The boom in artificial intelligence has already changed our understanding of technology and the world. But developing and updating AI programs requires a lot of computing power. This relies heavily on servers in data centers, which incurs high costs in terms of CO2 emissions and resource consumption.
A particularly energy-intensive task is “training,” in which generative AI systems are confronted with huge amounts of data so that they can improve their work.
The development of AI-based systems is blamed for a 48% increase in Google's greenhouse gas emissions in five years. This will make it harder for the tech giant to meet its goal of reaching net zero by 2030.
Some in the industry justify the additional energy required by AI by pointing to benefits the technology could have for environmental sustainability and climate protection. AI's purported benefits to the Earth include improving the efficiency of solar and wind energy by predicting weather patterns, “smart” agriculture, and more efficient, autonomous electric vehicles.
Against this backdrop, technology companies are turning to renewable energy and nuclear fission to power their data centers.
Nuclear fission is the type of nuclear energy that has been used worldwide for decades. It releases energy by splitting a heavy chemical element into lighter ones. Nuclear fission is one thing, but some in Silicon Valley believe another technology will be needed to close the gap: nuclear fusion.
Unlike nuclear fission, nuclear fusion creates energy by combining two light elements into a heavier one. But fusion energy is an unproven solution to the sustainability challenge of AI. And tech CEOs' enthusiasm for this technology as an AI powerhouse risks overlooking its potential benefits for the planet.
Beyond the conventional
Google recently announced that it had signed a deal to purchase energy from small nuclear reactors. This is a technology based on nuclear fission that makes it possible to produce useful amounts of energy using much smaller devices than the huge reactors of large nuclear power plants. Google plans to use these small reactors to generate the electricity needed for the increasing use of AI.
This year, Microsoft announced an agreement with Constellation Energy that could pave the way for restarting a reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history.
However, nuclear energy produces long-lasting radioactive waste that must be stored safely. Nuclear fuels such as the element uranium (which must be mined) are finite, so the technology is not considered renewable. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy suffer from “intermittence,” meaning that they do not produce energy consistently at all times of the day.
These limitations have led some to consider nuclear fusion as a solution. In particular, OpenAI's Sam Altman has shown particular interest in Helion Energy, a fusion startup working on a relatively novel technology design.
In theory, nuclear fusion represents a “holy grail” energy source because it generates a large energy yield from small amounts of fuel without producing greenhouse gas emissions and producing comparatively little radioactive waste. Some forms of fusion rely on a fuel called deuterium, a form of hydrogen that can be obtained from an abundant source: seawater.
In the eyes of its proponents like Altman, these properties make nuclear fusion well suited to meet the challenges of growing energy demand in the face of the climate crisis – and to meet the enormous demands of AI development.
However, when you look beneath the surface, the picture is not so rosy. Despite the hopes of their proponents, fusion technologies have not yet produced sustainable net energy production (more energy than is used to run the reactor), let alone produced energy at the scale required to meet the growing demands of AI. The merger will require many more technological developments before it can fulfill its promise of adding electricity to the grid.
Wealthy and powerful people, like the CEOs of giant technology companies, can greatly influence the development of new technologies. For example, there are many different technological ways to carry out nuclear fusion. But the specific path to fusion that is useful for meeting AI's energy needs may not be the one that is ideal for meeting people's general energy needs.
AI relies on data centers that consume a lot of energy.
Dil_Ranathunga/Shutterstock
The overvaluation of innovation
Innovators often assume that their work will lead to ideal social outcomes. If nuclear fusion works on a large scale, it could make a valuable contribution to decarbonizing our energy supply as the world tries to tackle the climate crisis.
However, the humanitarian promises of both fusion and AI often seem to be sidelined in favor of scientific innovation and progress. When you look at those who invest in these technologies, the question actually arises as to who actually benefits from them.
Will investments in nuclear fusion for AI purposes enable its wider adoption as a clean technology to replace polluting fossil fuels? Or will a vision of the technology promoted by powerful tech companies restrict its use for other purposes?
Sometimes it feels like innovation is the goal without considering the broader implications. This vision is reminiscent of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's motto: “Move fast and break things,” which involves taking short-term losses in pursuit of a vision of the future that will later justify the means.
Sophie Cogan, PhD Candidate in Politics and Environment, University of York
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
