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

Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 136 posts

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#91

Post by cwillu »

loeg wrote: post #48
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #28

The energy consumption would not be a problem if it was renewable energy . Ironically, we already have plenty of renewable energy in the US, it’s just there, sitting, waiting to be hooked up to the grid and not being used productively. The US currently has 947 GW of renewable generation capacity that is not hooked up to the grid [1]. To put that number into perspective, the US currently has 1160 GW of generation capa…

Data centers can't run on intermittent sources.

According to other comments, the data centers are less than 5% of the emissions in question. The data centers simply aren't relevant to this discussion.

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#92

Post by defrost »

al_borland wrote: post #74
defrost wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? What stops training AI's during sunlight hours only and hibernating as power decreases?

Doesn’t the data center need to run for all the AI backed services to work?

Somebody needs to run the real numbers ... what activities cost the most energy ( training to get weights, answering queries using weights, etc ), cost of types of energy in terms of external effects (fossil based energy Vs wind|sunlight) demand, bandwidth use, etc.

It's not inconceivable that there's an answer that meets needs based on only running the most energy consuming operations during daylight and migrating those operations about the globe during sunlight hours while having less demand operations run at night.

There's a real issue that needs addressing surrounding ever increasing global emissions, giving lip service while continuing to increase emission related activity is double think.

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#93

Post by kevindamm »

al_borland wrote: post #80
kevindamm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the carbon credits for building out renewable energy systems locally/domestically? Those exist.

Those systems should get built out because they make sense to build out. Having a company feeling justified in releasing tons of extra co2 in the process seems like it nullifies some of the good the plant would bring.

Suppose many of those projects would not be built out without channeling significant capital to it, and carbon credits being an effective means of securing that capital. Would that change the calculus for you?

Note that I recognize many (possibly most?) carbon credits programs are bogus or worse, but trying to draw attention to circumstances where it's not always so cut and dry.

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#94

Post by PaywallBuster »

beeeeerp wrote: post #73
jonas21 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, we already have plenty of renewable energy in the US, it’s just there, sitting, waiting to be hooked up to the grid and not being used productively. The 947 GW is the total proposed capacity for solar projects that are in various planning stages. They have not been built yet, and most of them will never be built -- historically only about 14% of proposed capacity ends up entering service [1]. This isn't…

Is that 14% different with solar? I’m just bringing this up, because solar is dead simple compared to engineering studies and infrastructure required to build something like a new nuclear plant. I wonder if the simplicity of solar and storage will start to change how power generation is approached.

There's been only 1 build in 2013 and last one before in 1978 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

so nuclear wouldn't affect those 14%

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#95

Post by 123yawaworht456 »

MrVandemar wrote: post #56

To those who are drinking deep of the AI kool-aid, know this: this is not remotely sustainable. Anyone who is thinking AI will replace writers and artists and voice-overs and who knows who else ... it's going to cost more money than you think, and it's all getting added to the considerable bill we're running up that will end up costing us everything .

learn to code

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#96

Post by MrVandemar »

123yawaworht456 wrote: post #95
MrVandemar wrote: post #56

To those who are drinking deep of the AI kool-aid, know this: this is not remotely sustainable. Anyone who is thinking AI will replace writers and artists and voice-overs and who knows who else ... it's going to cost more money than you think, and it's all getting added to the considerable bill we're running up that will end up costing us everything .

learn to code

Bit of a non-sequitur. But, yes, I do know how to code FWIW.

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#97

Post by jahewson »

MrVandemar wrote: post #56

To those who are drinking deep of the AI kool-aid, know this: this is not remotely sustainable. Anyone who is thinking AI will replace writers and artists and voice-overs and who knows who else ... it's going to cost more money than you think, and it's all getting added to the considerable bill we're running up that will end up costing us everything .

Allow me to introduce you to Moore’s law…

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#98

Post by darkerside »

delish wrote: post #22

It is praiseworthy Microsoft straightforwardly reported the increase. I haven't paid attention to these kinds of optional disclosures. Never thought about it but were I asked I would have said these are advertisements. I don't dislike sustainability, but I thought those function as advertisements because you can expect to get more sustainability "for free" over time, because of many things (Moore's Law, ephemeralizat…

How do you know it isn't so much worse than what they're saying that this is actually part of the cover up? I'm not saying I believe that, just following your own logic.

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#99

Post by faeriechangling »

asabjorn wrote: post #79
faeriechangling wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that might be more related to left wing populism as embodied by the German Greens who worked for decades to get nuclear energy out of Germany. Also because the plants would have had to be decommissioned anyways and modern nuclear is not SO competitive for practical concerns to outweigh political expediency. I truly don't think it was a result of the actions of a centralised oligarch elite that drove this an…

They are also forbidding fossil fuel derived fertilizers and heavy machinery used to produce cheap food. BRICS is allowed to build coal plants to replace the industry that dies in the west. This Marxist climate justice is like how DEI achieve equity, redistribution of outcomes, to favored activist groups or in this case the communist CCPs rule. For communists like the greens it’s about destroying the west to put thei…

How do you suppose, keeping in mind we're trying to avoid emitting carbon in the process, and keeping in mind 3 of them have nukes, we're to disallow BRICS from building coal plants?

It's also simply the case that if all Co2 production stopped tomorrow that countries like the United States would have all the stuff, as a consequence of a history of more overall pollution, so the resistance to stopping all coal production is naturally higher in poorer places.

Basically the only card one can pull is to decide not to reduce Co2 oneself, which ultimately does nothing directly to solve the problem.

Re: Microsoft's Emissions Spike 29% as AI Gobbles Up Resources

#100

Post by faeriechangling »

kevindamm wrote: post #93
al_borland wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those systems should get built out because they make sense to build out. Having a company feeling justified in releasing tons of extra co2 in the process seems like it nullifies some of the good the plant would bring.

Suppose many of those projects would not be built out without channeling significant capital to it, and carbon credits being an effective means of securing that capital. Would that change the calculus for you? Note that I recognize many (possibly most?) carbon credits programs are bogus or worse, but trying to draw attention to circumstances where it's not always so cut and dry.

I think the most cut and dry situations is which they capture concentrated emissions from something like an O&G refinery or a cement plant, since it's an effort which ONLY exists for the sake of reducing emissions.

Even some of these, hilariously enough, despite how insanely quantifiable their benefits are, you see phenomenon like phantom credits like where Alberta, Canada gave Shell double credit for each tonne of Co2 they actually reduced.

I'm sure subsidies for green energy projects do reduce emissions, I just think the accounting is BS.

Post reply on HN