[chongli]

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]

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]

> 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?

[avianlyric]

> Really, now? Yeah, they can ask, but do data center operators just go "oh grid needs our power! Let's switch to backup!"

Of course they do. The grid is going to load shed regardless, better to disconnect in an orderly fashion (especially as the grid will pay you to do so) than wait for your local substation to disconnect you.

> 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?

Because they get paid to do it. This is pretty basic demand side management that’s been the bread and butter of grid management for decades now. Grids will offer discounts to large loads that allow themselves to be disconnected at short notice, and will then pay those loads for the periods they’re disconnected. There’s usually multiple tiers of discount and payment depending on how fast a load can disconnect, and how often the grid expects to call upon that facility.