AI’s energy appetite too big for Texas grid, regulators warn As the saying goes, everything is bigger in Texas, but as datacenter footprints explode amid the AI boom, regulators fear even the Lone Star state's utilities won't be able to keep up for much longer. The Texas' Public Utility Commission is now warning datacenter operators looking to set up shop in the US state within the next …
The availability of resources seems to be a key limitation to a number of sites currently, maybe this will be negated by locating them where resources are plentiful, if the network latency and resilience is sufficient.
Or maybe people will just stop going on about AI being the next big thing and just do what they need to well.
Problem is that where you get one resource you may lack others in the right balance to make a DC feasible. For example somewhere like Iceland would seem perfect for datacentres thanks to abundant geothermal energy which also produces plenty of clean water alongside low outside temperatures which makes air cooling (and even direct cooling) a viable option (thus saving on the requirement for evaporative-assisted cooling).
However, it's a long way from anywhere, increasing latency, and you're relying on a small number of undersea fibres which decrease the number of available route options, which could also be disrupted in the event of hostile action or a natural disaster, which Iceland is also prone to in the form of volcano eruptions.
Somewhere like the wilds of Sweden/Norway would also be great for cool air and green power from hydroelectrics, but again it's far from anywhere and finding flat land to build on would be an issue (although putting them in caves is an option (if expensive).
Building in places like Arizona and Texas is popular for two reasons: 1. Availability of staff (although that's limited by the sheer number of them being built at the moment) and 2. it's cheap land. You have scarce water, need lots of it for cooling assistance (because it's hot), power is limited (esp in Texas), and whilst there are US government subsidies for building inside the US they are contingent on hitting targets.
Slight problem with Iceland though
The big geo-thermal station near the capital has rather large earthen defences because the volcano its sited on rather inconvienently came back to life 18 months ago and likes to erupt every couple of months.
Saying that... if we could base all those C-level types who are dead keen on this AI bollocks there................
"1. Availability of staff (although that's limited by the sheer number of them being built at the moment) and 2. it's cheap land. You have scarce water, need lots of it for cooling assistance (because it's hot), power is limited (esp in Texas), and whilst there are US government subsidies for building inside the US they are contingent on hitting targets."
The staff issue really isn't one for a DC. Once built, there isn't a huge need for lots of people. Cheap land is cheap for a reason. Where I live there is lots of cheap land that's getting solar panels put on since it's not suited for anything else and there isn't the water reserves to support agriculture. It will be interesting to see if adding all of that shade changes the micro-climate significantly and how it affects ground water levels.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis predicted the reactors will be "too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning away from fossil fuels."
One problem with discussions like this is relying on 'predictions' from a small lobbying shop run from a shared office above a bar in Lakewood, Ohio. But a very grand sounding entity that is remarkably opaque when it comes to boring little details, like who is bankrolling them.
So... if I understand correctly:
A handful of tech bros are making millions/billions of VC $$ while running massive workloads to provide over-hyped "services" that few people want or need and incinerating/irradiating the planet in the process? While humans doing generally useful things experience brownouts, higher energy prices, an incinerated/irradiated planet, and -- thanks to clueless managers -- are likely to be unemployed until they're re-hired as "people who correct stupidity caused by clueless managers trying to replace humans with Clippy"?
Okay. Cool. Hot. Whatever.
Quebec can't -- they've sold all they have to the US NorthEast.
British Columbia is just now completing Site C, a measly 1.1GW for about USD$12G. Most of that will go to electric cars and electrifying pipelines.
Alberta will burn natural gas for you but it's a bring-your-own-turbine-and-generator deal.
Newfoundland and Labrador has some big electric generators but little distribution and surprisingly little available land to develop on. They have a lower latency advantage over Iceland.
My predictions:
- cryptocurrency outfits with power-purchase-agreements will be bought out by hungrier and richer AI companies and hyperscalers
- conceivably even aluminum smelters could be targets as they use huge amounts of electricity (*)
- the US will invade Venezuela to get control of the Simón Bolívar hydroelectric power station (10GW capacity, not many Venezuelans left to use it) in a classic make-vs-buy decision
(*) arbitrage between forward pricing of Aluminum vs marginal price of ChatGPT sounds like an interesting financial finagle
You know, for all the guff Texas spews about hating on renewables they produce the most green power of any US state, and by a large margin. They've got a lot of empty, useless land that you can drill under, cover the ground with panels and stand up a bunch of towers over the top and finally shift the load elsewhere if they're somehow becalmed. My kid is working construction in Omaha building Google data centers in the middle of nowhere next to approximately a gazillion acres of wind and solar energy and they say the work is not going away any time soon.
"Texas has announced that its going to get connected to the the rest of the nation. "
There's a economic limit to how far one can send electricity down a line and Texas is a really big state. Depending on where the generation is, it may make no sense to interconnect it any other state and instead encourage companies to locate nearby so more kWh's are sold than lost.
"Operationally that is true, but being grid-connected has huge advantages if you suffer local loss of production, etc, and then the excess cost of transmission is nothing to squeal about."
So you install hundreds of pylons and thousands of miles of cable to use it every once in a while as a back up? It would be far cheaper to install giant diesel generators.
Here in Quebec Hydro Quebec's alone is produces 37.2 GW . So adding 7.1 to the grid is not all that much. Specially if car energy conversion is accelerated as the US should seriously work at considering the recent climate change induced catastrophies of Helena and now Milton .
The Texas grid has been a problem for decades and the lack of investments is showing every summer. Texas's government is a serious problem. Their budget choices have been to cut and cut funding and neglect maintenance and upgrades. The Texas problem is one their own government created. I got 0 sympathy for them. Which is why without footing the bill 100% for their grid , i strongly oppose any public funds being used for them. They created the problem and now want external solutions and funds to save their rear ends.
I know it's politics , but the problem is owned 100% by their political and government choices . We got to say things like they are.
They didn't winterise their grid and their 2021 disaster happened. (Cancun Cruz and all that). As their grid is not interconnected with the rest of the USA, the poor sods who live in Tx will have to pay for it with blackouts when they need the heat.
Naturally, the TX government top brass will have had their personal pension funds enhanced. (condo's in Cancun perhaps?)
If you live in Tx and can, go off grid NOW.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
