How to power the AI economy while supporting local communities
To drive these shifts, AI needs a massive amount of energy. By 2028, AI data centers are expected to account for 12 percent of nationwide electricity demand. Data centers' median size will more than double over the next decade, according to a survey of US data center operators from power provider Bloom Energy. Some will require more than a gigawatt of power – enough for over 800,000 average American homes.
Many Americans are concerned about how AI's hunger for energy will impact them. Communities around the country are pushing back against the building of new data centers nearby, despite their potential to create jobs and boost local economies.
Chief among communities' concerns are rising energy costs and how new data centers could drive them up further. Growing pressure on the grid also increases the risk of power outages, and communities are alarmed about data centers' potential pollution, noise, and water and land use.
Powering the AI economy without local communities bearing the brunt of higher energy bills, power outages, and pollution is a challenge, to be sure. But specific types of onsite power can create a 'yes, and' to fuel AI's growth and support communities.
Onsite power means physically producing electricity at the location where it's used. For example, fuel cells are a type of onsite power that convert natural gas, hydrogen, or biogas into electricity without using combustion. Other power sources that data centers can deploy onsite include natural gas engines and turbines.
When data centers use certain kinds of onsite power, it creates several advantages for both local communities and AI's growth.
Lower impact on consumer energy costs. Some facilities use onsite power to go 'off-grid,' meaning they don't connect to the electricity grid – and therefore that their energy costs don't affect local residents' utility bills. Others use onsite power as a primary source while maintaining a connection to the grid.
Utilities can also work directly with onsite power providers to produce energy for data centers in their service areas and 'fence off' that coverage, preventing data centers' costs from being passed on to consumers.
Approaches like these help keep consumer utility bills stable while providing reliable power for data centers to fuel AI.
Less pollution. Some onsite power technologies like fuel cells produce significantly lower emissions than traditional energy sources because they don't use combustion. Fuel cells also reduce smog-forming local air pollution by more than 99% compared to traditional energy generation technologies, and use a tiny fraction of the water that legacy combustion generators need.
Smaller footprint. High power density—producing relatively large amounts of power in a given space—is a major benefit of some onsite power sources. Gas turbines and reciprocating engines provide up to 50 megawatts of power per acre, while fuel cells can deliver double that – up to 100 megawatts on less than an acre. This small footprint can help ease communities' concerns about data centers' visual impacts and the loss of open space.
Quieter. Excess noise is a significant concern among many communities near data centers. Onsite power sources like fuel cells are much quieter than other energy sources, operating at ~70 dBA – about the sound level of a normal conversation.
Interest is rising in onsite power generation for data centers: by 2030, nearly 40% expect to use some onsite power and 27% say it will provide all of their electricity.
This will help data centers deliver on their promised local economic benefits—and AI's broad transformative potential—without the adverse effects of higher energy costs, power outages, and more pollution and noise in American communities.
This story was produced by Bloom Energy and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
a few seconds ago
- UPI
Trump threatens India with tariffs over buying Russian oil
India Prime Minister Narendra Modi shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, on Thursday, February 13, 2025. On Monday, Trump threatened India with tariffs over its buying of Russia oil. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo Aug. 5 (UPI) -- U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened India with increased tariffs over its purchase of Russian oil amid Moscow's war in Ukraine. The American president issued his threat Monday in a statement published on his Truth Social media platform, accusing Delhi of not only buying "massive amounts" of Russian oil, but selling much of it on the open market for "big profits." "They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the tariff paid by India to the USA," Trump said. Trump has long seen tariffs as a tool to right trade deficits and as a bargaining tool. He has also started to use it as a punitive measure to retaliate against countries for taking actions he disagrees with. Last week, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on India as he imposed tariffs against dozens of nations. On Friday, the American president was asked about the situation, and said that he's heard India was to discontinue buying Russian crude. "That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not, but that's a good step," he said to a question about the percentage of tariffs he was considering imposing on the ally. "We'll see what happens. Over the weekend, India refuted the claims, stating it was not altering its policies. In response to Trump's threat on Monday, India accused the United States, and the European Union, of hypocrisy, saying they began importing from Russia "because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict." "India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation," India's foreign ministry said in a statement. "However, it is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion." It said the targeting of India was both "unjustified and unreasonable." "Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security."
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
Fast Company
30 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
