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

71–80 of 83 posts

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

#71

Post by marcyb5st »

everfrustrated wrote: post #61
marcyb5st wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go back to have open air sewers while we are at it. I mean, if the goal is to bring back stuff that lowered life expectancy and reduce 50+ years of progress, I don't see why not. I really believe that as arguments go, yours is truly terrible. Additionally, you proved my point that the majority really doesn't care about the folks whose quality of life worsen because someone built a datacenter close to their home…

Your entire life is subsidized by those wealthier than you. Get off your high horse. Did you build your own house? Did you build your own car? Do you make your own power? What really has been your contribution to society.

High horse? Man, my country was under communist dictatorship and I didn't see a banana until I was 8 years old. However, despite that, I am aware of how lucky I got in life and I try to be mindful of those that are not as much.

Also, I don't believe one bit my life has been subsidized. Wealthy people don't throw money around if there is no profit to be made. At best they subsidize stuff to get you hooked before raising prices and raking the money in.

Additionally, I paid people to build my own house with money that I earned, and same for my car. And I now live in a country where we pay living wages and not force people to do 2-3 jobs to stay afloat. So I didn't exploit anyone as those people received months of salaries for them and their families thanks to my house.

The only thing I can concede to your argument is that things like my phone or laptop are cheap because people in the world are exploited while mining and in Foxconn like factories and for that I am trying to limit my tech footprint.

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

#72

Post by leonidasrup »

energy123 wrote: post #68
leonidasrup wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is still installing much more new coal power capacity then is decommissioning old coal power capacity. Also the average age of Chinese coal power plants is much lower then the average age of US coal power plants. These new Chinese coal power plants could be used for decades. Last available data from 2025. https://www.statista.com/chart/36007/power-capacity-of-new-d... https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/gl…

What you said does not technically contradict what I said. We have to decide what it is that we wish to measure. I do not pay attention to the "decommissioning" statistic, because a binary on/off switch is an arbitrary threshold. Example -- China reduces the output of every coal plant to 1%, they would be "decommissioning" nothing, yet it would be fair to say they've abandoned coal. That's why it's a better metric to…

You wrote "new coal is just replacing old coal", in terms if of coal power capacity this is incorrect, as many new coal power plants are build in China.

The utilization of coal power plant fleet is decreasing, the total amount of produced electricity from coal is decreasing.

"Coal usage" in China is different from "Coal usage for electricity production" in China, as the coal use as a feedstock for chemical and liquid fuels will increase in China.

https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/chi...

In 2025 China mined more coal than in 2024, at the same time China produced less electricity from coal in 2025 than in 2024.

"China's coal output rose to a record in 2025, statistics bureau data showed on Monday, as lower domestic prices prompted buyers to cut imports and rebuild stockpiles with cheaper local supply, although the rise was limited by regulator efforts to curb production growth.

Production in 2025 reached 4.83-billion metric tons, up 1.2% from 2024, according to the National Bureau of Statistics."

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/china-2025-coal-output-...

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

#73

Post by alex_duf »

logicchains wrote: post #15
alex_duf wrote: post #3

What an absolute ecological disaster. If bubble there is, now would be a great time for it to pop.

By that logic almost any kind of economic development is an ecological disaster because it uses power.

Economic development is great and I'm all for it, but it shouldn't be done at any cost. I quite like our atmosphere, ideally with less than 400ppm of CO2. We're finally seeing signs of economic development decoupling from primary energy consumption, there are positive signs.

I find that it's just a shame to be so close to energy abundance - through renewables - to only be set back by the installation of "temporary" gas turbines. The economic incentive is so great that delaying the datacenters in order to power them cleanly isn't even considered: there's no incentive to do so. This may sound a little alarmist, but if it's GW of capacity in 2028, it's TW in the mid 30s.

I'd much rather live in a heavily compute-constrained world for the next 5 years or so than in a world that keeps increasing its gas consumption.

There's just no way to force our incentive to align with preserving our climate, and it's making me extremely depressed.

By your logic we shouldn't question any development, at any cost, including if it contributes to making our world uninhabitable for billions of people within our life's timescale?

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

#74

Post by Tade0 »

rapsey wrote: post #42
Tade0 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point - a huge part of the cost of LNG is the "L".

Way easier to just sell it closer to home and not bother with transporting it in a tanker which has to return empty. Demand is clearly there and not somewhere else.

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

#75

Post by piva00 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #66
leonidasrup wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most places aluminum smelters have been located near power plants, because aluminum smelters have large electricity demand and transporting large amounts of electricity over large distances is expensive (high capacity power lines are expensive). Electricity costs are between 40% - 50% of costs of the finished aluminum. Also, reliability. "Due to the nature of the process, power outages have the potential to cause…

"near" vs "next door or closer". Like in all these historical cases there's been some sort of high voltage transmission in between. Sure, not a hundred mile line through god knows how many jurisdictions, but still plenty, a far cry from the "this won't pencil out if we have go farther than across the street" that we're currently seeing. Basically what I'm saying is that if datacenters with the closest thing you'll ev…

> Basically what I'm saying is that if datacenters with the closest thing you'll ever see to infinite piles of cash can't expand the grid then we're in for a very rough time.

Isn't the problem that the grid operators/generators have been asking for them to commit part of this huge pile of cash before they start the expensive buildout process but the DCs are refusing to do so?

I don't think it says anything about having a rough time, the grid would expand if those requesting major expansions would commit paying for them. Instead the grid is being told "we need it, build it, and we will pay after" which for the kind of massive investment necessary to push extra dozens of GW is absurdly risky. If the grid starts major expansion and AI investments crumbles in 3-5 years then it's both a waste of resources while also requiring grid operators to charge more the current consumers to bridge the gap left by the AI DCs.

The only thing I can see showing a very rough time is the entitlement of these companies, just because they are surfing a humongous phase of investments they feel they don't need to play by the rules that always existed: if you need something massive you gotta pay for it.

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

#76

Post by vitally3643 »

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 as if trucking companies flooded the highways with so many trucks that people couldn't commute to work anymore.

Funnily, that's precisely what happened to America's rail network. Enterprise demanded unlimited right of way to the point that it's laughable to even consider transit by rail these days.

It's going exactly as well as you'd imagine. I expect our power infrastructure is going to be treated exactly the same as our rail infrastructure: legacy public assets to be exploited indefinitely[0] for free[1] profit, and never invested in until failure becomes an existential threat[2]

[0] until next quarter

[1] losses are the public's problem

[2] unless the government bails you out

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

#77

Post by psd1 »

rapsey wrote: post #70
psd1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that public spending is a transfer from the public sector to the private, and that poor people spend approximately 100% of their income? Would you argue that stock buy-backs are a better use of public money? At some point, probably in the 80s, the prophets of Mammon convinced policymakers that the liquidity of capital markets was the highest good, that no liquidity was enough, and that the financial cla…

Public spending is dead unproductive capital. Giving poor people money just traps them into a cycle of poverty. Spain also had blackouts.

Yes, I'm aware of free-market-fundamentalist dogma. Are you?

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

#78

Post by bigbadfeline »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #66
leonidasrup wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most places aluminum smelters have been located near power plants, because aluminum smelters have large electricity demand and transporting large amounts of electricity over large distances is expensive (high capacity power lines are expensive). Electricity costs are between 40% - 50% of costs of the finished aluminum. Also, reliability. "Due to the nature of the process, power outages have the potential to cause…

"near" vs "next door or closer". Like in all these historical cases there's been some sort of high voltage transmission in between. Sure, not a hundred mile line through god knows how many jurisdictions, but still plenty, a far cry from the "this won't pencil out if we have go farther than across the street" that we're currently seeing. Basically what I'm saying is that if datacenters with the closest thing you'll ev…

> a far cry from the "this won't pencil out if we have go farther than across the street" that we're currently seeing.

I'm not sure what crying has to do with it but the losses across two streets are double those "across the street", across 4 streets - 4x loss, etc.

Public utilities minimize losses over a wider area with many customers, connecting a GW datacenter to the public grid isn't as simple or as safe as connecting another house, the best solution here is to keep large consumers separate to avoid grid instabilities.

> Basically what I'm saying is that if datacenters with the closest thing you'll ever see to infinite piles of cash can't expand the grid then we're in for a very rough time.

It's not true that they "can't expand the grid", they don't want to. They were eager to leach on the public grid but when asked to pay their fair share to be properly integrated by the public utilities, they got worried that some minuscule share of their "infinite piles of cash" may benefit the public - nope, you can't have that under any circumstances.

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

#79

Post by rapsey »

psd1 wrote: post #77
rapsey wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public spending is dead unproductive capital. Giving poor people money just traps them into a cycle of poverty. Spain also had blackouts.

Yes, I'm aware of free-market-fundamentalist dogma. Are you?

Yeah sure dogma. Capitalism is evil, yet it lifted more people out of poverty than anything in history.

Of the three economic powers, the one with the most social welfare and least capitalist is the one that never recovered from the 2008 crisis. Funny how that is. Strange when all the welfare gets spent in the economy.

The one with the unproductive capital buying back shares is building GW datacenters. The other with "productive" capital, is encouraging people not to buy ACs because the electric grid cant handle it and using energy is bad for the environment.

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

#80

Post by rapsey »

Tade0 wrote: post #74
rapsey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's the point - a huge part of the cost of LNG is the "L". Way easier to just sell it closer to home and not bother with transporting it in a tanker which has to return empty. Demand is clearly there and not somewhere else.

Supply domestically outstrips demand, so no they can not sell it locally at that price. The US did not spend billions building LNG terminals for nothing.
Post reply on HN