Comment by jillesvangurp

Comment by jillesvangurp 12 hours ago

12 replies

There are two ways to make AI cheaper: make energy cheaper or make AI hardware and algorithms more efficient and use less energy that way. Google is investing in doing both. And that's a good thing.

I actually see growth in energy demand because of AI or other reasons as a positive thing. It's putting pressure on the world to deliver more energy cheaply. And it seems the most popular and straightforward way is through renewables + batteries. The more clean and cheap capacity like that is added, the more marginalized traditional more expensive solutions get.

The framing on this topic can be a bit political. I prefer to look at this through the lens of economics. The simple economic reality is that coal and gas plant construction has been bottle necked for years on a lot of things to the point where only very little of it gets planned and realized. And what little comes online has pretty poor economics. The cost and growth curves for renewables+battery paint a pretty optimistic picture here with traditional generation plateauing for a while (we'll still build more coal/gas plants, not a lot, and they'll be underutilized) and then dropping rapidly second half of the century as cost and availability of alternatives improves and completely steam roll anything that can't keep up. Fossil fuel based generation could be all but gone by the 2060s.

There are lots of issues with regulations, planning, approval, etc for fossil fuel based generation. There are issues with supply chains for things like turbines. Long term access to cooling water (e.g. rivers) is becoming problematic because of climate change. And there are issues with investors voting with their feet and being reluctant to make long term commitments in what could end up being very poor long term investments. A lot of this also impacts nuclear, which while clean remains expensive and hard to deliver. The net result of all this is that investments in new energy capacity are heavily biased towards battery + renewables. It's the only thing that works on short notice. And it's also the cheapest way to add new capacity. Current growth is already 80-90% renewable. It's not even close at this point. We're talking tens/hundreds of GW added annually.

Of course AI is so hungry for energy that there is a temporary increase in usage for coal/gas. That's existing underutilized plants temporarily getting utilized a bit more mainly because they are there and utilizing them a bit more is relatively easy and quick to realize. It's not actually cheaper and future cost reductions will likely come in the form of replacing that capacity with cheaper power generation as soon as that can be delivered.

Jaxan 10 hours ago

There is a third way of making AI cheaper: using it less.

We have seen many technologies which have been made so much more efficient (heat pumps, solar panels, etc). Really great achievements. Yet the amount of (fossil) energy we use still grows.

  • jillesvangurp 9 hours ago

    Using less is always an individual choice. But not a realistic one to expect 8 billion+ people to take. That's also why fossil fuel usage is still increasing.

    However, you might be too pessimistic here. Fossil fuel usage is actually widely expected to peak in the next few years and then enter a steady decline.

    Michael Liebreich of Bloomberg NEF did a pretty interesting editorial on this decline a few weeks ago: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/liebreich-the-p...

    He uses a simple model with some very basic assumptions (conservative ones) where he shows how short term fossil fuel usage still increases. Mostly this is just market inertia. But then it will start decreasing and then some decades later, it declines all the way to zero with some long tail of hard to shift use cases.

    He uses some very basic assumptions about economic growth continuing to grow by an average of 3%, a base assumption of renewables outgrowing energy demand increases by 3%, etc. You get to a modest fossil fuel decline by 2040, majority renewables powered economy by the 2050s. And virtually no fossil fuel left in the economy by 2065. The years change but the outcome stays the same as long as renewables outgrow demand increase.

    There are lots of buts and ifs here but he's explicitly addressing the kind of pessimism you are voicing here.

    • Jaxan 9 hours ago

      I appreciate your reply, thanks!

      About the “individual choice”: it indeed is, unless tech companies make bad choices. Like GitHub recently showed a button “what are my PRs?” When pressed it asked copilot to give you the list of PRs (incomplete btw). But there already exists a page for that! This is just wasteful and we should blame a company for that.

      • immibis 2 hours ago

        Or Google running an AI summary on every single search even though you mostly ignore it. There was no need for Google to do that, and it wasn't my choice.

  • ACCount37 8 hours ago

    If your "solution" involves an average person being informed of something and then changing his lifestyle, at a personal loss?

    Then you have no solution at all.

    • Jaxan 4 hours ago

      People do things at a personal loss all the time, like giving money to charity or unpaid volunteer work.

      And yes, keeping people informed is difficult but a crucial effort for a working democracy.

  • temp123098 10 hours ago

    The average person doesn't care enough about not using fossil fuels to lower his quality of life. If your plan of action is moralizing at them until they do we might as well nuke ourselves back into the stone age for all the effect it will have.

    The benefits of technical solutions is that you get the desired effect without any real trade-offs. I don't really care if I use a boiler or a heat pump to heat my house, because the end goal is to heat my house. I don't really care if I use an electric car or dead dinosaurs car, I just want to get places.

    Make the efficient, more climate-friendly alternative a better deal and most people will switch. Tell people that they should give up their cars and AC because the planet will be 3C warmer in 100 years and you'll get an eye-roll. If you want the more environmentally-friendly but also more expensive option to win then the only real option is government subsidies, not preaching - enlightened self-interest trumps all.

    • Jaxan 10 hours ago

      I do not agree with this perspective. A lot of people care not only about their own quality of life. But also the life of their peers, children and even people they don’t know. Many people make sacrifices to help others and the planet. It’s only a recent (western) idea that we can just sit back and only care about our own quality of life.

      • temp123098 9 hours ago

        But do those hypothetical people care enough to make some actual sacrifices for those strangers?

        For most people, replacing your car with an electric one isn't a big deal. Replacing a car with public transportation is either impossible (living in the boonies), incredibly difficult (suburbia) or merely very annoying (city).

        I very much doubt the average person is willing to give up his car for some nebulous greater good of some strangers half a world away, especially when he hears of Jeff Bozos of this world shutting down half of Venice for a wedding so 50 private jets can ferry fellow fat cats to have a good time. But you, Joe Schmo, ought to use paper straws, sit in 30C room in the summer and sit at home instead of traveling for vacations. To save the planet.

        The situation isn't much different in non-Western countries. Over the last few years China did more for electrification from renewable sources than the rest of the world combined, and yet they're also building a lot of coal power plants because that's what they have so that's what they'll use, damn everybody else. India isn't going to willingly stay poor so that ivory tower elites can feel good about themselves. Countries with oil reserves, majorly non-western, certainly aren't going to not extract it for the good of the planet.