Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

53% Positive

Analyzed from 1428 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#energy#more#power#nuclear#same#https#capacity#need#don#renewable

Discussion (46 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

onion2kabout 2 hours ago
The primary bottleneck to this growth is the availability of electricity.

The bottleneck for building some AI datacentres and switching them on is electricity, sure, but that's not what drives growth. There also needs to be demand for the additional capacity; people need to be waiting for capacity to catch up so they can do the useful work that grows [society|GDP|something] that they aren't doing right now.

There's also very likely to be diminishing returns from additional capacity if we're near or over the limit of productive use. And there's the opportunity cost of what could have been done with that [money|land|electricity].

This is a much more complicated system than "people say they need more AI -> build datacenter -> power datacenter -> magical growth!"

pitchedabout 2 hours ago
In the Innovation Adoption Curve, we are absolutely beyond the Early Adopters phase and possibly the Early Majority. The growth rates necessarily have to start trending down because there’s no one left to sell to.
user43928about 1 hour ago
I cannot currently access Fable class models, I am out of usage credits.

Anthropic is removing these larger models from personal plans at the end of the week to focus on selling it to enterprise users.

Putting these more intelligent new models into the hands of more people seems very worthwhile to me.

onion2k18 minutes ago
I don't think Anthropic are doing that because they don't have enough compute capacity. If we had 100* more datacentres the message would still be the same - they're focusing on selling Fable access to enterprise users because that's what makes them more money.
h4kunamata35 minutes ago
1. People fighting back due to never ending effects caused by these massive data centers

2. Companies realising that they are burning half million to get nowhere

3. Circular investment scaring investors

4. And more recently, companies hiring people back coz the AI aimed to replace humans, created more problems than solved them

5. Memory cartel falling apart, again, they did the same thing during 2000s

6. China is making good ML free, supply and demand, destroying the US tech token business model

7. Even META has too much computer power and no enough use for them.

Those are the main reasons why AI buildout is not just slowing down but falling apart faster than expected.

9cb14c1ec0about 2 hours ago
Question for the experts: does the power crunch mean that AI hyperscalers will turn off previous generation GPU datacenters to free up power for their new Vera Rubin GPUs?
pitchedabout 2 hours ago
I think it’s more likely we’ll raise prices until demand lowers enough to match supply.
linkregisterabout 1 hour ago
Open models enforce a floor on prices, unless overall compute is so constrained that those prices rise also.
bob1029about 1 hour ago
Project Kilby is probably the most intelligent approach to this problem so far.

https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2026/q2/chevron-signs-20-ye...

The idea is to bring the data centers, power generators and energy supply together in the ~same physical space so the only thing you have to transmit is data. Moving energy is way more expensive than moving information.

fragmedeabout 1 hour ago
The ocean tidal power data center idea was a neat one.
pitchedabout 2 hours ago
TFA isn’t about consumer usage, it is about training the next generation models. An interesting thought I heard recently is that a SOTA model has about the same parameters as the number of synapses in a Golden Retriever’s brain that are not dedicated to biological processes like breathing. Most of that should be wrapped in double quotes, don’t take it literally! But that number is about 100x lower than the same synapses in a human brain.

If the next order of magnitude costs 40B, I wonder if it’s even possible to get to the one after.

ullunaamabout 2 hours ago
Crusoe bypasses the grid completely by leveraging old batteries and wasted resources to power compute.
jqpabc123about 3 hours ago
‘the abundance of [AI] will be limited by the abundance of energy’.

And the reason current US policy opposes clean, renewable energy is --- purely political.

mullingitoverabout 2 hours ago
You don’t even need to mention the long-term sustainability benefits of renewable energy. It is simply the dominant option economically. Dollars in, watts produced, fossil energy can’t touch it.

Politics is merely a downstream effect of the root of the problem: corruption and regulatory capture. Regression into the authoritarian petrostate pattern.

SilentM68about 2 hours ago
> And the reason current US policy opposes clean, renewable energy is --- purely political.

What isn't "purely political?"

Everything is political in the world, unfortunately.

rayinerabout 2 hours ago
Who is opposing renewable energy? Texas is projected to top California as the state with the largest amount of solar before the end of the Trump administration.
defrostabout 2 hours ago
> Who is opposing renewable energy?

The current US admin:

Trump’s Multi-Pronged Attack on Renewable Energy https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?par...

but they are slowly being beaten back:

Trump admin abandons fight against wind energy as clean energy output surges - https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/06/trump-admin-abandons...

The Trumpian adventures in Iran have wrong footed his fossil fuel buddies and slowed his Don Quixote roll against giant scary windmills for now.

matwoodabout 1 hour ago
He hates wind turbines because he simply doesn't like how they look, and couldn't stop them next to one of his golf courses.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15l3knp4xyo

neuroelectronabout 2 hours ago
Maybe it's the same thing I heard it was six months ago when it was determined that more hardware was sold than twice the nation's supply of electric.
0xbadcafebeeabout 2 hours ago
This is part of why the AI bubble will burst. The only way to make the profit numbers backing the loans to AI companies is to get increased capacity, and the capacity requires energy, and the energy won't arrive in time, only partly due to all the factors here, and partly because building transmission and generation is speculative and can fail for a number of reasons.

US administration can try to pull a China and basically remove all regulatory barriers (following existing playbook of "do whatever we want and wait a year or two for the courts to catch up and stop us"). It'll create havoc that will make people very upset (more so than the people that already protest DCs in their backyards). But even then, it's construction on varied terrain and property over long distances; you can't predict exactly how that will go. Triple the estimated timeline and that is probably doable, but current AI investment likely can't wait that long, unless somebody can pull additional hundreds of billions out of a hat to extend lines of credit or a ponzi-scheme-esque paying-creditors-with-newly-lent-money. In that time the market will realize the hype was hype, the gains were modest, they'll start divesting, and then the house comes down.

One way around that might be to deploy thousands more gas turbines and make rural air quality look like 2010 Beijing. It will probably happen if things get really tight, and we'll see how the current administrations's base responds; if they stick it out, the market gets a reprieve.

rayinerabout 2 hours ago
We should have been building more nuclear. We’re not going to upgrade civilization with windmills and putting on sweaters. Think of how much power we’ll need for millions of robots?
linkregisterabout 1 hour ago
Unit economics for renewables coupled with storage are excellent. I agree we should reform nuclear regulation to allow new nuclear plants to pencil out. I disagree that we should discount the value of renewables.
vascoabout 1 hour ago
Solar and wind take up a bunch of space and generate a bunch of waste after the panels are decommissioned, plus the wind generators are ruining every single landscape we have. With 5 nuclear stations per country you could cleanup so much of Europe.
OKRainbowKidabout 2 hours ago
I don't see how expensive energy helps us "upgrade civilization".
rayinerabout 2 hours ago
Its only expensive because its been regulated to death. In terms of potential energy output in a given area its tops.
vrganjabout 1 hour ago
It's been regulated "to death" because it's responsible for some of the worst man-made catastrophes of all time and has made large swaths of land uninhabitable for ~forever.

Move fast and break things this is not.

lionkorabout 2 hours ago
Unlimited energy for 200 years is a good step, no?
TheOtherHobbesabout 1 hour ago
It's hardly unlimited.

And not if plants can't get cooling water because of drought.

https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/25/france-takes-nuclear-rea...

cobbzillaabout 2 hours ago
Cheap ubiquitous distributed power systems will change the world in many weird ways. Watch small modular nuclear offer home installation for ~$reasonable and getting cheaper every year.

Fast forward 20 years from the advent of essentially infinite energy results in WWIII and a new “Great Detente” but only after all the assholes have wreaked all the havoc they can.

There are dark days ahead but ultimately a brighter future. Sucks to live through that transition phase though.

walrus01about 2 hours ago
I'd like to see a well reasoned plan to install small modular nuclear power at peoples houses that prevents the mentally ill, criminally reckless or terrorist minded people from cracking them open and obtaining access to the isotopes.
pitchedabout 2 hours ago
There isn’t much need to extract isotopes if you have an actual working reactor, is there? Just use that as-is to cause whatever damage.
walrus01about 1 hour ago
From a strictly red team threat analysis perspective, if you have an extremely safe working reactor that can't be made to melt down, no, the reactor can't be used to hurt much that is in the same location as the reactor. If you are able to get the isotopes out and start spreading them around or making a dirty bomb type thing (where the explosion just serves the purpose of throwing the isotopes around), that could be pretty catastrophic.
cobbzillaabout 2 hours ago
have you never visited a rural neighborhood? or an affluent neighborhood?

there are still many neighborhoods where people leave their doors unlocked because it is actually that safe. not every location is rife with criminal activity, and many are well protected.

walrus01about 1 hour ago
Serious question, do you actually think that if you distribute millions of small nuclear reactors to homeowners geographically spread out around all of North America, 0.000% of them will be dangerously mentally ill, criminally reckless or inclined to terrorist like activity? Based on the frequency and number of mass shooter type incidents, (or like, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians) this would be a very naive view.

It doesn't require a criminally minded 3rd party coming onto someone's "safe" property to do something horrible with a sawzall and/or oxy-acetylene cutting torch.

yehoshuapwabout 1 hour ago
While that is true, if there is something worthwhile enough in a far and safe location - it won't stay that way
hdgvhicvabout 1 hour ago
Why would I need “home nuclear” when I’m already self sufficient in power in the winter with 15k of solar and battery, let alone the summer.
Advertisement