Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

newsletter.semianalysis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#41

Post by energy123 »

toast0 wrote: post #39
clarionbell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources. In Europe, we approach energy generation as a political, or climate problem. We are building solar and wind power sources, not to ma…

China is building all types of generation because they are rapidly growing their electric network (generation doubled from 2014 to 2024). Europe's generation is roughly flat during the same period. It doesn't make sense to build a lot of everything in a system without growth in generation. Replacing decommisioned generators would be enough. Growth in solar and wind generation (for ideological or economic reasons) mea…

They're not really building anything other than renewables. Nuclear is a rounding error and new coal is just replacing old coal.

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#42

Post by rapsey »

Tade0 wrote: post #40
rapsey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has incredible gas reserves. Much more that can be exported with ships.

The issue is with the price - why bother shipping LNG half the planet when one can just sell it at a significant markup domestically? When the price is right all kinds of contracts and agreements are usually thrown out the window - especially if the penalties are small enough to make it worth it.

No they can not sell it with a markup domestically. LNG price is much higher.

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#43

Post by psd1 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #32
Humorist2290 wrote: post #19

Interesting analysis. In it they say Worse, the burden [generating energy] increasingly falls on the buyer [data center developers] I don't believe this is worse, but appropriate. The grid is a shared resource, used by enterprise and individuals. If some class of consumers demand an outsized share of that resource, they should pay an outsized share of its maintenance and development. I don't see that happening. It's…

It's not "worse" per-say in that the buyer is crunching the numbers and deciding to go with on-prem generation for a lot of their jiggling electrons. But holy shit is something broken if that sort of approach is more economically effective (middle of nowhere Alaska not withstanding) than having the people who not only specialize in pipes for jiggling electrons, but have all sorts of preferable treatment from regulato…

Not sure how you calibrate your "niche" scale, but foundries and aluminium smelting plants have commonly been sited near generators in Britain. I suppose that transmission losses matter at the GW scale; and also that a national grid is a complex system, with phase slump being a cause of failure even with sufficient generation capacity.

Every DC I've visited - probably ten - has on-site generators, for redundancy. To a certain type of mind, that's capital going to waste. I can imagine a bean-counter desire to sweat that plant.

I agree that today's economics is very broken, but co-siting generation and consumption is probably not a symptom.

Aside: Language is whatever people use, but, "per se" is Latin for "in itself". "Per-say" is an eggcorn.

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#45

Post by leonidasrup »

Humorist2290 wrote: post #19

Interesting analysis. In it they say Worse, the burden [generating energy] increasingly falls on the buyer [data center developers] I don't believe this is worse, but appropriate. The grid is a shared resource, used by enterprise and individuals. If some class of consumers demand an outsized share of that resource, they should pay an outsized share of its maintenance and development. I don't see that happening. It's…

In the past major industrial electricity consumption facilities (like aluminum smelters) have been build near big power plants. Or dedicated power plants have been build to power major industrial electricity consumption facilities.

For example:

PS5 Combined Cycle Power Plant for Aluminium Bahrain (ALBA)

https://www.idom.com/en/project/ps5-combined-cycle-power-pla...

India

https://nalcoindia.com/business/operation/captive-power-plan...

Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter, New Zealand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwai_Point_Aluminium_Smelter

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#46

Post by psd1 »

cloudie78 wrote: post #22
trhway wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively the crisis can be used to accelerate right development - quickly build up solar farms and transmission lines. Both of these can be done quickly if there were a political will. Yet, that will is missing. So, we're talking 40GW. Lets see what China does: https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-tre... "In the first two months of 2026, China added: 32.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacit…

Right off the top of my head, to power a 500MW Datacenter we need: 2.2-2.5 GWdc solar capacity which at 600W/panel amounts to 14-17sq mi plus additional 8-12GWh of storage to deal with nighttime, two-three days of cloud cover is not going to work with these numbers. Ballpark 5-7BN$ Nuclear otoh, 1GW continuous - gives constant power, badly managed first of a kind (or first one after decades) build will be at around 1…

> is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning

HN arguing in favour of a planned economy - see, we aren't free-market cultists!

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#47

Post by psd1 »

clarionbell wrote: post #12
trhway wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively the crisis can be used to accelerate right development - quickly build up solar farms and transmission lines. Both of these can be done quickly if there were a political will. Yet, that will is missing. So, we're talking 40GW. Lets see what China does: https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-tre... "In the first two months of 2026, China added: 32.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacit…

I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources. In Europe, we approach energy generation as a political, or climate problem. We are building solar and wind power sources, not to ma…

Energy prices globally spiked in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine (again). I conclude that energy is tied more closely to fossil than solar. Happy to stand with you and throw rocks at stupid solar policy, though.

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#48

Post by cucumber3732842 »

psd1 wrote: post #43
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "worse" per-say in that the buyer is crunching the numbers and deciding to go with on-prem generation for a lot of their jiggling electrons. But holy shit is something broken if that sort of approach is more economically effective (middle of nowhere Alaska not withstanding) than having the people who not only specialize in pipes for jiggling electrons, but have all sorts of preferable treatment from regulato…

Not sure how you calibrate your "niche" scale, but foundries and aluminium smelting plants have commonly been sited near generators in Britain. I suppose that transmission losses matter at the GW scale; and also that a national grid is a complex system, with phase slump being a cause of failure even with sufficient generation capacity. Every DC I've visited - probably ten - has on-site generators, for redundancy. To…

>, but foundries and aluminium smelting plants have commonly been sited near generators in Britain.

IDK about Britain, especially historically when you would have been building aluminum smelters. It's not normal in the US more or less since the advent of the grid. I'm sure people will be along shortly to construe exceptions or special cases where the fossil fuels were extra cheap as the norm or heat was what they also needed and it was cheaper to capture that locally and make some electricity too.

>Every DC I've visited - probably ten - has on-site generators, for redundancy. To a certain type of mind, that's capital going to waste. I can imagine a bean-counter desire to sweat that plant.

But they don't use those for any semblance of "normal" load. Those are strictly for redundancy not "ah it's 3pm, power's getting expensive better fire up the genset for 4hr". At least that's normally how it is. It's not normal for it to be possible to out compete the utility even after fixed costs are amortized in. Bigger generation is more efficient, if you're buying fossil fuels then buying them in bulk is more efficient. Etc. etc. It should be cheaper to have the people who benefit from all that string you a wire.

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#49

Post by toast0 »

energy123 wrote: post #41
toast0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is building all types of generation because they are rapidly growing their electric network (generation doubled from 2014 to 2024). Europe's generation is roughly flat during the same period. It doesn't make sense to build a lot of everything in a system without growth in generation. Replacing decommisioned generators would be enough. Growth in solar and wind generation (for ideological or economic reasons) mea…

They're not really building anything other than renewables. Nuclear is a rounding error and new coal is just replacing old coal.

Stats on wikipedia [1] stopped breaking out coal from other fossil fuel ('thermal') production in 2021.

But coal was 4.1 million GWh in 2014 and 5.0 million GWh in 2021; that's a lot of (relatively) new coal. Fossil fuel growth since 2023 is a lot less than earlier years, so maybe they have hit saturation for fossil fuel generation. I would expect high fossil fuel prices so far this year would drive usage lower, the stats for 2026 should be interesting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

Re: US Grid Constraints: Towards 40GW+ of Behind-the-Meter Datacenter by 2028?

#50

Post by leonidasrup »

mono442 wrote: post #44

why are they burning gas when supposedly renewables are the cheapest option?

"data centres operate 24/7 with an industry standard of “five-9s” reliability—99.999% uptime, equivalent to less than 5.3 minutes of downtime per year. This level of reliability requires access to a stable and highly reliable source of electricity."

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/the-rising-challeng...

Many kinds of renewables are day/night, weather dependent, you don't get this level of reliability without a fossil fuel backup. If you already need to build a dedicated gas power plant to power your data center, then the decision to invest in an additional renewables power plant depends on the costs of the natural gas. (Additional capital expenses of the renewables power plant vs reduction in consumption of the natural gas).

Post reply on HN