Hacker News Reader

Comment by kamranjon | Hacker News Reader

"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

View on HN

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.

His argument proves far too much: it would apply even if every data center built an entirely renewable dedicated solar farm to power it. After all, energy is fungible: the newly built solar farm could be going to help consumers transition to renewable.

There is a root issue here: prices of nonrenewables don't incorporate the costs of climate change. But that's a much broader issue, and otherwise the market price system is excellent at allocating energy to its most economically beneficially uses.

>it would apply even if every data center built an entirely renewable dedicated solar farm to power it. After all, energy is fungible: the newly built solar farm could be going to help consumers transition to renewable.

No, because that solar farm would have never been built in the first place without the datacenter. You either get both or you get none of them. It's completely different than using an existing solar farm that was already there before anyone started planning for that datacenter

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

I hope you are also inveighing against industrial agricultural use of water, which uses orders of mangitude more water in significantly more wasteful ways.

Shouts "AI wastes water!" with food in my mouth while eating an almond butter sandwich with a pizza lined up next.

I need food to live I do not need AI to live

"the more renewables you deploy, the more natural gas you use." -- source?

"most renewables are sited so poorly that it likely doesn't reduce CO2 emissions at all" -- source?

I don't think this even requires a source, it's completely made up.

Renewables are variable. To keep the grid balanced, you need quick dispatch-able power source. That's natural gas. As for the siting, look up a solar albino map and overlay where most PV is deployed. QED. Don't post about topics you clearly know nothing about. Seriously, these are topics you would consider, "knowing the first thing about power". Better to let people think you are ignorant than hitting the post button and showing the entire Internet your ignorance.

If you can’t be bothered to provide sources for any of your claims, when responding to an article that actually provided sources for its claims, we can just assume you’re making it up. When you become emotional when someone asks you to provide even a sliver of evidence, I have to assume you’re just spreading misinformation that aligns with your views. If you want to discuss in good faith, I’m here.

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?

The text said "some instances". If you're next to a hydropower dam and are willing to pay for it, you can outbid others, who then switch to non-renewable sources. The dam can only put out so much energy. Ideally you'll switch to solar, but as various sources point out, it's not just adding solar power but also interconnect capacity, which is why a lot of data centers are using natural gas. Your "not instant" is many years, and longer than the timeframe these companies want to wait.

https://www.itpro.com/infrastructure/data-centres/gas-powere...

"Traditional hubs are at or near saturation, which has created long connection queues with waits of typically seven-to-ten years and in some cases 13-15. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that globally, nearly 20% of planned data center projects risk delay due to grid bottlenecks, and as a result developers are building ‘behind the meter’ primary generation. This offers speed to market in months rather than years.”"

"gas is mainly chosen because it’s the fastest and easiest way to generate your own power. Turbines and engines can be set up and begin providing reliable energy quickly, while renewable power generation can be intermittent without costly storage – and takes time and money to be set up."

https://www.greengasturbines.com/blog/gas-turbines-for-data-...

"Global data center electricity consumption is projected to more than double by 2030, driven primarily by AI training and inference workloads. The IEA estimates data centers could consume over 1,000 TWh annually by 2030 — roughly equal to Japan's total electricity consumption."

"Grid interconnection queues are now 4–7 years in many US markets, making behind-the-meter gas turbine generation the fastest path to powering new hyperscale campuses."

"Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have all signed gas turbine power agreements or acquired generation assets in 2024–2026, signalling a structural shift in how hyperscalers think about electricity procurement."

"The gas turbine data center trend is not temporary. Even as renewable procurement grows, the intermittency gap and the sheer scale of AI power demand mean firm, dispatchable generation will remain essential for Tier III and IV reliability standards."

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com