Energy infrastructure for powering a data centre isn't the same as energy infrastructure for powering a city. One is a simple point-to-point link (power plant to data centre), the other is a grid.

It's like comparing a railway line from a mine to a smelter with a city's road network.

▲

avianlyric 2 days ago | parent [-]

Most data centres connect to the grid, they don’t connect to a single power station, except in scenarios where there’s a uniquely low cost power supply nearby, like a small Hydro Plant.

Utility scale power stations have outputs measured in GWs. Data centres are measured in MWs, although people are trying to build GW scale data centres at the moment. But even then a data centre will want a proper grid connection, otherwise they have a massive single point of failure in the form of the directly connected power station.

It’s also very unlikely that purpose built power station is capable of offering cheaper than grid power anyway, except in the very special situations like Hydro. So if you’re gonna build a datacentre, you will want a proper grid connection capable of providing all you needs. Even if you’re running on dirty gas turbines in car park initially while waiting the grid hardening happen. In the long term, that grid connection is always going to be the cheapest, most reliable source of power, ignoring it completely would be foolish.

▲

chongli a day ago | parent [-]

The premise I was responding to was that the energy infrastructure would be built during the rise of the AI "bubble" and subsequently be repurposed after the collapse. If we're just connecting data centres to the grid then I don't see how that is providing any new infrastructure whatsoever. On the other hand, if we're building lots of new power plants to power the data centres (and connecting them to the grid) but then at some point the data centres are shut down, we end up with a huge glut of unneeded power.

Furthermore, to elaborate on my point above: building new power plants in tandem with data centres that demand GWs of additional power does nothing to address the needs of the grid itself. The grid is not built to handle all that new power, and the consumer electricity demand is not there anyway.

▲

avianlyric 13 hours ago | parent [-]

You can only get grid connections if the grid thinks they can support your demand. That’s why grid connections take so long, they’re not just plugging in a massive cable, they’re reinforcing other parts of the grid to make sure your massive cable won’t cause a blackout if use all the power it can provide.

Building new power plants immediately isn’t really required to serve data centre, they’re huge amounts of spare capacity in most grids that only exists for extreme situations. The hard part is making sure any existing capacity can actually be delivered to the new data centre. New power plants will get built to rebuild spare capacity over time, or more likely, solar and wind will get built to reinforce that spare capacity over time.

Datacentres are useful grid loads because they all have backup power on site capable of powering the entire site as an island. Which means grid operators can ask them to disconnect quickly if they need to extra power for short periods of time to handle power spikes, or local grid faults. So it’s possible to connect quite a lot of extra data centre type load before generation capacity becomes a serious issue.

	▲	ButlerianJihad 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Which means grid operators can ask them to disconnect quickly Really, now? Yeah, they can ask, but do data center operators just go "oh grid needs our power! Let's switch to backup!" That seems unlikely. Why would a data center (or any large consumer of electrical power) be forced into a backup/contingency plan, when no crisis exists at all? Other than drilling/practice runs, I cannot see them readily agreeing to this. Is it actually a routine occurrence?