7 posts tagged “ai-energy-usage”
How much energy is used by AI systems?
2025
We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. Here’s the story you haven’t heard. James O'Donnell and Casey Crownhart try to pull together a detailed account of AI energy usage for MIT Technology Review.
They quickly run into the same roadblock faced by everyone else who's tried to investigate this: the AI companies themselves remain infuriatingly opaque about their energy usage, making it impossible to produce credible, definitive numbers on any of this.
Something I find frustrating about conversations about AI energy usage is the way anything that could remotely be categorized as "AI" (a vague term at the best of the times) inevitably gets bundled together. Here's a good example from early in this piece:
In 2017, AI began to change everything. Data centers started getting built with energy-intensive hardware designed for AI, which led them to double their electricity consumption by 2023.
ChatGPT kicked off the generative AI boom in November 2022, so that six year period mostly represents growth in data centers in the pre-generative AI era.
Thanks to the lack of transparency on energy usage by the popular closed models - OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini all refused to share useful numbers with the reporters - they turned to the Llama models to get estimates of energy usage instead. The estimated prompts like this:
- Llama 3.1 8B - 114 joules per response - run a microwave for one-tenth of a second.
- Llama 3.1 405B - 6,706 joules per response - run the microwave for eight seconds.
- A 1024 x 1024 pixels image with Stable Diffusion 3 Medium - 2,282 joules per image which I'd estimate at about two and a half seconds.
Video models use a lot more energy. Experiments with CogVideoX (presumably this one) used "700 times the energy required to generate a high-quality image" for a 5 second video.
AI companies have defended these numbers saying that generative video has a smaller footprint than the film shoots and travel that go into typical video production. That claim is hard to test and doesn’t account for the surge in video generation that might follow if AI videos become cheap to produce.
I share their skepticism here. I don't think comparing a 5 second AI generated video to a full film production is a credible comparison here.
This piece generally reinforced my mental model that the cost of (most) individual prompts by individuals is fractionally small, but that the overall costs still add up to something substantial.
The lack of detailed information around this stuff is so disappointing - especially from companies like Google who have aggressive sustainability targets.
What’s the carbon footprint of using ChatGPT? Inspired by Andy Masley's cheat sheet (which I linked to last week) Hannah Ritchie explores some of the numbers herself.
Hanah is Head of Research at Our World in Data, a Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford (bio) and maintains a prolific newsletter on energy and sustainability so she has a lot more credibility in this area than Andy or myself!
My sense is that a lot of climate-conscious people feel guilty about using ChatGPT. In fact it goes further: I think many people judge others for using it, because of the perceived environmental impact. [...]
But after looking at the data on individual use of LLMs, I have stopped worrying about it and I think you should too.
The inevitable counter-argument to the idea that the impact of ChatGPT usage by an individual is negligible is that aggregate user demand is still the thing that drives these enormous investments in huge data centers and new energy sources to power them. Hannah acknowledges that:
I am not saying that AI energy demand, on aggregate, is not a problem. It is, even if it’s “just” of a similar magnitude to the other sectors that we need to electrify, such as cars, heating, or parts of industry. It’s just that individuals querying chatbots is a relatively small part of AI's total energy consumption. That’s how both of these facts can be true at the same time.
Meanwhile Arthur Clune runs the numbers on the potential energy impact of some much more severe usage patterns.
Developers burning through $100 of tokens per day (not impossible given some of the LLM-heavy development patterns that are beginning to emerge) could end the year with the equivalent of a short haul flight or 600 mile car journey.
In the panopticon scenario where all 10 million security cameras in the UK analyze video through a vision LLM at one frame per second Arthur estimates we would need to duplicate the total usage of Birmingham, UK - the output of a 1GW nuclear plant.
Let's not build that panopticon!
A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment. The idea that personal LLM use is environmentally irresponsible shows up a lot in many of the online spaces I frequent. I've touched on my doubts around this in the past but I've never felt confident enough in my own understanding of environmental issues to invest more effort pushing back.
Andy Masley has pulled together by far the most convincing rebuttal of this idea that I've seen anywhere.
You can use ChatGPT as much as you like without worrying that you’re doing any harm to the planet. Worrying about your personal use of ChatGPT is wasted time that you could spend on the serious problems of climate change instead. [...]
If you want to prompt ChatGPT 40 times, you can just stop your shower 1 second early. [...]
If I choose not to take a flight to Europe, I save 3,500,000 ChatGPT searches. this is like stopping more than 7 people from searching ChatGPT for their entire lives.
Notably, Andy's calculations here are all based on the widely circulated higher-end estimate that each ChatGPT prompt uses 3 Wh of energy. That estimate is from a 2023 GPT-3 era paper. A more recent estimate from February 2025 drops that to 0.3 Wh, which would make the hypothetical scenarios described by Andy 10x less costly again.
At this point, one could argue that trying to shame people into avoiding ChatGPT on environmental grounds is itself an unethical act. There are much more credible things to warn people about with respect to careless LLM usage, and plenty of environmental measures that deserve their attention a whole lot more.
(Some people will inevitably argue that LLMs are so harmful that it's morally OK to mislead people about their environmental impact in service of the greater goal of discouraging their use.)
Preventing ChatGPT searches is a hopelessly useless lever for the climate movement to try to pull. We have so many tools at our disposal to make the climate better. Why make everyone feel guilt over something that won’t have any impact? [...]
When was the last time you heard a climate scientist say we should avoid using Google for the environment? This would sound strange. It would sound strange if I said “Ugh, my friend did over 100 Google searches today. She clearly doesn’t care about the climate.”
Generative AI – The Power and the Glory (via) Michael Liebreich's epic report for BloombergNEF on the current state of play with regards to generative AI, energy usage and data center growth.
I learned so much from reading this. If you're at all interested in the energy impact of the latest wave of AI tools I recommend spending some time with this article.
Just a few of the points that stood out to me:
- This isn't the first time a leap in data center power use has been predicted. In 2007 the EPA predicted data center energy usage would double: it didn't, thanks to efficiency gains from better servers and the shift from in-house to cloud hosting. In 2017 the WEF predicted cryptocurrency could consume al the world's electric power by 2020, which was cut short by the first crypto bubble burst. Is this time different? Maybe.
- Michael re-iterates (Sequoia) David Cahn's $600B question, pointing out that if the anticipated infrastructure spend on AI requires $600bn in annual revenue that means 1 billion people will need to spend $600/year or 100 million intensive users will need to spend $6,000/year.
- Existing data centers often have a power capacity of less than 10MW, but new AI-training focused data centers tend to be in the 75-150MW range, due to the need to colocate vast numbers of GPUs for efficient communication between them - these can at least be located anywhere in the world. Inference is a lot less demanding as the GPUs don't need to collaborate in the same way, but it needs to be close to human population centers to provide low latency responses.
- NVIDIA are claiming huge efficiency gains. "Nvidia claims to have delivered a 45,000 improvement in energy efficiency per token (a unit of data processed by AI models) over the past eight years" - and that "training a 1.8 trillion-parameter model using Blackwell GPUs, which only required 4MW, versus 15MW using the previous Hopper architecture".
- Michael's own global estimate is "45GW of additional demand by 2030", which he points out is "equivalent to one third of the power demand from the world’s aluminum smelters". But much of this demand needs to be local, which makes things a lot more challenging, especially given the need to integrate with the existing grid.
- Google, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon all have net-zero emission targets which they take very seriously, making them "some of the most significant corporate purchasers of renewable energy in the world". This helps explain why they're taking very real interest in nuclear power.
-
Elon's 100,000-GPU data center in Memphis currently runs on gas:
When Elon Musk rushed to get x.AI's Memphis Supercluster up and running in record time, he brought in 14 mobile natural gas-powered generators, each of them generating 2.5MW. It seems they do not require an air quality permit, as long as they do not remain in the same location for more than 364 days.
-
Here's a reassuring statistic: "91% of all new power capacity added worldwide in 2023 was wind and solar".
There's so much more in there, I feel like I'm doing the article a disservice by attempting to extract just the points above.
Michael's conclusion is somewhat optimistic:
In the end, the tech titans will find out that the best way to power AI data centers is in the traditional way, by building the same generating technologies as are proving most cost effective for other users, connecting them to a robust and resilient grid, and working with local communities. [...]
When it comes to new technologies – be it SMRs, fusion, novel renewables or superconducting transmission lines – it is a blessing to have some cash-rich, technologically advanced, risk-tolerant players creating demand, which has for decades been missing in low-growth developed world power markets.
(BloombergNEF is an energy research group acquired by Bloomberg in 2009, originally founded by Michael as New Energy Finance in 2004.)
2024
Things we learned about LLMs in 2024
A lot has happened in the world of Large Language Models over the course of 2024. Here’s a review of things we figured out about the field in the past twelve months, plus my attempt at identifying key themes and pivotal moments.
[... 7,490 words]You likely have a TinyML system in your pocket right now: every cellphone has a low power DSP chip running a deep learning model for keyword spotting, so you can say "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri" and have it wake up on-demand without draining your battery. It’s an increasingly pervasive technology. [...]
It’s astonishing what is possible today: real time computer vision on microcontrollers, on-device speech transcription, denoising and upscaling of digital signals. Generative AI is happening, too, assuming you can find a way to squeeze your models down to size. We are an unsexy field compared to our hype-fueled neighbors, but the entire world is already filling up with this stuff and it’s only the very beginning. Edge AI is being rapidly deployed in a ton of fields: medical sensing, wearables, manufacturing, supply chain, health and safety, wildlife conservation, sports, energy, built environment—we see new applications every day.
2023
bloomz.cpp (via) Nouamane Tazi Adapted the llama.cpp project to run against the BLOOM family of language models, which were released in July 2022 and trained in France on 45 natural languages and 12 programming languages using the Jean Zay Public Supercomputer, provided by the French government and powered using mostly nuclear energy.
It’s under the RAIL license which allows (limited) commercial use, unlike LLaMA.
Nouamane reports getting 16 tokens/second from BLOOMZ-7B1 running on an M1 Pro laptop.