth, we'd be pushing out subsidies to build out renewables at 10x the rate we are now. But hey, coal jobs matter.
Funny how this line of thinking is indistinguishable from crypto.
> It is not when we can deploy massive amounts of renewables. Not only for AI, but for other industrial workloads that user power.
Funny how this line of thinking is indistinguishable from crypto. "Yes, we build a lot o power which is immediately consumed by us, but see how this is good? See? SEE?!"
> we'd be pushing out subsidies to build out renewables at 10x the rate we are now.
And these would be gobbled up by crypto and AI data centers, right?
At a global level the water stays around but at a local level it "vanishes into thin air".
Particularly, newer data centers are much more likely to used closed loop systems. And, the bigger they are, the more likely they're on closed loop.
However, in the tech bubble I live in to use these tools for as much as possible in order to “make it” in some sense and actually be employable. Like you said it is a game of chicken. Perhaps the best strategy (for me) is to campaign for institutional guardrails on usage while continuing to individually try to be competitive?