Comment on Microsoft's carbon emissions up nearly 30% thanks to AI
b3an@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I know Microsoft is a controversial company from Start Menu ads to Balmer’s dancing ability. But! I have been following the AI topic pretty religiously and they have known that this would be the case for quite a while. In fact part of OpenAI’s growth struggling and subsequent partnership with Microsoft involved power generation.
Microsoft has been investing in electric power including using small module nuclear reactors. Sam Altman has been putting a lot of effort into power as well, acknowledging long ago that electricity generation is critical for AI. He’s been pushing into green energy also. Exowatt, Helion, etc.
So yes, the carbon footprint is going up now because they ‘had’ to unleash this genie from the bottle first or someone else would have. At least they know that the need for stable electric power and green power or renewable and efficient power is necessary and have been pursuing these solutions actively.
It should be so that they really change things so that power grids are more stable and renewable energy is better utilized. So to me, there is hope they are doing the right thing and putting effort where it matters.
I’m more effing disappointed and concerned about @$$h0les like Ron Desantis doing things like this. What the actual f00k??!
Helping generate less carbon at some point in the future does not help with the fact that we are racking up the carbon bill now. What these companies are doing is entirely unnecessary, gimmicky, and will lead to even worse climate change outcomes. Between AI, crypto, and the O&G companies we just keep pressing the gas even harder on serious, irreversible climate change.
I hope this AI push fails spectacularly at some point, but the damage is already being done.
The only short term solution is the sort of legislation DeSantis is fighting against. AI is useful, but should only continue while paying the full cost of its energy consumption.
small module nuclear reactors.
Hmm let’s see what changed since I last looked. This study seems recent, just looking at the publicly available sections:
SMRs do not represent dramatic improvements in economics compared to large reactors.
Translation: They’re way more expensive than renewables. SMRs have some advantage which are mentioned (less land usage, non-intermittency), then we have
The advanced SMRs are compared to conventional large reactors and natural gas plants,
…but not renewables+storage, which would be a good comparison point (because intermittency). If the comparison looked any good they definitely would’ve included it.
Now that doesn’t mean that these things don’t make sense for Microsoft. It might e.g. simplify power distribution within datacentres to a degree that other sources just can’t, also reduce or eliminate the need for backup power, etc. But generally speaking I’m still smelling techbro BS.
I don’t think Microsoft has a money problem.
SolNine@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
The people here are such fucking morons… Yes, let’s ban WIND POWER, literally one of the oldest forms of clean energy generation. I swear if I didn’t have family here I’d be gone.