cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/32465427
Datacentres consume just 1% of the world’s electricity but may soon demand much more. Their share of US electricity is projected to more than double to 8.6% by 2035, according to BloombergNEF, while the IEA projects datacentres will account for at least 20% of the rich world’s growth in electricity demand to the end of the decade.
“This idea that the lower cost of renewables alone will drive decarbonisation – it’s not enough,” said Daly. “Because if there’s a huge source of energy demand that wants to grow, it will land on these stranded fossil fuel assets.”
Tech companies have resisted pressure to provide detailed data on their AI energy footprints,
The IEA estimates that AI could boost technically recoverable oil and gas reserves by 5% and cut the cost of a deepwater offshore project by 10%. Big oil is even more bullish. “Artificial intelligence is, ultimately, within the industry, going to be the next fracking boom,” Mike Sommers, head of the American Petroleum Institute, told Axios.
At the same time, the oil and gas industry says AI can cut its carbon intensity, for instance by analysing satellite data to spot methane leaks. But even here, critics say there is a gap between digital insights and corporate actions.
God no, it will not. Aside from the discussion whether nuclear is really a good way to generate electricity (and I think it’s not): The demand is so insanely huge that it’s actually stacked: green plus coal plus gas plus oil plus nuclear is currently getting “assigned” to genai.
What do you think will replace fossil fuels as our baseload source? Because (to my understanding) renewables don’t have the output and stability required to fill that void.
Watt for watt, nuclear is one of the safest methods of generation and generates tons of energy with minimal waste (which already has methods of storage and reprocessing).
random, barely related thought
It always amuses me to point out that fossil fuel plants like coal are more radioactive than nuclear power plants. Because nuclear plants have strict regulations they have to follow, but coal plants concentrate radioactive materials into the ash as part of their normal operation, which can make it to the outside.
Please see my other comment: whether nuclear power is good or bad is not my point, the monstrously power hungry genai shit is.
Your understanding would change if you actually looked into the facts and the numbers, and change even more if you’d been keeping track of what financial markets have put their money into for well over a decade.
So fossil fuels better? Nuclear works great for France.
All nice and well but it is not my point here. My point is that I disagree that adding nuclear is good as it doesn’t remove fossils from the mix in the first place. LLM/genai is a problem no matter how much power you throw at it.
What has worked great for France is keeping their nuclear mishaps very well hidden… as it did for the Saint-Laurent meltdown in 1980, and at the Centraco plant in 2011, for two examples.