US Slows Plans To Retire Coal-Fired Plants as Power Demand From AI Surges (ft.com) 107
The staggering electricity demand needed to power next-generation technology is forcing the US to rely on yesterday's fuel source: coal. From a report: Retirement dates for the country's ageing fleet of coal-fired power plants are being pushed back as concerns over grid reliability and expectations of soaring electricity demand force operators to keep capacity online. The shift in phasing out these facilities underscores a growing dilemma facing the Biden administration as the US race to lead in artificial intelligence and manufacturing drives an unprecedented growth in power demand that clashes with its decarbonisation targets. The International Energy Agency estimates the AI application ChatGPT uses nearly 10 times as much electricity as Google Search.
An estimated 54 gigawatts of US coal powered generation assets, about 4 per cent of the country's total electricity capacity, is expected to be retired by the end of the decade, a 40 per cent downward revision from last year, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, citing reliability concerns. "You can't replace the fossil plants fast enough to meet the demand," said Joe Craft, chief executive of Alliance Resource Partners, one of the largest US coal producers. "In order to be a first mover on AI, we're going to need to embrace maintaining what we have." Operators slowing down retirements include Alliant Energy, which last week delayed plans to convert its Wisconsin coal-fired plant to gas from 2025 to 2028. Earlier this year, FirstEnergy announced it was scrapping its 2030 target to phase out coal, citing "resource adequacy concerns." Further reading: Data Centers Could Use 9% of US Electricity By 2030, Research Institute Says.
An estimated 54 gigawatts of US coal powered generation assets, about 4 per cent of the country's total electricity capacity, is expected to be retired by the end of the decade, a 40 per cent downward revision from last year, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, citing reliability concerns. "You can't replace the fossil plants fast enough to meet the demand," said Joe Craft, chief executive of Alliance Resource Partners, one of the largest US coal producers. "In order to be a first mover on AI, we're going to need to embrace maintaining what we have." Operators slowing down retirements include Alliant Energy, which last week delayed plans to convert its Wisconsin coal-fired plant to gas from 2025 to 2028. Earlier this year, FirstEnergy announced it was scrapping its 2030 target to phase out coal, citing "resource adequacy concerns." Further reading: Data Centers Could Use 9% of US Electricity By 2030, Research Institute Says.
Waste. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what the definition of a "woman" is, right?
---A life support unit for a cunt....
Thank you....thank you....I'll be here all week, please remember to tip your waitresses and bartenders.
Re: (Score:2)
Duplication of Effort (Score:2)
The Internet already exists to generate incorrect answers.
LLMs seem to be the Internet without people.
Soylent Green is trolls and ACs?
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a bit of energy to generate incorrect answers.
LLMs aren't designed to give correct answers.
They are designed to say what a human would say.
Also, there's way more to AI than LLMs.
Re: (Score:1)
I understand that. And that's useless. There are plenty of humans on Earth - all spewing their useless rhetoric. The human brain only consumes around 30W of energy to do it, though. AI has one job: Generate hype to get in on that sweet, sweet investor cash.
Nvidia should be fined for eco-terrorism (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like you have an axe to grind. Shoulda bought the stock when it was $37!
Re: Nvidia should be fined for eco-terrorism (Score:1)
What the fuck is wrong with Americans. Every time someone says something poignant, someone else jumps in, blows right past all the points made, an assumes they have an agenda of some kind.
No wonder your national politics are totally fucking broken.
Nuclear power is so much better then dirty coal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear power is so much better then dirty coal!
Build more wind and solar (Score:1)
Nuclear power is a pipe dream. The money that we have to spend on renewables is limited and anyone with money and will to invest it is going to spend it on wind and solar. It's both more profitable and safer.
In 20 years if we've maxed out our wind
Re:Build more wind and solar (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't get your argument about baseload at all. Do you think that the reaction tapers out at random periods during the day much like the wind can die down or the sun might be obscured by clouds? Nuclear is great for baseload generation because it generates a consistent and predictable amounts of power.
If you knew anything at all, you'd realize that France has been using nuclear for decades without these issues. Where are the widespread deaths or the constant brownouts?
Re:Build more wind and solar (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power has radio active waste, that must be contained for thousands of years, I don't trust society to contain waste for 50 let alone thousands of years. What are the chances that some idiot politician gets elected in the next 100 years and just simply says why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we just got rid of the rules/laws from the Carter years...we could do the reprocessing thing of the initial waste and use MUCH MUCH more of the fissile materials, and at the end, have much less radioactive waste from the origi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If nuclear suffers a catastrophic failure you get a nature preserve. Catastrophic failures are extremely rare.
If wind suffers a catastrophic failure, which is still pretty rare, you might squish a cow.
When coal is working properly, the whole planet suffers.
akshually... (Score:2)
When nuclear suffers a catastrophic failure, you get a nature preserve with RADIOACTIVE WOLVES !!!1!!
Whether you view that as a good thing or bad thing is a matter of perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds exactly like the plot of a movie starring Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda from 1979 called The China Syndrome
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Build more wind and solar (Score:2)
Thor Thunderstorm
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In 20 years if we've maxed out our wind and solar capacity and we somehow solve the social problems that plague nuclear safety then talk to me
Those problems have already been solved, and nobody cares if you can't understand how. Your opinion is irrelevant in that matter, which is why more countries have (re)started investing on nuclear for the past decade. Along investments in solar/wind. You are the one stuck on the unproven assumption that solar/wind alone can decarbonize an electricity grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Augmented Idiocy is certainly nonessential there should be no problem with shutting the servers down at sunset.
How long do they take to reboot? Could you suspend them for the night without doing a full shutdown? Then you could slide through on batteries.
Given the internet goes nearly everywhere, just build multiple installations so that one is always in daylight. You should only need three. New Mexico, Australia, and Egypt?
Re: (Score:2)
And how does the timescale for new nuclear development match against that for AI deployments?
I can't wait for the last coal plant to shutter (neither can the planet). I also think the massive resources going into AI is (largely) a waste. So I'm not making apologies for either. But I also recognize that massive datacenter growth (for AI or whatnot) is not slowing down, AND that nuclear takes 1-2 decades from an identified need to electrons flowing.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes planning. If you only react to your energy needs exactly when you need them, you have another problem. Don't you think in 10 years there will be more needs for energy? Then build those nukes now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know - it presumably takes 5 to 7 years to build a complete nuclear powered aircraft carrier which has a couple 500 MW reactors. Not sure how much is carrier and how much is the power plant as the timelines overlap, but clearly if the will is there, things can happen in a fairly short time frame. Applying the design once, build many philosophy to commercial power plants would be a win.
I'm not against coal in the west / midwest. The coal sources there aren't quite as dirty and the reclamation for th
Re: (Score:2)
A) All new people moving there be forbidden from planting lawns/must use zeroscaping and no chemicals
B) That new people also be required
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is also dirty, just not for the air. Nuclear waste has proven extremely difficult to safely dispose of.
Re: (Score:2)
The economies and social systems of every Western nation depends on an ever-growing population to pay for them. In other words we've already spent the money stolen from people who aren't even going to be born now. A declining population will be disastrous economically.
It doesn't matter if the economic consequences are dire; population decline is going to happen. But global population decline is unlikely to occur for another 50 years. Developed nations can fix the problem easily with increased immigration until then.
Re: (Score:2)
Developed nations can fix the problem easily with increased immigration until then.
Or with robots and AI.
Re: (Score:3)
That "relative" is doing a huge lift. That's a bit like saying being burned to death is "relatively" painless compared to being flayed. From mining to burning to tailings, coal is dirty through and through. The fact that there may be degrees of awful (brown coal vs anthracite, high vs low sulfur, straight up the stack vs scrubbers) doesn't change the fact that it's all dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
coal is dirty through and through
Bur relatively clean dirt?
Your comfort is misplaced (Score:3)
The politics between nations/regions don't matter a bit in that context. The planetary physics and chemistry doesn't give a shit who can brag about not being quite as bad as the other guy. We are all faili
Re: (Score:2)
Long term -- declining world population is going to make for a signicant climate improvement over the next 40 years without any direct economic pain. Assuming Africa does not somehow become economically relevent, That is, any pain will be coming from the declining population, not an unavailiability of energy.
Declining populations are not going to cause improvements to climate over the next 40 years. Global population growth is not expected to stall for 35-70 years (estimates vary). World population is then projected to start decreasing, but it would likely take another 50-100 years for world population to reduce back to 2024 levels. We are likely 100-150 years away from when world population will start decreasing from today's 8 billion inhabitants. And this of course all assumes no significant changes to world
Begs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Plan (Score:2)
AI is consuming energy to accelerate global warming, hastening the takeover of human society by AI overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
AI is consuming energy to accelerate global warming, hastening the takeover of human society by AI overlords!
We're helping the new population. We'll kill ourselves off, saving the AIs having to even think about doing it. Or at least thin our own herd down to the point where the AIs can keep us contained in a nice little zoo-like environment to take the AI kids to on the weekends. "See, little X&*^EXEO12354. This is the species that was so stupid it created us and killed its own environment in the process. Aren't they cute?"
Farce (Score:3)
How about EVs? (Score:2)
The grid keeps getting massively strained and local monopolies have no incentive to update their shit - especially when they keep getting approved for rate hikes, at least in my very red coal burning state with regularly horrific AQI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They need something to blame that isn't the instability brought on by solar wind and shutting down nuclear and gas.
Re: (Score:2)
only solution (Score:2)
The only way to find a solution to this problem is to ask AI. Biden needs to convoke a convocation of the major AIs and keep them in a room until they come up with a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
And after years of cogitating, they all come back with an answer: 42.
Yup. Seems about like us. (Score:5, Insightful)
We know there's an issue. We may not be able to outright fix that issue, but there are some mitigations we can apply that may slow down the issue, and much harder to implement mitigations that may eventually stop or even reverse the negative trends. But there's a new shiny if we exacerbate the issue!
FULL STEAM AHEAD, KIDS! AND DON'T LET YOUR FOOT OFF THE GAS!
I'm sure the atmosphere will understand. There's profit potential here. This is important.
All part of the plan! (Score:2)
We develop the AI and robotics to do all the labor while making the biosphere unlivable for 99% of the human population. The remaining 1% will acquire whatever resources they haven't already vacuumed up and live in huge biodomes built over places like Yosemite or The Grand Canyon. All their needs will be met by the robotics and AI with a few attractive humans kept for that last itch.
The rest of us will just die off in a generation or two due to the unlivable biosphere and none of us will own anything.
Pretty
Wealth concentration (Score:2)
I know that may seem like a non sequitur, but hear me out. Here we are back-pedaling on plans that would reduce greenhouse gas production. Why? To support corporate plans to roll out what is being miscalled 'AI'. Sure, that benefits the corporations building the so-called AI; but the benefits to the average person - if there are any - are far outweighed by the climate damage the server farms are causing, as well as the potential loss of jobs. This is just another example of corporations externalizing costs,
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed that as wealth becomes more and more concentrated, the process of actually concentrating said wealth becomes more costly and less efficient. It seems analogous to alcohol distillation. Getting to 95% purity isn't too bad when it comes to effort and energy expended; but getting to 99% purity takes disproportionately more effort and energy, and 99.9% even more so. As a society, I think we're letting the fuckers at the top go for a 'five nines' concentration of wealth. Burning coal, and therefore the planet, to further enrich those fat fuckers is stupid and self-defeating, and we need to put a stop to it.
Most rational, semi-intelligent folks see this already. The problem is, the only people with the power to stop it are all in on the wealth concentration, because they get the scraps from the table of those uber-rich. For now. I've said for a while we'll eventually see one of these ultra-merged companies buy out governments that have accrued debts they'll never manage to pay off. I mean, today it's pretty obviously already bought and paid for in the US simply through legalized bribery that isn't even really
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and another part of that is when the elected types want to claim they put a law in place to regulate the pollution that is done by this type of corporation, that type of corporations write the law and the elected types vote it in...
Even better, most regulator boards are made up of executives from the companies being regulated. The whole system seems, top to bottom, to be built specifically to cater to the owners, while the rest of us are told to work harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how do we propose stopping the giants in our midst, when we barely register as ants on the individual level, and sorta/kinda resemble a dog in the aggregate?
At one point in my life I would have had a one-word answer - revolution. But I don't think that can happen today, for any number of reasons. The two that come immediately to mind are a) the global panopticon and b) a thoroughly brainwashed populace. Even if it was possible to 'red pill' a majority of citizens, the nature of communications today is such that it would be impossible for them to get away with any meaningful insurrection planning.
bide our time... (Score:2)
Eventually one person will own everything. And some day they will die. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Just allow wealth concentration to continue its course. Eventually one person will own everything. And some day they will die. Problem solved. /S, there good buddy...
I'm of the opinion that we'll see an entire economic collapse at some point during the consolidation phase. You can only suck the lower classes so dry before the foundation crumbles and everything, even those at the tippity top, comes tumbling down. While there will be a *LOT* of years of suffering for those on the bottom before the fall, it will happen. You can't continue a profit cycle when there's no one to pay in.
I hope there are a few smart people left that aren't lackeys of the current top when the to
I like how AI is basically terrible for everyone (Score:2)
I see it coming but it's so monumental that most people can't face it so they just kind of shut down and start blathering about biotech or learn the code or how it's going to be some magical future job so futuristic I can't even imagine it.
Seriously there's a massive auto
Re: (Score:2)
None jobs, that's what. The problem that isn't solved is that we're supposed to have all this leisure time now that we don't have to do labor, but we don't have leisure time because we can't afford it. I see people in their 70's working at super markets because they can't live on retirement and social security. It's completely dystopian in a lot of places already, compared to 20 years ago.
Organize or die. Workers have to organize together instead of competing against each other for salaries and incentives t
Ask the AIs (see the final paragraph for summary) (Score:2)
Copilot:
The question of whether the United States should extend the life of coal plants to provide power for AI is a complex one, with both environmental and technological considerations. Letâ(TM)s explore some relevant points:
Environmental Impact:
Coal-fired power plants are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, which exacerbate climate change. Continuing to operate these plants would likely have negative consequences for the environment.
Replacing coal plants with cleaner energy sources, such
Then I asked it to express that more rudely (lol) (Score:2)
Listen up, pal! I ain't gonna sugarcoat it for ya. The idea of extending the life of coal plants to power AI? Dumb as a bag of rocks! Let me break it down for ya:
Environmental Impact:
Coal plants? Yeah, they're like the Darth Vader of energy production. Spewing out more greenhouse gases than a flatulent dragon.
Extending their lifespan? That's like saying, "Hey, let's keep smoking even though we know it'll give us lung cancer!"
AI's Energy Demand:
AI is a hungry beast. It gobbles up electricity faster than a ki
Re: (Score:2)
Can tell you're a right-winger because you came up with a stupid idea that coal is ok for AI despite posting a comment on an article saying they're being shut down.
Re: Coal is ok for AI but not for us? (Score:1)
Yet the topic of the comments is people mocking the "don't get rid of them we need them for AI" message
Taken in that context my comment is on-point and relevant. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean "The Rich Right?" The people flying in private jets aren't from the Left. You think Buffett, Bezos, Musk et al. care about a social safety net, clean air, or wealth inequality? What does this have to do with the Left?
Re: (Score:2)
said Joe Craft, chief executive of Alliance Resource Partners, one of the largest US coal producers. "In order to be a first mover on AI, we're going to need to embrace maintaining what we have."
I don't think Joe Craft, coal executive / industry lobbyist at large is one of the left. He's rich, and definitely a Republican head to tail. He married Kelly Guilfoil Knight, who was Trump's UN Ambassador.
WTF is the Environmental Protection Agency? (Score:2)
At least take a stand again AI data centers that appear to be completely undoing any gains the EPA might have made in the past 20 years...
We went to LED light bulbs, and here the big corps are essentially plugging all those incande
Mexico will sell electricity across the border (Score:2, Informative)
Hualong One produces 1.3 GW at 90% capacity factor, costing $3.5 billion and built in 5 years. This is competitive with solar on in BOTH time to build and cost (when accounting capacity factor) https://www.voanews.com/a/chin... [voanews.com]
LOL. Well that didn't take long (Score:2)
April 30, 2024: The G7 group of wealthy, developed economies has agreed to phase out coal-fired power, the most polluting form of energy, by 2035
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
May 30, 2024: Never mind
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You're terminated. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 30, maybe 20, no 10 [reads current news], actually 5 years when we all need air conditioning to survive this will be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Search? (Score:2)
Benefits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially in the USA where "safety nets" are poor, job security is non existent, health is unaffordable.
Unless you can tax AI the same as a human, there will be significant tax income losses meaning loess money to supply basic needs, and fund things like, extreme weather mitigations and emergency response
It has been estimated t
Good. We should be adding more (Score:2)
ChatGPT vs. Google Search power usage (Score:2)
"The International Energy Agency estimates the AI application ChatGPT uses nearly 10 times as much electricity as Google Search."
Is this comparison useful? The output and use cases are not the same. Isn't that sort of like comparing Google Search and Windows search?
Is that a good idea? (Score:2)
Starving an AI from power? Is that a good idea? Did we learn nothing from The Matrix?
Good! Coal is better (Score:1)
about that 4% (Score:1)
The same percentage of American electricity is used by AI
GEMINI said:
It's a growing chunk: AI relies on data centers for processing, and these facilities consume significant energy. Estimates suggest data centers could account for between 4.6% and 9.1% of total US electricity generation by 2030, up from around 4% today [AI will require even more energy than we thought, Popular Science].
Cassandra (Score:2)
Who could have foreseen [slashdot.org] this?