US Data-Center Power Use Could Nearly Triple By 2028, DOE-Backed Report Says (reuters.com) 37
U.S. data center power demand could nearly triple in the next three years, and consume as much as 12% of the country's electricity, as the industry undergoes an AI transformation, according to an unpublished Department of Energy-backed report seen by Reuters. The publication adds: The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report, which is expected to be released on Friday, comes as the U.S. power industry and government agencies attempt to understand how the sudden rise of Big Tech's data-center demand will affect electrical grids, power bills and the climate.
By 2028, data-center annual energy use could reach between 74 and 132 gigawatts, or between 6.7% and 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption, according to the Berkeley Lab report. The industry standard-setting report included ranges that depended partly on the availability and demand for a type of AI chip known as GPUs. Currently, data centers make up a little more than 4% of the country's power load. "This really signals to us where the frontier is in terms of growing energy demand in the U.S.," said Avi Shultz, director of the DOE's Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office.
By 2028, data-center annual energy use could reach between 74 and 132 gigawatts, or between 6.7% and 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption, according to the Berkeley Lab report. The industry standard-setting report included ranges that depended partly on the availability and demand for a type of AI chip known as GPUs. Currently, data centers make up a little more than 4% of the country's power load. "This really signals to us where the frontier is in terms of growing energy demand in the U.S.," said Avi Shultz, director of the DOE's Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office.
Going nuclear. (Re:Heh. Ez.) (Score:5, Interesting)
More batteries, more solar panels.
Japan figured out that solar and batteries costs more than nuclear fission, it would not be a big leap of logic that this also applies in the USA.
It's a good thing that the Democrat party got on board with supporting nuclear fission to meet our energy needs, it would have been preferable they did this decades ago but with their recent change of heart we should see some real progress on energy independence and other matters on energy that has been concerning us for so long. It looks like American corporations figured out that solar + batteries won't meet their energy needs and are getting behind funding nuclear power plants directly for reliable, inexpensive, safe, and low carbon emitting energy. Recent polling shows the general public is on board with nuclear power. Cost analysis shows nuclear power is lower cost than most alternatives which likely explains a lot of support, people can't afford the luxury of remaining anti-"nukular" any more.
The cost of nuclear fission varies but generally it competes well with onshore wind, geothermal, and hydro. Wind power is great where I live in tornado alley. Um... I mean in the "wind corridor", I forgot the rebranding. Experiments with nuclear fission and thermal energy storage systems will likely pair very nicely with intermittent low cost wind power while being lower cost grid scale storage than can be had with batteries.
I've seen people trying to sell solar + batteries as the solution to our energy needs my entire life and even with generous subsidies and government policies it's been a failure. I don't know how much longer we need to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result before we call this insanity. Seeing people finally give nuclear power a chance is encouraging. With the big data corporations putting money into nuclear power shows they have confidence in the technology, both as a financial investment and as a public relations move.
Re: (Score:1)
Citation:
https://slashdot.org/story/24/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Fine. But make these corporate mega-conglomerates pay for the damn things. In fact their energy use should be billed to cover a discount to residential users that right now are being fucked by the increased 'power supply demand' driving up our bills beyond inflation level.
Some are offering to do that, and pay utilities to staff and run; or just hire away their staff. Some I know in the industry have been offered jobs while tehy are meeting with companies planning to build datacenters.
Data centres need to be offshore (Score:2)
where they can be cooled by to ocean and powered by offshore wind.
Re: (Score:2)
And their data connections can be severed by anchors and their sides caved in by depth charges.
So much for stopping climate change. (Score:3)
I think the real issue is can we produce enough emission free power to replace our current emissions and still meet the growing demand for power. And if not, what doesn't happen?
From current experience the answer is obvious. We have been adding emission free power all over the globe and emissions have been growing. The emission free production hasn't kept up with the growing use of power so we are replacing fossil fuel with more fossil fuel. The growth in data centers is going to exacerbate that problem.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the real issue is can we produce enough emission free power to replace our current emissions and still meet the growing demand for power. And if not, what doesn't happen?
From current experience the answer is obvious. We have been adding emission free power all over the globe and emissions have been growing. The emission free production hasn't kept up with the growing use of power so we are replacing fossil fuel with more fossil fuel. The growth in data centers is going to exacerbate that problem.
I think the real issue is can we produce enough emission free power to replace our current emissions and still meet the growing demand for power. And if not, what doesn't happen?
From current experience the answer is obvious. We have been adding emission free power all over the globe and emissions have been growing. The emission free production hasn't kept up with the growing use of power so we are replacing fossil fuel with more fossil fuel. The growth in data centers is going to exacerbate that problem.
Yeah, we're not allowed to buy standard incandescent bulbs because some fraction of a percent of U.S. power consumption is just too high a burden for the environment to bear, but when tech companies demand an extra 8% of the power grid for AI that nobody wants or asked for, that's just fine. Rolling my eyes at the hypocrisy.
IMO, power companies and governments need to work together to cap power consumption for big tech, granting only a minimal allowance for energy use growth over time. They won't improve
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, power companies and governments need to work together to cap power consumption for big tech, granting only a minimal allowance for energy use growth over time.
Never going to happen, for the simple fact that if today's "AI" craze isn't smoke and mirrors (and it very well might not be) the governments with the best models will have substantially better warfighting capabilities, and will dominate global trade. The reason this is moving as fast as it is without someone stepping in to kneecap it is that the risks are existential if you don't pursue it as fast as possible, because your adversary might be.
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck the climate. I got a quarterly bonus to work on and putting plebs out of a job. /s
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real issue is can we produce enough emission free power to replace our current emissions and still meet the growing demand for power. And if not, what doesn't happen?
Of course we can't, but the good news is that projects and mandates for silly battery EVs carrying dead weight around and burning rubber like crazy will all be cancelled.
You're joking right? You have Tesla's CEO in a leadership position. If you really think there won't be a push for more EVs under the next administration, you're kidding yourself. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking right? You have Tesla's CEO in a leadership position. If you really think there won't be a push for more EVs under the next administration, you're kidding yourself. :-)
I would not count on that logic given the personalities involved here. Its also not clear that Tesla will benefit from incentives that encourage its competition.
Which Means: We Will Do Nothing to Curb It (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We will have to endure nuclear accidents.
Yes, we will have to endure nuclear power accidents to get the energy we need. This is just like we will have to endure accidents in any industrial activity, including solar power, wind power, hydro power, and geothermal power. The difference with nuclear power is that it's the safest energy source we've seen.
We will have to kill a great many people to get the fuel.
Who are "we" in this case? Americans don't have to kill people for fuel, we produce enough of our own that we don't have to fight people for it. I don't see people killing each other in the USA for
Time to Analyze WTF Demand.. (Score:2)
When we used to see an unstoppable force consume infrastructure at a “sudden” rate, a network engineer plugged the sniffer in and declar3d “What the FUCK, Netflix.”
Who (and/or what) exactly is contributing to this voracious and practically instantaneous (by comparison) demand for data center power, and why in the fuck are we not questioning this demand more instead of considering even nuclear power to fuel Greeds lust?
Sure, we all have our suspicions (cough, $hitcoin, cough ), but I
Challenging environment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they shutdown, IPPs and utilities would be stuck
That's the way our economy works. Corporations transfer as much of the risk as they can to the public. They have a separate corporation take the remaining risk. If the bet goes bad the losses are limited and the public and creditors are stuck with the bill. But they claim all of the winnings.
Re: (Score:2)
If they shutdown, IPPs and utilities would be stuck
That's the way our economy works. Corporations transfer as much of the risk as they can to the public. They have a separate corporation take the remaining risk. If the bet goes bad the losses are limited and the public and creditors are stuck with the bill. But they claim all of the winnings.
Which is why I think they should be required to own the plant as an IPP so the ratepayer is not on the hook, rather than force utilities to take risky bets. If they don't want to foot the costs, they an go elsewhere or not get the power guarantees they want. Or just fire up those old nukes, gas and coal plants so if things go south you shut them down again.
Re: (Score:2)
Demand from AI is likely to be a nor issue - in terms of capacity and T&D. There are only so many shutdown nukes and coal plants to restart.
Even that is substantially harder than you think it is.
With coal plants, for one most of them go into full remediation almost immediately, with new permanent lined coal ash basins excavated or the ash moved. That basically decommissions the effluent control systems, among other things. But more importantly coal plants are often tuned to run on very specific coals, sometimes right down to coals from specific local mines. In many cases those mines are gone too. Changing the nature of the coal burned can cost
Re: (Score:2)
Demand from AI is likely to be a nor issue - in terms of capacity and T&D. There are only so many shutdown nukes and coal plants to restart.
Even that is substantially harder than you think it is.
Yea, as a former nuke engineer/ operator i’m surprised they are even trying it; it shows what happens when you have stupid amiounts of money and are convinced you can do anything, I guess.
With coal plants, for one most of them go into full remediation almost immediately, with new permanent lined coal ash basins excavated or the ash moved. That basically decommissions the effluent control systems, among other things. But more importantly coal plants are often tuned to run on very specific coals, sometimes right down to coals from specific local mines. In many cases those mines are gone too. Changing the nature of the coal burned can cost hundreds of millions, assuming you can get the emission control systems to play nicely at all.
Thanks, my knowledge of coal plants is limited so I appreciate the info. I do know one utility at least has had offers to get coal plants restarted.
The facilities themselves (gas combined cycle anyway) can be thrown up shockingly fast if the regulatory hurdles get pushed aside. The danger comes from all these states competing with each other out of fear that they're going to miss out on a transformative economic opportunity... we all know how that can go.
Gas plants are quick top build and some I’ve seen are basically remotely operated. Their downside is they are real sensitive to fuel costs. 10 years or so ago y
We will have flying cars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
availability and demand for a type of AI chip known as GPUs.
Considering the dimwit that wrote that article for Reuters apparently doesn't even know what a GPU is, I tend to agree.
Since when is energy Watts? (Score:1)
There is something deeply disturbing (Score:3)
This is definitely not the future we were promised. You can bet your ass though your power bill is going to go up because of this. Supply and demand baby supply and demand.
And this doesn't even create very many jobs. These data centers barely employ anyone. I just saw an article about Phoenix Arizona complaining because they had all these data centers coming in using up water and making noise from the backup generators and taking up land in places that should be high employment areas and then barely bringing any jobs. The only positive thing they could say about data centers was the property taxes but I know from experience companies often just don't pay their property taxes and then after a few years the city desperate for cash will settle with them for a fraction of the original amount...
Re: (Score:1)
If you really want to work, you can have my 4 hour shift.
Ugh (Score:2)
[super happy face]
[facepalm]
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power is going to experience a renaissance...
[super happy face]
I expect a lot of happy faces now that we are seeing the federal government, and state governments, be more welcoming to nuclear power. As an example we saw California do a 180 on Diablo Canyon after they realized that by closing down that nuclear power plant there would be a huge hole to fill on electrical supply, and a huge hole in lost jobs. The largest obstacle to nuclear power, at least as I see it, for the last 40+ years has been Democrats in the US Senate. Democrats didn't need a majority to hold
AI Surtax? (Score:2)
Less is more (Score:2)
in the mean time (Score:2)
as power usage by big business for their data center usage increases, there will be more brownouts and more energy alerts for the American people because there will no longer be enough to go around. It will be like what happened in Califormia with water. While the people were told to conserve water during the drought, the water bottling plants, were busy pumping away. I feel the same will happen with electricity. Big business don't care.