Defenders say AI can do good to fight the climate crisis. But spiralling energy and water costs leave experts worried

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.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    24 hours ago

    There are no other alternatives for baseline power generation.

    You can’t run a national grid on 100% renewables and batteries. If you’re not using nuclear then you’re using fossil and fossil fuels are not only polluting but the dependence on them creates a huge amount of political instability around the world.

    Nuclear plants use less uranium than Coal plants burn into the atmosphere. Coal has trace amount of radioactive uranium and if you burn hundreds of thousands of tons of it every year then you’re putting pounds of radioactive uranium into the atmosphere.

    • kalkulat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 hours ago

      There are no other alternatives for baseline power generation.

      1. Natural gas is FAR preferable to coal. I completely agree that coal is unacceptable.
      2. Efficient use of existing capacity: How many heat pumps can be purchased by the decades-long costs of a 1GB nuke? Can your country subsidize low-energy lighting? Installing more insulation in old homes?
      3. Datacenter urgency is B.S. … AI slop was supposed to be the topic of this post

      You can’t run a national grid on 100% renewables and batteries Of course not, but the quickest and lowest-cost solutions should have much high priority. Ergo nukes should be lowest.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        19 minutes ago

        1. Natural Gas is still fossil fuel.

        2. Ok. You still have to push electrons and also not destroy the global climate.

        3. As much as you think it is BS, datacenters exist and they are attached to the same grid as your house, so if you don’t want the power to your house to go away then the grid needs more generating capacity. Unless you want to live under the ocean or in a desert then that capacity can’t produce CO2. The only options which generate power are renewables and nuclear. Solar and Wind cannot provide baseline power generation and the renewables that can provide baseline power (hydroelectric, for example) are limited in where they can be deployed.

        So what power generating source exists that can generate baseline power, doesn’t produce CO2 and can be used without specific geological formations?