Economic problems are rarely just economic problems, and saying that it will resolve itself in the long term is dismissive and offers no value to the discussion.
There’s always an impact. If you had a sandwich for lunch, the wheat in the bread destroyed a grassland somewhere.
Usually in context of energy, we’re talking about carbon impact.
You might mean the storage to keep those data centers running throughout the night though and yeah. But this problem is not very big in the scope of other battery challenges like transportation. Because for data centers you don't need the best energy per weight or volume which you do need in a car.
And there's other sources of renewable energy too.
If we have a coal plant and add one wind farm we still have one coal plant.
I suppose it's fair to say energy demand will always go up, and if all new energy creation is renewable then when you extrapolate to a limit the amount of energy from non-renewable sources is an infinitely small percentage of all energy production? I don't know if that is a fair way to model the future though.
As long as you're not driving demand up faster than the industry is able to increase its rate of scaling (which doesn't yet seem the case with AI, though that's not to say it couldn't be at some point), this should help a renewable transition.
Another effect is that you push issues that arise in transition earlier. For example, the sooner you have a lot of solar on the grid, the sooner grid-scale batteries are incentivized, and the sooner battery production scales. This feeds back into the feasibility and profitability of replacing existing nonrenewable sources.
A simple example where this effect is very clear is synthetic fuels. Synthetics don't compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis yet, but from an energy basis they're getting close. There's an obvious demand phase change once you hit that price point, and the sooner you hit it the better. If you believe the scaling trends, and I think you broadly should, more solar brings that point forward and so is clearly environmentally beneficial.
Emissions from burning the fuel had been ignored but will now need to be taken into account.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/2...
A (hypothetical) AI that can perform any intellectual labour at for an energy cost of 1 kWh to produce output at the quality and quantity levels of a median human working for an hour, at $0.1/kWh is going to be a better economic choice than 50% of humans on earth even if those humans cut their wage demands to the UN abject poverty threshold.
But at the same time, there's not (currently) enough electricity for 50% of the world's people to be replaced by such AI regardless of the price.
Thus energy prices rise until the machine labour is as expensive as the human labour.
But that likely results in a lot of people even above that threshold no longer being able to afford to keep the lights on.
If we only get this AI quality/cost/generality level around 2031-ish, that may be fine, because renewables are on an exponential growth curve and around then exceed current global demand all by themselves.
The alternative is regulation, which, I'm not even sure how it could be used to address this particular issue. Ban AI or crypto? Humans will find new ways to waste vast amounts of energy with computers. Require that computers have a certain efficiency rating of megaflops/joules? People will use more of this now far more efficient computing, resulting in more overall usage. Require corporations to be audited for energy efficiency and be certified? Goodbye all small players that cannot handle all the overhead of such legislation.
Mandating domestically owned servers is commonplace.
And this was in response to someone whose best idea was “ban ai”
How about tax the carbon emissions.
The other issue that comes up with green generation is how variable it is, sometimes it'll be cloudy and still air, others will be windy and sunny, and the grid needs to capable of supplying everyone in both scenarios and not overbuilding generation they can't turn off. Having industries available to soak up an appropriate amount of energy available within their ecosystem would be great, but it's a hard sell to anyone to invest billions in sites where there could be no guarantees on utilization if they get bad weather for a few months. If there is any "plays nicely with others" regulation on consumption of a common resource, it's going to be reactive to problems than ahead of time.
It helps that the actual electrical generators don't care where the steam is coming from, so we could be leveraging the gensets from decommissioned coal plants in fission reactors. All that's missing is the political will.
Higher Consumption also drives investments to generate Higher Supply and hence future surplus and improvements in standard of living.