> As recently discussed on The Carbon Copy with Brian Janous, utilities are seeing major forecasted demand growth for the first time in decades, and almost entirely from data centers.
Utilities aren't seeing major forecasted demand growth for the first time in decades. It isn't entirely from DCs.
The author appears to have a startup, pitching a Power to NatGas plus direct air capture system because "Why not?™" [0]. I'm offended on behalf of chemical engineers everywhere.
i have a crazy idea... how about... not focusing on ever increasing the size of ai models, so that we don't need to build all those power-hungry ai training datacenters? just a thought
It’s always interesting to see these ideas on a tech forum.
Should we as humanity stop right here? Draw a line in the sand and not do anything new? Maybe we should move backwards, skipping the Industrial Revolution and go back to each individual growing their own food?
This is a serious question. What do you propose? Because you are not able to pick and choose what humanity tries out, so shall we stop entirely?
If your business model depends on a continuous growth curve where your profitability point is more than two years away... you may be planning for an exit in 18 months.
The only reliable long term growth curves so far are world population and global average temperature.
Solar is no way close to being reliable, all weather and cheap source of energy that nuclear and fossil fuel can be, which are critical for the tech industry in general.
The actual workload in ML model training is totally deferrable. It ought to be very compatible with intermittent power, and actually great for the renewable grid. The two solutions for intermittence are: buy batteries or buy so many solar panels that you still get enough power even when they are operating at like 30% efficiency. A workload that will pay big bucks for any excess power you’ve got will provide the needed ROI for the latter solution.
Unfortunately the chips are all to expensive so everybody wants to run them full-out all the time.
The problem is that massive amounts of PV is needed to replace existing fossil fuels, so these would be extending the carbon output of coal/natural gas.
If AI training is being that power hungry, maybe we shouldn't be doing it ... right now.
It's all fueled by speculative VC funding. This isn't a slam dunk economics calculation, certainly no more than regulation to shut this nonsense down would be.
That makes sense if PV deployment is limited by supply. But the solar industry is currently limited by demand. You can see it in market news for solar components:
"Wafer prices stable-to-soft on market oversupply"
The problem with renewables is that most people talking about replacing fossil with renewables don't understand how the grid actually works.
What we need the most is better storage technologies. PV, wind and hydro are highly variable which means you need something to cover the gaps between production and demand. Gas and coal plants are actually super useful for this because you can literally scale production up or down as needed by increasing or reducing fuel. If you want to eliminate gas and coal, you need a way to store excess energy and release it on demand - and to be able able to do so at the same scale as with fossil.
And nuclear power is actually worse in this regard because you effectively can't turn a nuclear power plant on or off. If it's on, it must remain on because taking it offline can take days and the same goes for turning it back on. But the problem right now is not lack of production but stability. And stability can only be achieved with better storage technologies - or fossil fuels.
caminante|1 year ago
Take the first sentence.
> As recently discussed on The Carbon Copy with Brian Janous, utilities are seeing major forecasted demand growth for the first time in decades, and almost entirely from data centers.
Utilities aren't seeing major forecasted demand growth for the first time in decades. It isn't entirely from DCs.
The author appears to have a startup, pitching a Power to NatGas plus direct air capture system because "Why not?™" [0]. I'm offended on behalf of chemical engineers everywhere.
[0]https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/06/26/the-ter...
ponorin|1 year ago
infecto|1 year ago
Should we as humanity stop right here? Draw a line in the sand and not do anything new? Maybe we should move backwards, skipping the Industrial Revolution and go back to each individual growing their own food?
This is a serious question. What do you propose? Because you are not able to pick and choose what humanity tries out, so shall we stop entirely?
CuriouslyC|1 year ago
smoldesu|1 year ago
dsr_|1 year ago
The only reliable long term growth curves so far are world population and global average temperature.
x86x87|1 year ago
richrichie|1 year ago
bee_rider|1 year ago
Unfortunately the chips are all to expensive so everybody wants to run them full-out all the time.
pmcf|1 year ago
Nonoyesnoyes|1 year ago
DC are run by companies with a shitload of money.
Not a hard problem.
And we can use the heat to heat houses too!
AtlasBarfed|1 year ago
If AI training is being that power hungry, maybe we shouldn't be doing it ... right now.
It's all fueled by speculative VC funding. This isn't a slam dunk economics calculation, certainly no more than regulation to shut this nonsense down would be.
philipkglass|1 year ago
"Wafer prices stable-to-soft on market oversupply"
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/03/15/wafer-prices-stable-t...
"Wacker Chemie’s sales, earnings fall in tough market"
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/01/30/wacker-chemies-sales-...
"China polysilicon prices fall 51.8% year-on-year amid supply glut"
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/01/19/china-polysilicon-pri...
"China solar cell prices decline on sluggish downstream demand"
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/01/05/china-solar-cell-pric...
hnbad|1 year ago
What we need the most is better storage technologies. PV, wind and hydro are highly variable which means you need something to cover the gaps between production and demand. Gas and coal plants are actually super useful for this because you can literally scale production up or down as needed by increasing or reducing fuel. If you want to eliminate gas and coal, you need a way to store excess energy and release it on demand - and to be able able to do so at the same scale as with fossil.
And nuclear power is actually worse in this regard because you effectively can't turn a nuclear power plant on or off. If it's on, it must remain on because taking it offline can take days and the same goes for turning it back on. But the problem right now is not lack of production but stability. And stability can only be achieved with better storage technologies - or fossil fuels.
bitwize|1 year ago
grecy|1 year ago
I wouldn't use what Bill Gates is investing in as any indicator of what we should be doing.