The AI buildout's carbon bill could undo 15 years of power sector emissions cuts

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,625   +79
Staff
In a nutshell: Data centers have already drawn widespread resistance over their impact on electricity prices and water supplies, and estimates of how their energy use might affect carbon emissions have recently grown. Still, projections vary widely, owing to uncertainty over renewables and over how many data centers will actually be built in the next several years.

In a report obtained by Bloomberg, the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club estimates that planned US AI data centers would add 618 million metric tons to the power sector's carbon emissions between 2025 and 2030, a 42% increase. The figure would effectively reverse 15 years of greenhouse gas reductions from electricity generation.

Adding that much CO2 would bring the sector's 2030 emissions to 2.1 billion metric tons. The latest estimate of the AI buildout's effect is between two and four times what the group would have projected a year and a half ago.

Many of these data centers are turning to new power sources of their own to avoid waiting to plug into existing grids. While that might ease the strain on residential grids and electricity prices, these off-grid sources could add more than 460 million metric tons of emissions, roughly equal to Mexico's annual emissions.

Estimates remain far apart, though: the gap between the lowest and highest projections exceeds the combined electricity demand of California and Florida. One reason is that renewables could supply much of the new buildout. Rhodium Group, for example, finds that even in its highest-emission scenario, the power sector's 2040 emissions would fall 24% below 2025 levels.

There is still no guarantee that all currently planned data centers will actually be built.

There is also no guarantee that every planned data center will actually be built. Earlier this year, Sightline Climate estimated that between one-third and half of the US data centers slated to open this year will be delayed or canceled.

Struggles to meet AI's power demands have already slowed the deployment of data center GPUs. Amazon and other companies are reportedly letting "dark GPUs" sit unused until the data centers meant to house them have the power to run them.

Amazon's planned Texas data center, meanwhile, would be fed by a 7.65-gigawatt natural gas plant permitted to emit up to 33 million tons of CO2 a year, which could make it the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the US.

Carbon emissions are just one reason data centers are increasingly controversial in the US. Residents of communities near data centers often complain about electricity prices, noise, water pollution, and impacts on property values.

Permalink to story:

 
One of the big things I actually liked about the AI build out was that it basically undid 40 years of nuclear fear mongering. Global warming is an unnecessarily sensitive issue for people, but one thing I think everyone can agree on is that they would rather breathe clean air over dirty air.

While I'm not big on all the AI investing non-sense, it has dumped tons of money in to smaller reactors and fuel recycling. Over 90% of spent nuclear fuel can be repurposed into new nuclear fuel. The other thing is that a biproduct of fission reactions is HELIUM. The world is far more dependant on Helium than anyone really understands and that without it the modern world would basically end. We can get cheap, clean energy while also "producing"(for lack of a better word) Helium. Suddenly having an abundance of Helium would change the world.

The Datacenter epidemic has put our aging grid front and center in front of everybody. I also think that if we force everyone to follow emission regulations to the T instead of giving everyone a pass because "AI make number go up" then investment into cleaner alternatives like nuclear become attractive, even if it is supplimental.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this and I think so much of the pushback isn't aid directly at the Datacenters. It's all the nonsense that comes with them that doesn't even have to be that way. Datacenters absolutely can be built around the idea that they have to improve the area around them instead of being a burdern on it. That's absolutely possible and I don't want to hear that the money isn't there when they're borrowing money from my pension fund to raise my electric bill.

It's not hard to build datacenters without pissing everyone off. There is a way to build datacenters to MAKE people want one built near them. Is anyone going to do that? probably not.
 
Sadly humans and their greed can't see into their own destruction even when they know we are destroying the only Earth we have.

Politicians are too busy thinking about the A.I race...but how good is it for any country to win it, when we have put our own health at further risks of major pollution caused diseases and irreversible planet species extinction?

This is the world they are leaving to their kids...a totally polluted and dead world.
 
Last edited:
Sadly humans and their greed can't see into their own destruction even when they know we are destroying the only Earth we have.

Politicians are too busy thinking about the A.I race...but how good is it for any country to win it, when we have put our own health at further risks of major pollution caused diseases and irreversible planet species extinction?

This is the world they are leaving to their kids...a totally polluted and dead world.
Even after all that we've faced, humanity still hasn't reached maturity. Indeed, after the idealism of the second half of the 20th century, it seems we're now getting worse. Modes of thought leading in this direction are promoted, today, as "strong-man" thinking.
 
Carbon emissions is something that doesn't matter at all.

CO2 is not a pollutant, and "climate change" is essentially dead after hysterical hypochondriacs switched sides en masse. None of them is freaking out about unpleasant weather killing us in 100 years, when Skynet of rogue agents will kill us next year 🤣🤣🤣

So ... you can't scare anyone with articles about carbon emissions. Write about Skynet.

 
Carbon emissions is something that doesn't matter at all.

CO2 is not a pollutant, and "climate change" is essentially dead after hysterical hypochondriacs switched sides en masse. None of them is freaking out about unpleasant weather killing us in 100 years, when Skynet of rogue agents will kill us next year 🤣🤣🤣

So ... you can't scare anyone with articles about carbon emissions. Write about Skynet.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/carbon-dioxide/
 
Everything that data centers bring is plain bad, and yet the corrupt government praises them like second coming. Every day passes, things get progressively worse everywhere.
 
Last edited:
One of the big things I actually liked about the AI build out was that it basically undid 40 years of nuclear fear mongering. Global warming is an unnecessarily sensitive issue for people, but one thing I think everyone can agree on is that they would rather breathe clean air over dirty air.

While I'm not big on all the AI investing non-sense, it has dumped tons of money in to smaller reactors and fuel recycling. Over 90% of spent nuclear fuel can be repurposed into new nuclear fuel. The other thing is that a biproduct of fission reactions is HELIUM. The world is far more dependant on Helium than anyone really understands and that without it the modern world would basically end. We can get cheap, clean energy while also "producing"(for lack of a better word) Helium. Suddenly having an abundance of Helium would change the world.

The Datacenter epidemic has put our aging grid front and center in front of everybody. I also think that if we force everyone to follow emission regulations to the T instead of giving everyone a pass because "AI make number go up" then investment into cleaner alternatives like nuclear become attractive, even if it is supplimental.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this and I think so much of the pushback isn't aid directly at the Datacenters. It's all the nonsense that comes with them that doesn't even have to be that way. Datacenters absolutely can be built around the idea that they have to improve the area around them instead of being a burdern on it. That's absolutely possible and I don't want to hear that the money isn't there when they're borrowing money from my pension fund to raise my electric bill.

It's not hard to build datacenters without pissing everyone off. There is a way to build datacenters to MAKE people want one built near them. Is anyone going to do that? probably not.
Global warming has insidiously been renamed to 'climate change'.
 
Oh no,not carbon!

Oh wait, back in 2000 "climate scientists" and politicians like Al Gore swore if we didn't cut global carbon emissions by 50 %, by 2020 florida would be underwater.

It's now 2026, global carbon emissions have more then doubled, and florida, along with the costal palaces of the political elite, are still not underwater. Hmmmm........

Saying "618 million tons in 4 years" sounds very very scary, until you look at global carbon output for countries like China or india. India alone put out over 3 BILLION in a single year, and it's rate has been increasing exponentially. Yet when we talk of reducing carbon, nobody ever mentions India or China. Wonder why that is......
 
Back