this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
267 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

78661 readers
5131 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
267
‘Just an unbelievable amount of pollution’: how big a threat is AI to the climate? (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 week ago by homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/32465427

Datacentres consume just 1% of the world’s electricity but may soon demand much more. Their share of US electricity is projected to more than double to 8.6% by 2035, according to BloombergNEF, while the IEA projects datacentres will account for at least 20% of the rich world’s growth in electricity demand to the end of the decade.

“This idea that the lower cost of renewables alone will drive decarbonisation – it’s not enough,” said Daly. “Because if there’s a huge source of energy demand that wants to grow, it will land on these stranded fossil fuel assets.”

Tech companies have resisted pressure to provide detailed data on their AI energy footprints,

The IEA estimates that AI could boost technically recoverable oil and gas reserves by 5% and cut the cost of a deepwater offshore project by 10%. Big oil is even more bullish. “Artificial intelligence is, ultimately, within the industry, going to be the next fracking boom,” Mike Sommers, head of the American Petroleum Institute, told Axios.

At the same time, the oil and gas industry says AI can cut its carbon intensity, for instance by analysing satellite data to spot methane leaks. But even here, critics say there is a gap between digital insights and corporate actions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are no other alternatives for baseline power generation.

  1. Natural gas is FAR preferable to coal. I completely agree that coal is unacceptable.
  2. Efficient use of existing capacity: How many heat pumps can be purchased by the decades-long costs of a 1GB nuke? Can your country subsidize low-energy lighting? Installing more insulation in old homes?
  3. Datacenter urgency is B.S. ... AI slop was supposed to be the topic of this post

You can’t run a national grid on 100% renewables and batteries Of course not, but the quickest and lowest-cost solutions should have much high priority. Ergo nukes should be lowest.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

  1. Natural Gas is still fossil fuel.

  2. Ok. You still have to push electrons and also not destroy the global climate.

  3. As much as you think it is BS, datacenters exist and they are attached to the same grid as your house, so if you don't want the power to your house to go away then the grid needs more generating capacity. Unless you want to live under the ocean or in a desert then that capacity can't produce CO2. The only options which generate power are renewables and nuclear. Solar and Wind cannot provide baseline power generation and the renewables that can provide baseline power (hydroelectric, for example) are limited in where they can be deployed.

So what power generating source exists that can generate baseline power, doesn't produce CO2 and can be used without specific geological formations?