Skip to main content

AI/data centre boom time – some energy issues

 Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is booming, but it’s still not clear what its net impacts will be in energy/carbon terms- views differ. However, it is clear that there is a growing drive to use it more and more- with big profits to be made by whoever powers the growth. Not surprising then that all the usual suspects have turned up for a share in the proceeds – most obviously power plants powered by fossil gas, but also nuclear and renewable energy.  

AI data centres are not exactly popular, since, ideally, they need to be near centres of population, where data processing demand is large. Although AC power can transmitted over long distances (a few hundred miles) without too much energy loss, digital data info is more sensitive - there are latency (delay) effects over long distance.   And rather than the use local mains grid power, it’s common for AI centres to set up their own local dedicated power units. 

Such is the scale of the AI boom that all sorts of players are trying to get in to the act - for example new gas turbine plants, local solar farms (in the US especially), but also, more speculatively, mini nuclear units - Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Though none of those exist yet anywhere.  All sorts of locations too are trying their luck with AI, especially poor areas, maybe hoping that AI will aid local economic recovery. Coal-fired AI may be too much of a stretch, though fluidised bed coal fired gasification plants have been mooted, but if AI /data centres are combined with new renewables, or even, some say, SMRs when and if they are proven, that might revitalise areas blighted by fossil extraction- e.g. in the USA in old coal fields in Kentucky and elsewhere, or areas with oil or gas wells as in California.  

However, it may be a hard fight. Data centres are very unpopular in much of the USA. And interestingly, as Grist has noted,  ‘in an era when political polarization is near record highs, data centre backlash represents a rare area of consensus on both sides of the political aisle. Some 70 percent of Americans oppose local construction of AI data centers - 75 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans, according to polling from Gallup’. Moreover, it seems there are ‘more conservative Republicans (53 percent) who oppose data centers in their local area than moderate Republicans (44 percent) - meaning that staunch conservatives are actually nearer to Democrats in their opposition.’  However, the emphasis of opposition may be different. Grist notes that ‘Republican officials often raise concerns about tax incentives and energy grid strain, while Democrats tend to focus on environmental impacts and resource consumption,’ according to a Data Center Watch report.

Whatever the reasons, local hostility and local constraints, may lead to other locations being considered, including putting the AI processing technology offshore, and possibly under water since that also avoids the need for energy for cooling. Floating PV arrays could also be used to provide power.   Or, much more wildly, there have been suggestion for putting them in low earth orbit or even on or in orbit around the moon using solar energy collected locally!  Latency delays are obviously an issue there, but not for all types of data storage, so hybrid systems may emerge.

That sort of thing is for the future. For the present, the emphasis is on land based projects around the world,  with some with differing approaches emerging as to how to deal with the energy demand/emissions issues. For example, the UK is looking to prioritize flexible AI, whereas, in Denmark, AI of any sort will not get priority access to the grid. Clearly though it is still often a battle, given the social and environmental impacts that AI can have in some locations.

Not surprisingly, then, there is lot of debate and coverage of AI in the media and in academia, as I noted in an earlier post, with, for example, MIT recently adding their input. And the paper that Terry Cook and wrote is now fully published in a special AI issue of the Oxford University Press journal Clean Energy.  In it we say that ‘AI and green energy are developing rapidly, with a synergy possibly emerging. AI needs green energy, if climate issues are to be avoided, and, arguably, green energy needs AI to aid its efficient development,’ and we look at what this interaction may means for the future, focussing on employment and skill related issues.  See our summary chart below. 

However, we don’t ignore the potential down sides, with, for example, some seeing AI as further accelerating unsustainable growth.  There certainly are big issues. And we call for careful technology assessment and the full adoption of effective regulator controls.  Is that possible? Will it be enough? The debate continues, with, for example, worrying new data emerging on net energy impacts and some quite wild speculation about the global AI future and the need for a temporary moratorium on AI. This one will run and run…

Meanwhile though, after this short post, I am going back off line on holiday for while again now



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...

Fusion- next steps for the UK

Nuclear fusion is being talked up as the next big energy thing- although it remains some way off and there are many technical and economic question marks. But Boris Johnson is evidently a fan. The UK government, keen to maintain headway in this field after the UK’s exit from Euratom, has set aside £222m for the development of new fusion technology.  It has also asked local authorities to nominate potential sites for a prototype fusion plant, based on the MAST Tokamak developed at Culham in Oxfordshire. The Atomic Energy Authority will assess the sites before making recommendation to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Candidate sites for the ‘Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production’ ( STEP ) project include Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, Nottinghamshire and Aberthaw Power Station, near Barry, in Wales. With there being concerns about local job as coal plants close, new projects like this are obviously attractive, but the STEP programme is fairly ...

New energy policy for Burnham?

 The soon to be UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is being portrayed as a ‘new broom’ that could, or might, adopt better polices in all areas. Well, what about the energy sector?   It’s in a mess, economically, driven by high fossil gas prices, with retail electricity prices at an all-time high, despite renewable energy doing well (65 GW so far) with its wholesale price mostly being low. It’s in a mess technologically, at risk of undermining the crucial next stage of its important renewables programme by diverting cash to support major high-cost nuclear and fossil carbon capture and storage projects.  Both of these programme involve multi-billion funding. The much delayed Hinkley Point nuclear plant may end up costing £40-50bn, inflation adjusted, when it finally gets completed, probably in 2030. Its follow-on project, Sizewell C, may not do much better, despite promises about learning from Hinkley, and despite the investment risks being met by a consumer levy.  ...