That artificial intelligence (AI) would need tremendous computing resources has been known for a while now, but just how much is truly mind-boggling.
Over Easter, The Information reported that Microsoft and the AI company it bankrolls, OpenAI, are looking at building a US$100 billion data centre for the technology.
Nicknamed "Stargate", the monster facility would cost around 100 times more than current large data centres; in comparison, Microsoft spends somewhere in the region of US$50 billion on its existing Azure facilities and
What's more, the "Stargate" data centre campus could require up to five gigawatts of power when fully deployed. US real estate firm CBRE pinned the North American primary market supply in 2023 at 5174.1 MW, having grown 26% year on year.
No wonder then that Microsoft is studying the option of powering AI data centres with nuclear energy. How the heat generated from the electronics in the "Stargate" data centre will be dissipated remains to be seen.
"Stargate" is scheduled to open as soon as 2028 as well.
What graphics processing units or GPUs for AI use will go into "Stargate" is yet to be decided, but semiconductor makers are already plotting ones with a staggering one trillion transistors.
In comparison, the current Nvidia Grace Hopper 1000 AI chip is considered huge with a die size of 814 mm2 and 80 billion transistors.
The chairman of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) which makes chips for Apple and other household device names, Mark Liu, along with the company's chief scientist, H-S Philip Wong, wrote about how to cram in a trillion transistors into a chip; it seems stacking in three dimensions with high-speed optical interconnects is the way to do it.
How much power such a giant chip would use was not mentioned.
Everything is becoming bigger, more powerful and faster - like fibre-optic networks. Researchers at UK's Aston University in Birmingham have added two wavelengths that aren't used currently to the lasers pumping bits through the fibre.
The result is 301 terabits or 301,000,000 megabits per second; 400 and 800 Gbps networking is considered state of the art currently.
12 Comments
The Nuclear Energy thematic just gets stronger as the years roll by: eg.
1. Supply Demand Issues not solved due to underinvestment in Mines
2. Low U Prices since Fukushima causing flight of capital
3. Now AI demanding massive Power Needs.
4. Enlightened Governments realising an ESG Focus won't provided the Baseload energy needed for electrification and reliability
5. 1. x Acceleration due to 2. - 4.
I recall thinking when I learned the energy requirements of Bitcoin mining - that the sensible thing to do would be to ban it.
Can see the same thing applying to AI.
It's just plain nuts - our grandchildren won't be able to manufacture steel, but they will be able to 'hunt' down 'wealth' that is nothing of substance.
Come on Kate, I thought you were better researched than to think Bitcoins energy usage was high, or that it is ban-able.
Bitcoin can only use cheap or waste energy that is less than 7c/kwh to be profitable. It is also a great tool for the environment and to provide demand side balancing for electricity grids.
Feel free to do some reading:
Environmental aspect, read any of Daniel's research: https://twitter.com/dsbatten?lang=en
Power Grids: https://d-central.tech/how-bitcoin-mining-can-enhance-power-grid-stabil…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/10/18/bitcoin-mining-c…
Or just google it.
But if you know nothing about Bitcoin I always recommend this as an easy starter read:
https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-6ecc8bdec…
LOL. I have a nephew - an electrical engineer who works for a firm that designs the grid on the eastern seaboard in the US - I think I'll stick with his opinion thanks :-).
PS - agree it's not 'ban-able' but it could be regulated out of existence, I suspect.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-sec-regs-will-change-cryptocurren…
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/05/02/cost-of-cry…
Again I hope you are able to distinguish between Bitcoin and all the other crap which, yes, are securities. Bitcoin is a commodity.
Bitcoin is a global, decentralised network. Unless the entire world tries to crack down on it all at once, it can never be killed. So also no, it can not be regulated out of existence. I mean, how is the ward on drugs going? And thats a physical good let a lone a digital currency.
And you think they are going to do that right after approving 11+ Bitcoin ETF's which have had billions of dollars of capital inflow?
Anyway, it is up to you if you want to do the research or not :)
Interested to hear what his opinion is? If he designs electrical grids he should be absolutely frothing over the variable demand side usage that Bitcoin mining co-located with energy generation sources offers. He will be keeping a close eye on ERCOT then right?
That white house report is clearly written by idiots. No further comment. Dennis Porter is already managing that side of things in several states in the US.
But it obviously works out financially otherwise they wouldn't do it for long before going bankrupt. So they can pay what they like as long as they have the capital to spend.
Welcome to the free market where if they want to pay the going price for electricity, they can do what ever they like with it :) It is really no different to you or I using it to run a heater or play video games.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.