Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumGOP-Led Public Service Comm In Georgia Pushing For 10 GW New Generation - 80% For AI, W. Ratepayers Footing The Bill
Georgia is facing the largest demand for electricity in its history, driven by nation-leading datacenter construction. The Georgia Power company has made an unprecedented bid to the agency that oversees the utility for about 10 additional gigawatts of energy in the coming years enough to power 8.3m homes, at an estimated cost of nearly $16bn, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center.
But those huge numbers are not primarily for homes or local businesses in Georgia. Instead about 80% of the companys ask is driven by datacenters, primarily for artificial intelligence, according to Tom Krause, spokesperson for the states public service commission, or PSC. It is the largest increase ever considered by the commission in a multiyear plan and comes as the Atlanta metro area led the nation in datacenter construction last year a phenomenon playing out across the US and increasingly sparking protests and pushback. The PSCs five members will be charged with deciding how much energy the state needs, when its needed and the best way to meet that need, Krause said.
EDIT
State senator Chuck Hufstetler introduced legislation earlier this year to force datacenters to shoulder more of the cost and to prohibit the PSC from raising utility bills due to increased electricity needs. The PSC has passed a rule to this effect, but in the absence of a law governing the issue, its hard to know what their definitions of costs is, Hufstetler said. They have secret contracts that the public doesnt see. As with others concerned about the issue, the legislator said he doesnt see datacenters as something thats not needed. We just need to make sure they pay the costs of electricity and water, he said.
Daniel Blackman, a regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration, plans to provide public comment at the hearings. The thing about datacenters is, its no longer Are they coming? he said. Theyre already here. Theyre no longer confined to rural areas. What is needed, he said, is bad actor legislation to provide some guardrails on companies behind datacenters.
EDIT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/19/georgia-electricity-datacenters

BlueWaveNeverEnd
(11,790 posts)hatrack
(63,813 posts)AI has at least some useful applications, as opposed to a straight-up scam like crypto.
In both cases, it's just another manifestation of Big Thing Grow Fast Money, waiting for the inevitable pin-prick, but demanding all the electricity in the world in the meantime.
thought crime
(868 posts)I hate to think like a capitalist, but limitless Wind & Solar energy is available via the development and use of floating offshore facilities to generate electricity and transmit to shore or convert to hydrogen for transport over long distances. AI & Data Science may offer enough reward to spur this development.
hunter
(40,102 posts)No thank you.
thought crime
(868 posts)If AI causes increase in CO2 output then Bad.
If AI spurs growth in Clean Energy then Good.
hunter
(40,102 posts)They cannot displace fossil fuels entirely and will do NOTHING, absolutely nothing to reduce the total amount of fossil fuels wastes human beings ultimately dump into the earth's atmosphere and oceans.
Like it or not, the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power. If we build nuclear power plants we don't need environmentally destructive fossil fuel dependent industrial scale wind and solar development.
There is nothing "green" about destroying previously undeveloped landscapes and seascapes with short-lived solar and wind crap.
90% or more of AI applications are crap too, not just for the environmental destruction they are causing, but for the social damage they cause as well.
Finishline42
(1,157 posts)HVDC transmission lines and BESS address the intermittency of wind and solar, maybe not completely but better than waiting on new construction of nuclear reactors.
BTW, the US currently has 94 reactors at 54 plants providing 19% of our electricity. The only realistic hope of adding more reactors is at current operating plants as they did at Vogtle in GA. The reactors they were building in South Carolina failed because of the cost that rate payers didn't want to pay while in construction (also the projected demand wasn't happening). Building reactors at current plants deals with two issues:
1) The site has already been approved for nuclear reactors.
2) The operating reactors generate income to lessen the impact of construction costs.
Just to double nuclear output to 40% would require way more than we are going to build.
If we use the cost to build Vogtle #3 and #4 as a guide ($36.8 Billion over 15 years) we are talking about close to a $Trillion. I don't see it...
thought crime
(868 posts)There would be huge issues with uranium extraction (e.g. supply, radioactive mine tailings, transport and refinement of ore, "destruction of previously undeveloped landscapes" . There would be vastly increased safety risk, and a greatly increased burden of managing radioactive waste - forever. Nuclear is a non-starter, but is favored by the extraction industry as a false argument against renewable energy.
hunter
(40,102 posts)