I have published this video this morning. In it I argue that AI is not only going to massively increase energy usage around the world, it is also going to use vast amounts of water to cool the data hubs that will drive it. When clean water is already scarce does that mean AI will threaten HI – or human intelligence – by denying HI the resources it needs to survive?
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
Water and AI are two things that are rarely discussed together, but they should be, because in our future, our ability to use AI or artificial intelligence, is going to be severely restricted by the availability of water in the world. And what we already know is that the availability of water in this world is decidedly restricted.
Let's not for a moment take note of the fact that our water is rubbish in the UK, polluted, full of human excrement, and very often in short supply because there are so many leaks in our water system. But instead let's note that around the world water is getting very much scarcer.
We know that in parts of the Middle East, major rivers are drying up.
We know that there are problems with the expansion of deserts across the world.
We know that this is even threatening places in the USA.
And yet at the same time, we also know that we are seeing a massive expansion in the capacity of computers and their ability to deliver AI - which is artificial intelligence - the surface of which we're only just about beginning to scratch.
But, and this is the massive but, AI absorbs enormous computing power.
Now, let's again just ignore for the moment the fact that, of course, enormous computing power requires enormous amounts of electricity, and not all of that will be from readily renewable sources.
And then let's also recall that if you put enormous amounts of power into a system, you also need to cool it. And a lot of the coolant is water. And that water often goes to waste after it's been used for this purpose.
So, AI is associated with the creation of massive banks of computers at central hubs to drive systems run by companies like Amazon and Google, which will result in vast demands for new water, as well as more power.
And I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows, where all that water's going to come from.
We might end up with a tradeoff, which is, will we have enough water for the world so that people can drink?
Will we have enough water for the world so that people have enough food?
Or will we have AI?
And that's a tradeoff that I don't think is being discussed as yet.
And I think it needs to be.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Admission: had meeting the other year with the bunch that represent EU data centres. They are happy to give away their heat (+/- 35C) for nothing. As for water use, cool & recirculate (the idea of single pass through is bonkers).
Aim in data centres is to keep the temp stable & most of the elec used (95%) is turned into heat. Thus one needs to ask: what are we looking at here? Taking a side-step, those tommies that you eat in Nov’ – they will probably come from either the Netherlands (greenhouses heated using gas via CHP) or Spain (think of it as a water scarce country exporting to a water rich one). Use the heat from the datacentres (24hrs 365 days/yr) to power greenhouses – which means that the main cost input (greenhouses are mostly OPEX-based operations) is free. The problem with energy is that most of the time people look at individual trees, not the wood or forest.
& for the avoidance of doubt, I would mandate that ALL datacentres have to re-use their heat & would refuse building permission for any that don’t and would give – say 5 years to those that exist to find ways to re-use their heat. This is not difficult stuff – all the tech exists.
Thanks
Along with renewables, there is so much potential to be captured; so why is it that instead of exploiting the potential to the maximum, and at the same time end the ‘world market price’ regime for domestic energy; and a wretched regulatory regime that serves the industry ahead of the British people; all Labour can think of is GB Energy: a name, an investment fund, and an office in Scotland? Big deal? It just begs the big questions. Typical Party politics; all spin, all front, no substance. You want the precedent for BP Energy? Britoil. Based in Glasgow, it was going to lead not just Aberdeen, but the whole of Scotland into a new future. It was just Bling, to defeat the SNP. Glitzy office in Glasgow. It is still there, but nothing else. Britoil was sold off to BP in 1987.
BP Energy? Just Britoil, Rinse and Repeat; to do the same job; shoot the SNP fox. Scotland will not prosper from its potential. It never does. Never. Rinse and Repeat.
GB Energy, not BP Energy! Although we could make more of public-private investment in renewables, between Government and BP; because BP does not just have financial resources, it has the engineers, the technicians, the expertise on a larger scale than any other British resource in renewables in the UK; the full package. GB Energy is, in part re-inventing the wheel.
Not sure about the figures in the reply from Mike Parr: I too recently attended a conference, this time of researchers and activists organised by the Mindoo Centre. You need energy to cool the water after it’s cooled the computers! 40% of electricity used for cooling was what I heard.
Two further points: the representatives from Spain, South Africa and the Netherlands spoke of drought and electricity blackouts already happening, and Ireland has already stopped the development of large data centres – a moratorium is needed in their view.
Also, key point, AI uses a lot more computing power, and the problems are: the likely rapid growth of data centres as AI use expands (our local authority already wants to build the ‘biggest in Europe’ on Green Belt land!!); and – as Mike Parr says – lack of regulation.
By the way – beware ‘greenwashing’ for example, our would-be developers promise the heat will be used for horticulture… aubergines and courgettes, on fields currently growing wheat and beans!
Perhaps those who support the concept of AI being able to make decisions based on an accurate assessment of all relevant data, should get a view of this generated by AI?
Global energy demands since 2000 have increased faster than renewables capacity.
In terms of net zero we appear to still be taking one step forward, but several back.
The three main factors in growth in energy and wider resource consumption are :-
1) economic development,
2) rising population,
3) technological development creating new types of demand.
Unfairly, much of this growth has been ascribed (blamed ?) to population growth, but most population growth is in countries with low or very low per capita energy consumption.
Energy consumption levels in Africa and much of Asia per capita are miniscule by comparison with industrial nations, over 400-1 in many cases.
Despite the claimed decoupling between energy and growth ( Jevons paradox), increases in energy consumption are mostly driven by GDP growth from the industrial nations, and hence the corporate sector.
But who is going to ration resource allocation and useage ?
It just isn’t done in capitalist economies, nationally or otherwise.
Markets don’t do efficient resource allocation, let alone sustainable resource distribution.
Wars do, whether economic or through actual conflict.
And that looks to be the main future pattern.
Steve Keen has shown that, everywhere, energy use tracks GDP very closely. Ultimately, GDP IS energy use. Which is unsurprising if you consider that the entire development of human society has resulted from our ability to harness energy, from beasts of burden onwards. As already noted, the hard part is to grow renewables faster than than GDP.
I believe that a much bigger culprit than AI for consuming excessive computing power is cryptocurrency. The server that is fastest to verify transactions earns the most new coin, so it creates an arms race. But seeing as crypto is essentially a scam Ponzi scheme, no-one talks about this aspect.
It is a good point
Back it the previous century, working as a graphic designer I was asked to produce artwork for a brochure – big glossy affair with lots of pictures, white space and not much type. It was for a proposed pipeline through the Scottish borders and on to the Manchester area. Maps were vague, planning permissions were ‘in preparation’, but some pictures were of Loch Lomond and the English Midlands. As I was only just becoming politicised I paid little attention to the content. I heard of similar proposals some years later.
Now of course water seems to be becoming scarce in London and the east of England, while in Scotland, just one loch, Loch Ness, has more fresh water than all of England – and it is very cold too!
Which will it be? Pipe the water to England or site the AI servers in Scotland. Drinking water or cooIant for servers? I’d hate for Westminster to be in charge of that decision.