Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Electricity demand and data centres

Dona Ferentes

Did the Thessalonians write back?
Joined
11 January 2016
Posts
19,987
Reactions
27,483
I want to start this as a specific thread. It's from the USA, but applies here. The conclusion is :
. The question I have for you is how long you think society will continue to pay for an AI-powered future that may not benefit them

Energy demand from AI data centers is projected to grow thirtyfold within the next decade:

Chart_2_20250718_GMU.png
Source: Deloitte Insights

The law of supply and demand will take care of the energy needs, but costs per kWh are going to increase. The question becomes: Who pays for the additional cost?

In most markets, the answer is likely consumers. Not consumers of AI, mind you, but everyone.

Expect to hear more about this as the impact of AI becomes politically charged. It is not without reason or merit. AI will both disintermediate a subset of the population and raise their cost of living due to higher energy costs.

Our energy grid is already feeling the strain. Electricity costs in the US are up 5.8% over the past year. Utility companies are passing higher energy costs on to consumers. New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities notified customers earlier this year that their bills will go up between 17% and 20% specifically due to data centers.

Data centers will account for up to 12% of our overall electricity consumption as early as 2028.

This wave of AI innovation could turn our default utility model—spreading costs across all ratepayers—into an Industrial Age relic, built for widely shared infrastructure like water mains or rural electrification. When a handful of companies account for most new demand—and their impact will likely cost jobs, not add more jobs in the local market—asking the public to subsidize data center power feels like a fight waiting to happen.

Dominion Energy Virginia proposed a separate “rate class” for data centers, making them pay closer to the true marginal cost of the power they use.

Meanwhile, data center developers are cutting deals for dedicated power delivery, elbowing their way to the front of the grid. Microsoft alone reportedly demands up to 5 gigawatts of power for its expansion plans. Building their own direct sources of electricity, while complex and time-consuming, could avoid much of the tension that is sure to arise around this issue.

AI’s growth is not self-funding. It needs infrastructure. Consumers are generally willing to support progress, but only to the point that it doesn’t undermine their own security.

Picks and Shovels​

One thing is clear: We will build more electricity generation. That has led to an anticipatory boom in the stock price of utilities, certain construction and engineering firms, and midstream energy providers.

This is a big, diverse industry, and many smaller-cap companies are providing essential goods and services to the sector. Compared to the average company in the S&P 500, the stocks of many of these companies are cheap.

This is one pocket of the market where we are looking for—and finding—great opportunities to invest.

Finally, there’s an irony here many ignore: AI has the potential to improve energy efficiency and optimize the very grid it now threatens to overload.

I’m impressed by how AI’s capabilities grow seemingly overnight. I can see AI helping engineers design and test better energy infrastructure, from the individual capacitors to large-scale distribution lines. And I can also imagine software engineers using AI to optimize their systems for energy efficiency.

Smarter demand response, AI-enabled forecasting, and predictive maintenance could help lessen the power burden of automation on society.

For all its potential harms, people with new ideas have less of a barrier to market than ever before. For investors, there’s tremendous upside in innovations that can replace our aging power infrastructure or help AI companies run their data centers more efficiently. The question I have for you is how long you think society will continue to pay for an AI-powered future that may not benefit them.

from Global Macro Update
 
Building their own direct sources of electricity, while complex and time-consuming, could avoid much of the tension that is sure to arise around this issue.
From a resource, economics and physics perspective that's a last resort option.

Electricity is the ultimate scale of economy industry and done right, data centres on the grid mean lower bills for everyone else due to that. Economies of scale and diversity of demand are, after all, the primary reason the grid was built in the first place.

A lot of what goes on comes down to a combination of politics and vested interests seeking to maximise their own outcomes, not "real" economics.

In the US specifically, the obvious issue is utilities "positioning" to justify major new investments with guaranteed % returns on capital, a situation that incentivises inefficiency since the more that's spent building it, the more profit is made each and every year going forward.

Easiest way to get your mind around that is suppose rent on a house was a fixed % of the capital cost of building it. In that case as a landlord you'd want the most expensive builder you could find, last thing you want is anyone who does it cheaply.

This goes near the subject from a US perspective, albeit with a touch of NIMBYism but it's overall near enough:



The question I have for you is how long you think society will continue to pay for an AI-powered future that may not benefit them.
It's the old divide and conquer.

Nobody came to save the factories from globalisation.

Nobody came to save the workshops from outsourcing.

Nobody came to save retail from online shopping and self-service.

Why would anyone come rushing to save office workers and the arts from AI? The track record says a few will complain but overall society will go along with it. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
yes yes yes... we hear this all the time over in the future of energy generation.

the question , rhetorical, is suppose, was
" how long you think society will continue to pay for an AI-powered future that may not benefit them?"
not as long as the power companies hope ( i think )

i see more and more finding ways to thrive off-grid
 
yes yes yes... we hear this all the time over in the future of energy generation.

the question , rhetorical, is suppose, was
" how long you think society will continue to pay for an AI-powered future that may not benefit them?"
To death
They will pay it thru more efficient companies keeping more profits while suppressing employment.
But then universal income will come, a given; a few free spirits will rebel, maybe even start bombing .
But the majority will wallow in their dream of no work, equality of outcomes, sxxt food, planned population reduction and endless digital entertainment and sex robots.
And that is if our western society is not wiped all together before.
😟
As you know, i have a pretty low view of humanity as a whole
 
but .. but we ( nearly ) all benefit from AI

AI is in your spell-checker and internet search-engine and look how well they work even on sophisticated devices ( where they would rather harvest your data to increase product targeting )

now the real use of all those new data centres is to scoop up more data to re-analyse ( and hopefully choke on )
 
Processing power has its cost. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman noted that one ChatGPT query “uses about 0.34 watt-hours [of electricity], about what an oven would use in a little over one second, or a high-efficiency lightbulb would use in a couple of minutes. It also uses about 0.000085 gallons of water; roughly one fifteenth of a teaspoon.”

That sounds minuscule until you consider that this demand is additive. It’s new demand.122 million people use ChatGPT every day, with countless other platforms like Perplexity AI and Claude adding to the power demand. And Perplexity tells me the average AI user makes four to five queries per day.

In 2021, there were 2,667 data centers in the US. By 2024, we had twice as many—5,381.

These facilities are not only becoming more prevalent but also bigger in capacity. We’ve barely hit the full potential of AI’s processing power. Future AI models will require more energy as we offload more complex tasks in the white-collar office space.
 
Australia's energy puzzle is very complicated, large distances with a few very densely populated areas. But living in Australia every one rightly or wrongly in my opinion only deserves the basis standard of living that is clean water and electricity.

The problem is the infrastructure, i have this argument with the Neo Green Socialist who chant turn off the coal and gas now, we have enough renewable electricity to support the country. maybe we do, (again in my opinion we don't) but its not where we need it.

You can build all the solar and wind farms you want but if it cannot be sent to the public what's it worth, nothing.

Then there is the cost of building the infrastructure, the government does not want to foot the bill unless its Snowy Hydro 2.0, original budget $2 billion currently sitting at $12 billion, and last I had read and heard the site was at a stand still, so nothing is happening on site and it is years behind on schedule.
Another is an electricity connector in South West NSW, being built by Origin ( I think could be wrong). already over budget and well behind time.
Both projects are meant to bring renewable electrons to the market.

These are problems we face before we electrify households and businesses before we even get to the demands of AI demands.

The funny thing is the Neo Green Socialist want the energy infrastructure to be nationalised, well the last political party that suggested that wanted to build Nuclear Power plants and they lost their collective minds over that :)
 
Australia's energy puzzle is very complicated, large distances with a few very densely populated areas. But living in Australia every one rightly or wrongly in my opinion only deserves the basis standard of living that is clean water and electricity.

The problem is the infrastructure, i have this argument with the Neo Green Socialist who chant turn off the coal and gas now, we have enough renewable electricity to support the country. maybe we do, (again in my opinion we don't) but its not where we need it.

You can build all the solar and wind farms you want but if it cannot be sent to the public what's it worth, nothing.

Then there is the cost of building the infrastructure, the government does not want to foot the bill unless its Snowy Hydro 2.0, original budget $2 billion currently sitting at $12 billion, and last I had read and heard the site was at a stand still, so nothing is happening on site and it is years behind on schedule.
Another is an electricity connector in South West NSW, being built by Origin ( I think could be wrong). already over budget and well behind time.
Both projects are meant to bring renewable electrons to the market.

These are problems we face before we electrify households and businesses before we even get to the demands of AI demands.

The funny thing is the Neo Green Socialist want the energy infrastructure to be nationalised, well the last political party that suggested that wanted to build Nuclear Power plants and they lost their collective minds over that :)
Too many players competing for too small a market. A lot will go broke before governments realise that things aren't working.

Hand the whole lot over to a national panel of engineers, get the rent seekers, the politicians, the economists and the greenie activists out of the decision making and we may have a chance.
 
Just in relation to energy production for data centres it is quite the thing in US markets, not so much here as you said @Dona Ferentes . There has been quite an appreciation in value of stocks such as OKLO CEG and MSFT who have quite an interest in data centres.

There are not that many stocks on the ASX which are good value as data centre energy stocks, GCM which I hold is one which flies under the radar.

Back to @Dona Ferentes point as to whether people will rebel when energy prices rise, they will. The real question is whether it will make any difference. I believe the bird has flown and the amount of capital in AI and Data Centres will influence governments more than the voters. Should the Libs led by the Rodent Aviator get in they will not have the cojones to push for nuclear which is the obvious solution in Australia where uranium is plentiful and there are suitable places such as Toorak and Rose Bay in which to build reactors.

gg
 
I should have added water in the title

In Melbourne's case: "Documents show Greater Western Water is assessing 19 data centre applications requesting to use a total of nearly 20 gigalitres of water a year.

"The proposed usage, which is the same amount 330,000 Melburnians used in the 2024 financial year, has prompted calls for mandatory water efficiency standards for data centres
.......

 
the question , rhetorical, is suppose, was
" how long you think society will continue to pay for an AI-powered future that may not benefit them?"
I'm assuming the answer there is much the same as anything else that society has tolerated despite it not benefiting a substantial portion or even the majority.

Every example I can think of the answer was at least 40 years and usually considerably longer.

Our present economic model for example works very nicely for some but has failed others badly. Despite that, it's only now starting to become socially acceptable to even mention the downsides and we're yet to see any real action to address them.

The track record is society mostly accepts things where only a portion lose. The view from the rest being they're alright, those losing will just have to sort themselves out. Harsh perhaps but that's the track record.

About the only group in society that stands to lose from AI that might get some sympathy in my view is musicians. An even then, that'll probably be limited to the genres that actually do involve playing instruments. I can see humans continuing to play metal, rock, folk, jazz and classical using real instruments and the traditional arrangement of a band or orchestra but I doubt we'll see too many new human artists producing electronic dance music going forward, that seems very low hanging fruit for AI to take over.

On the energy issue, on that one I do think we'll see action at some point but it'll take a full blown crisis to prompt it. Details are hard to predict, but I'm leaning toward an economic crisis more than a technical one as the trigger. :2twocents
 
I should have added water in the title
Electricity.

Water.

Land / housing.

The common element to all three is that we've a crisis of manufactured scarcity that need not exist.

If data centres in Melbourne need 20GL per annum, that's easily done if we (society) wants to do it indeed 10 times that much wouldn't be difficult at moderate cost. The water's there, just needs the infrastructure built.

So as I'm seeing it, these constraints aren't a consequence of technology or natural resources, they're a purely human-created constraint by those calling the shots. What AI might usefully do to resolve them isn't about engineering calculations and so on, it's more about the potential to upend society, give it a decent shake, and get things happening in general. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
I should have added water in the title

In Melbourne's case: "Documents show Greater Western Water is assessing 19 data centre applications requesting to use a total of nearly 20 gigalitres of water a year.

"The proposed usage, which is the same amount 330,000 Melburnians used in the 2024 financial year, has prompted calls for mandatory water efficiency standards for data centres
.......

They should start using seawater and claim they will offset sea level rises due to Climate change
 
They should start using seawater and claim they will offset sea level rises due to Climate change
Though we have de-sal plants here in WA, nobody has declared a drop in the sea level with these pumps going 24/7.
Of course there is an offset, treated sewage water is pumped back out to sea 24/7
 
Top