Cool, but that’s unrelated. We need the energy transition to happen anyway. Energy consumption is still climbing regardless, so we still need to move things over to renewables on top of whatever other actions we take. When it comes to climate stuff people tend to want a silver bullet or claim that anything short of that is useless, which I find kind of infuriatingly counterproductive.
Also, data centre power consumption has been up on aggregate on a very smooth curve since the 2000s. AI or no, those things have been burning through an increasing amount of energy over time. They need to generate that energy from clean sources in any case, which requires a faster energy transition.
Incidentally, I don’t know if AI datacenters have “erased all gains”. I don’t have a direct comparison handy, but the numbers I see around for those two things seem an order of magnitude apart. If you have good sources I’d love to take a look, though.
That’s the best part, though, solar adoption has beaten forecasts consistently over time. Most revisions upwards have still been too conservative.
Now, is that fueled by an energy crisis in turn caused by war, making self-generation and energy independence more appealing? Maaaaybe. But still, sun power!
I don’t accept the premise that “solar is only good because climate change is bad”. Where does that come from? Solar power is the longest-running energy source we have, it’s good for distributed generation, and climate change or not, most people don’t like to suck on a car’s exhaust, so it is cleaner for more reasons than the large scale effects of CO2 emissions.
And on the flipside it’s consistently inconsistent, has lots of challenges for storage and it mostly produces electricity, which then needs to be stored, sent and converted into useful stuff.
Solar adoption is good overall AND solar adoption is better than the alternative regarding climate change, all else being equal.
And since all else is equal, because climate change isn’t stopping to wait for renewable adoption, solar adoption is good regardless of the climate deteriorating faster than expected. Those two things just aren’t dependent on each other. Hell, if anything, faster man-made climate change necessitates faster renewables adoption.
What’s your premise here, even? Take an actual stance. If “fast solar power adoption good” is not a valid statement, what IS a valid statement?
I’m simply rebutting your assertion that faster than expected solar adoption is a good thing, because that statement can’t be isolated from faster than expected deterioration in climate.
If climate change wasn’t a thing solar would only be useful for applications where connection to the grid is impractical.
Solar adoption isn’t a positive thing, it’s merely somewhat mitigating a pretty terrible thing.
But energy use is way up and AI data centers have erased all gains from renewables.
Cool, but that’s unrelated. We need the energy transition to happen anyway. Energy consumption is still climbing regardless, so we still need to move things over to renewables on top of whatever other actions we take. When it comes to climate stuff people tend to want a silver bullet or claim that anything short of that is useless, which I find kind of infuriatingly counterproductive.
Also, data centre power consumption has been up on aggregate on a very smooth curve since the 2000s. AI or no, those things have been burning through an increasing amount of energy over time. They need to generate that energy from clean sources in any case, which requires a faster energy transition.
Incidentally, I don’t know if AI datacenters have “erased all gains”. I don’t have a direct comparison handy, but the numbers I see around for those two things seem an order of magnitude apart. If you have good sources I’d love to take a look, though.
I suspect the claim that AI has consumed all gains is hyperbole, given that it used to be applied to crypto.
Regardless, those assholes are still using too much power, privatising the benefits, and socialising the fall out.
Sure? But, again, the question is whether there have been positive changes this century. Separate negative changes are not a counterpoint.
AI power consumption would have been AI power consumption. The unexpectedly fast adoption of solar is there regardless.
Obviously, that depends how you’re counting.
In the year 2,000, if you projected solar adoption, you might now be pleasantly surprised.
However in the year 2,000 if you projected progress on climate change, you’d probably now be horrified.
Solar adoption wouldn’t be a positive if not for climate change.
That’s the best part, though, solar adoption has beaten forecasts consistently over time. Most revisions upwards have still been too conservative.
Now, is that fueled by an energy crisis in turn caused by war, making self-generation and energy independence more appealing? Maaaaybe. But still, sun power!
That doesn’t address my point though.
Solar is only good because climate change is bad.
You can’t say “solar adoption is good” and ignore the climate deteriorating faster than expected.
I don’t accept the premise that “solar is only good because climate change is bad”. Where does that come from? Solar power is the longest-running energy source we have, it’s good for distributed generation, and climate change or not, most people don’t like to suck on a car’s exhaust, so it is cleaner for more reasons than the large scale effects of CO2 emissions.
And on the flipside it’s consistently inconsistent, has lots of challenges for storage and it mostly produces electricity, which then needs to be stored, sent and converted into useful stuff.
Solar adoption is good overall AND solar adoption is better than the alternative regarding climate change, all else being equal.
And since all else is equal, because climate change isn’t stopping to wait for renewable adoption, solar adoption is good regardless of the climate deteriorating faster than expected. Those two things just aren’t dependent on each other. Hell, if anything, faster man-made climate change necessitates faster renewables adoption.
What’s your premise here, even? Take an actual stance. If “fast solar power adoption good” is not a valid statement, what IS a valid statement?
I’m simply rebutting your assertion that faster than expected solar adoption is a good thing, because that statement can’t be isolated from faster than expected deterioration in climate.
If climate change wasn’t a thing solar would only be useful for applications where connection to the grid is impractical.
Solar adoption isn’t a positive thing, it’s merely somewhat mitigating a pretty terrible thing.
Care to source that statement? What’s the global consumption for AI compared to production by renewables?