Big "data centers" running AI and "cloud computing" will use more power than a city

As many people could guess, engineering is very math-intensive.  I'm an engineer and pilot, and *very* proficient with engineering math.  So when a network pushes some bullshit stocks that involve engineering, it's easy to recognize the crap.

CNBC routinely does propaganda pieces, either favoring Democrat policies or pushing a vaporware stock.  But most of those are just a couple of thousand words.  This one was MUCH longer, titled 

"Data centers powering artificial intelligence could use more electricity than entire cities"

Bullet-points:
  * Data-center campuses power artificial intelligence and cloud computing;
  * These campuses could grow so large that finding enough power and suitable land to accommodate them becomes increasingly difficult;
  * Renewable energy alone won’t be sufficient to meet their power needs anytime soon;
  * Natural gas will *have to play a role,* which will slow progress toward meeting carbon dioxide emission targets.

The power needs of artificial intelligence and cloud computing are growing so large that individual data center campuses could soon use more electricity than some cities, even than entire states, according to companies developing the facilities.

The power used by these centers has gone exponential.  But don't be upset, citizen, cuz CNBC assures you the centers have a vital role in the economy, "powering the applications businesses and consumers rely on."
  Really?  What "applications," exactly?  You don't need blazing speed to manage credit-card transactions or similar.  All this processing power is being used for something, but it may not what they say.

These centers use unbelievable amounts of power: developers say a typical center is expected to need a gigawatt or more—a billion watts, or about *twice* the power used by all the homes in Pittsburgh (700,000 or so).

And here, 20 'grafs into the article, the author quietly admits

"Renewable energy alone won’t be sufficient to meet their power needs. Natural gas will have to play a role, developers say, which will slow progress toward meeting carbon dioxide emissions targets."

Wait..."renewable energy alone..."?  Nah, bro, renewable energy won't be even remotely useful, cuz it's, like, intermittent.  And these centers can't tolerate that.

To make things worse, even before these energy-gobbling centers appeared, the demand for power in the U.S. was already expected to surge, just as supply is falling due to the *forced shutdown* of coal- and some natural gas-powered plants.  Thanks, Obozo.

Again, in case you missed it: one "data center campus" will use as much power as about 700,000 homes, or a city of around 1.8 million people.

The CNBC article then names another company that wants to locate these huge electric loads close to "abundant renewable energy resources in west and central Texas."

"Abundant renewable energy resources," y'say?  But earlier the author quoted an expert as saying "developers" know "renewable alone" won't do it, since it's intermittent--and these data centers demand to be "on" around the clock.  So "renewable energy" is soothing horseshit, designed to get wealthy "-studies" majors to invest.

And remember that "one gigawatt" figure earlier?  Now we read that the developers have plans for a "campus" using up to five gigawatts.

Now more propaganda:
>>To power such "data-centers" developers have to ensure that electricity costs in neighboring communities don’t rise as a consequence...>>

<<Really?  How do you propose to do that, Sparky?  Simple: do what Microsoft is doing: re-start a mothballed nuclear reactor!

And now we start to see the total reversal of the Democrat-pushed "global warming" scam:  Every leftist (Democrats) was all in on using *less* energy, not more.  All coal-fired plants were slated to be closed, and no new gas-fired powerplants would be permitted to replace 'em!  But also no nukes, cuz nuclear iz Baaaaad!  

Duh Left demanded all new energy come from wind and solar.  One major oil company even funded research into using a specialized algae to make oil from sunlight.  It worked, and seemed to compete with oil from drilling in price.  But no government funding was provided for further development--because burning the oil from the algae would still put CO2 into the air!

So the pushers of AI and "cloud storage" have a PR problem: How to get Leftists to suddenly ignore the long saga of "global warming" and to embrace corporations using twice as much electricity as a city of 700,000--or maybe a lot more?

That's one of the reasons for the CNBC article.   

More propaganda:
>>Developers prefer carbon-free renewable energy, but they also see solar and wind alone as unable to meet current demand due to their reliance on changing weather conditions.>>

<<Ohhhh yes, Dorothy!  Actually developers wanted to power their profitable "campuses" with unicorn farts, which are totally carbon-free and are available at night and don't depend on wind.  You bet.  The line that starts "Developers prefer..." is designed to make the developers and companies seem environmentally friendly, so the Left won't go fucking ballistic.

The author mentions another company by name, with its CEO saying his data centers were online more than 99% of the time "and outages are out of the question."

He adds that running such centers "solely off local renewables is just not an option."

After the author carefully notes that "The major technology companies are some of the largest purchasers of renewable power in the U.S," we get to the next chunk of propaganda: the companies "are increasingly turning to nuclear in search of more reliable sources of electricity."

Enter Microsoft, which has signed a contract to buy power from re-starting a shutdown nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.

It'll be SO amusing to see if the pro-data-center propaganda succeeds in getting U.S. leftists to drop their objections to nuclear power, eh?  

Amazon and Alphabet are also investing in companies developing "small" nuclear reactors.  Amazon has invested $500 million in the project, and with that much money invested we can expect Democrats will line up to vote to approve the things.

But building new nuclear reactors is expensive, and often plagued by delays.  So developers say "In the short run, natural gas will fuel much of the power demanded by data centers."

This brings us to the next part of the problem: If a "data-center developer" contracts with a local utility for huge amounts of power, and the utility has regular residential customers, what happens if the utility has more demand than it can supply?  Who gets cut off, eh?

If you don't know, you haven't had much business experience: the data-center will get power, citizens will be cut off.  Cuz duh center provides maybe 30 maintenance jobs, eh?  And taxable income of some sort.  Money is power.

An exec for one of the touted companies says the Left shouldn't be concerned about more CO2 from the new gas-fired plants because "over time" new gas-fired generating plants "could" use "carbon-capture."  Oh, and battery storage."  So dere won't be any noticeable environmental impact, says the exec.

Those "measures" are hugely costly, so the companies have no intention of doing those things.  Far less expensive to get a utility contract with a buried clause saying they never get shut off.

The exec says "Industry hopes the demand for gas will taper off as renewables expand, battery storage costs come down and AI helps data centers operate more efficiently."

Wait...haven't we established that renewables like wind and solar are NOT suitable for constant power?  Ahh, but note how "AI will help the data centers run more efficiently!"

“Hopefully (using gas to produce power is) a short term side step.”  “What I’m seeing amongst our data center partners, our hyperscale conversations, is we cannot let this have an adverse effect on the environmental goals.”

Ahh, so you say it "can't have an adverse effect on environmental goals" despite putting millions of tons of extra CO2 into the air.  Seems clear that the second thing means there *must* be an adverse effect on emissions goals.  But the exec doesn't wanna admit that because spouting contradictions is good for your company, eh?

Source: CNBC

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/23/data-centers-powering-ai-could-use-more-electricity-than-entire-cities.html