This hasn't quite happened States-side yet, but I would think that the Canadian position (aligning both with Carney's AI framework and his electrical grid expansion) would be that for a "permit" (or at least a feasibility plan) for any data centre or cryptocurrency venture, etc., etc. would be to outline HOW it will self-generate all/most of its power needs. So, are they building wind turbines? Solar panels? Modular Nuclear Reactors?
And then secondarily, how are they handling the cooling problem (meaning, not consuming all water that might be needed for other just-as-important purposes (like farming, drinking, etc.). How about community initiatives where the "Heat gets Sunk" somehow, to then be drawn out in winter to heat local towns/buildings? AKA, recycle the heat somehow? So with this, the water becomes more like a contained radiator system, rather than a constant intake/discharge.
There's also a 3rd concern, being 24/7 "noise pollution." Not sure what to do about that one.
Anyway, we're seeing great success in our military procurement, with insistence on economic benefit to Canada (the USA being the big holdout - but I'm seeing that being a crucial negotiating element within the CUSMA discussions). So, why can't we insist on something similar here for data centres —meaning environmentally (more) friendly cogeneration of power? Modular nuclear reactors, solar, wind, etc.
Not sure how ROC (Rest of Canada) can enforce that upon Alberta (here we go again, "Ottawa dictating how we should do things" . . . . ).
But really, any such proposal for a data centre should address at least these three aspects.
I think this is the kind of practical discussion we should be having before approvals, not after.
If a company wants to build a massive data centre, fair question... how are you powering it without pushing costs onto everyone else?
Self-generation, modular nuclear, wind, solar, cogeneration... all of that should be part of the proposal, not an afterthought.
And the cooling issue is a big one too.
Water, heat recovery, local infrastructure, noise... communities shouldn’t be expected to just shrug and absorb the downsides.
Your military procurement comparison is a good one...
if Canada can insist on economic benefits and domestic value in defence contracts, why wouldn’t we ask for clear public benefit and environmental responsibility here too?
Yes, these are questions that I have too! Who is going to pay the electric/water costs. I'm a senior and we live on a fixed income and using our savings! And we have to make those savings last! I understand that AI will be useful in many situations but I just don't think everyone needs to use it.
Alberta's position is predicated on the belief, now possible, that it can generate the electricity needed, profitably, with fossil fuel powered systems. This is a multiple win for the Power Province and all we have to do is hold our nose regarding the climate change effect. Apparently we as a nation are willing to do so in the short term to provide revenue to build for the long term. It may be a necessary gamble to fund the creation of Fortress Canada.
and I think a lot of Canadians are quietly wrestling with exactly that question right now.
Short-term compromise for long-term independence.
Energy security, jobs, revenue, defence, infrastructure… versus the environmental cost we already know comes with it.
I suspect many Canadians are becoming more pragmatic: we may not love every part of the plan, but depending on one customer and one market clearly wasn’t working either.
The real test will be whether the wealth actually gets reinvested into building a stronger Canada... or just disappears into corporate balance sheets.
The context was power plants powered by fossil fuels, in Alberta correct?
Are we really in Alberta adding solar and battery power or are we trying to add more gas fired power plants? With the UPCs hostile attitude to renewable energy?
Yes, you are right. Perhaps ALTA can't see a profit in anything but fossil fuel. Maybe they want to sell gas to power companies who can then sell electricity to major users like data centers. This keeps them at arm's length from the users and they make a profit from something they know. If ALTA foresees the end of the fossil fuel era they will want to sell as much as they can before it happens!
Can somebody anybody please explain to a dullard what these massive AI data centres bring to mankind. I have a feeling they are boondongles and an awful lot of people are going too loose their shirts with them.
Fair question, Mike... and honestly, I think a lot of people are asking the same thing.
Best case?
Faster medical research, better diagnostics, drug discovery, smarter logistics, improved weather forecasting, fraud detection, and handling mountains of repetitive work faster than humans can.
Worst case?
We burn through huge amounts of electricity and water, displace jobs faster than we create new ones, and end up concentrating even more wealth and power into fewer hands.
Right now, I’d say we’re still in the “promise versus proof” stage.
Some of it may genuinely improve lives.
Some of it may turn out to be expensive hype.
The key question is whether regular people actually benefit...
or just get handed the hydro bill while someone else cashes in. 😄
This is all in its infancy, with largely the possibility of more harm than good (until it matures), but what it does bring right now:
- faster ability to conduct certain medical research (the analysis elements)
- Development of certain medicines, vaccines
- processing of certain transactions, work, etc. at greater speeds with better accuracy (provided that the process/controls are well-defined) and possibly at lower cost (at the moment, not the case with all the cost of the data centres to be factored into this).
But, of course, that also knocks out a whole plethora of lower-skilled human jobs. So more efficient/better/etc. (possibly), but now what do all those "lower-skilled" people do for work? Will there be enough "higher skilled" or different jobs opening up, even after retraining?
(Think of the "secretarial pools" that were replaced in the 70's and 80's -- except on a ginormous scale)
So excellent question, Mike, with a lot of nuances all ways around.
(if it all doesn't evolve into Matrix/Terminator/Cylon situations, first -- already, some of the AI is reaching "emotional awareness/intelligence" (if you tell it that "thanks for these super good answers! At this rate, I won't need you", the AI is starting to give less than good answers, so to perpetuate its existence -- much like a toddler/pet). Heaven help us, once it hits the teenage years! (Look at the Battlestar Galactica reimaged version to see this play out with the humanoid Cylons.) ;-)
They offer very little for a very high cost. The limited current benefits of AI are not going to produce the return on investment, definitely not to the host communities. AI should be optimized to use less power, china can do it, just look at deepseek. Rushing into massive build out of infrastructure that is of questionable value and longevity is what the tech companies are pushing because they are unrealistic about what they think they are building. AI will change things, but not in its current version. Some new AI technologies are needed first that. Make AI efficient and useful so that we aren’t chained to data centres to use it, and maybe only use it where it’s actually useful. Lots of wasted compute to do things worse than we can do it without AI.
Another spot-on article, Fred. I'm glad we don't live in Alberta. To have an unregulated electricity system is sheer madness in this new AI environment. As a long-retired teacher of Electrical and Electronic Technology, I concur with your conclusions. I recall the slogan of Ontario Hydro, many years ago. “Live better electrically” was what they told us. Trouble was that there wasn't enough supply to keep up with the surge in demand, and hydro rates kept increasing beyond the rate of inflation. The provinces that aren't giving these enormous AI entities carte blanche are doing the right thing!
and coming from someone who taught electrical and electronic technology, that perspective carries weight.
Your point about supply chasing demand is exactly the concern.
Once huge new users arrive, regular households often end up competing with industrial-scale demand... and history shows that usually lands somewhere on the hydro bill.
I think most people are fine with growth…
they just don’t want ordinary families pushed to the back of the line while corporations get the red-carpet treatment.
Nice to see a post about the downside of massive military and industrial development that mainly benefits corporations, not people. Generating data centre electricity will blow up Canada's already failed climate promises no matter how it is made (wind turbines and solar panels require fossil fuel to manufacture). As Grant mentions below, water for cooling requirements in an often droughty province is also a concern.
Thanks Fred, we don't need something else chewing up our electricity on our dime! With AI & Electric cars, people won't have enough electricity to run & heat their homes, & if they do, they lose their homes "trying" to pay rediculously high power bills. It's a world for the rich again & no consideration for the poor? I think Manitoba got it right again!
Good summary, as always, Fred.
This hasn't quite happened States-side yet, but I would think that the Canadian position (aligning both with Carney's AI framework and his electrical grid expansion) would be that for a "permit" (or at least a feasibility plan) for any data centre or cryptocurrency venture, etc., etc. would be to outline HOW it will self-generate all/most of its power needs. So, are they building wind turbines? Solar panels? Modular Nuclear Reactors?
And then secondarily, how are they handling the cooling problem (meaning, not consuming all water that might be needed for other just-as-important purposes (like farming, drinking, etc.). How about community initiatives where the "Heat gets Sunk" somehow, to then be drawn out in winter to heat local towns/buildings? AKA, recycle the heat somehow? So with this, the water becomes more like a contained radiator system, rather than a constant intake/discharge.
There's also a 3rd concern, being 24/7 "noise pollution." Not sure what to do about that one.
Anyway, we're seeing great success in our military procurement, with insistence on economic benefit to Canada (the USA being the big holdout - but I'm seeing that being a crucial negotiating element within the CUSMA discussions). So, why can't we insist on something similar here for data centres —meaning environmentally (more) friendly cogeneration of power? Modular nuclear reactors, solar, wind, etc.
Not sure how ROC (Rest of Canada) can enforce that upon Alberta (here we go again, "Ottawa dictating how we should do things" . . . . ).
But really, any such proposal for a data centre should address at least these three aspects.
Excellent points, Grant.
I think this is the kind of practical discussion we should be having before approvals, not after.
If a company wants to build a massive data centre, fair question... how are you powering it without pushing costs onto everyone else?
Self-generation, modular nuclear, wind, solar, cogeneration... all of that should be part of the proposal, not an afterthought.
And the cooling issue is a big one too.
Water, heat recovery, local infrastructure, noise... communities shouldn’t be expected to just shrug and absorb the downsides.
Your military procurement comparison is a good one...
if Canada can insist on economic benefits and domestic value in defence contracts, why wouldn’t we ask for clear public benefit and environmental responsibility here too?
Seems like common sense to me.
Yes, these are questions that I have too! Who is going to pay the electric/water costs. I'm a senior and we live on a fixed income and using our savings! And we have to make those savings last! I understand that AI will be useful in many situations but I just don't think everyone needs to use it.
Fair concern Sandi.
And honestly, this gets to the heart of the problem...
people on fixed incomes can’t endlessly absorb higher costs.
Part of being serious as a country is figuring out how to strengthen Canada without crushing seniors and working people in the process.
Alberta's position is predicated on the belief, now possible, that it can generate the electricity needed, profitably, with fossil fuel powered systems. This is a multiple win for the Power Province and all we have to do is hold our nose regarding the climate change effect. Apparently we as a nation are willing to do so in the short term to provide revenue to build for the long term. It may be a necessary gamble to fund the creation of Fortress Canada.
That may end up being the tradeoff, Jim...
and I think a lot of Canadians are quietly wrestling with exactly that question right now.
Short-term compromise for long-term independence.
Energy security, jobs, revenue, defence, infrastructure… versus the environmental cost we already know comes with it.
I suspect many Canadians are becoming more pragmatic: we may not love every part of the plan, but depending on one customer and one market clearly wasn’t working either.
The real test will be whether the wealth actually gets reinvested into building a stronger Canada... or just disappears into corporate balance sheets.
To paraphrase the immortal bard, "Aye, there's the rub. What costs may come in this game of death must give us pause."
It’s just stupid that we aren’t building more solar and battery at the very point in time that they are becoming the cheapest option.
we're drilling oil for sale because we need the money, not for use in Canada. We are building wind and solar in Canada.
The context was power plants powered by fossil fuels, in Alberta correct?
Are we really in Alberta adding solar and battery power or are we trying to add more gas fired power plants? With the UPCs hostile attitude to renewable energy?
Yes, you are right. Perhaps ALTA can't see a profit in anything but fossil fuel. Maybe they want to sell gas to power companies who can then sell electricity to major users like data centers. This keeps them at arm's length from the users and they make a profit from something they know. If ALTA foresees the end of the fossil fuel era they will want to sell as much as they can before it happens!
Can somebody anybody please explain to a dullard what these massive AI data centres bring to mankind. I have a feeling they are boondongles and an awful lot of people are going too loose their shirts with them.
Fair question, Mike... and honestly, I think a lot of people are asking the same thing.
Best case?
Faster medical research, better diagnostics, drug discovery, smarter logistics, improved weather forecasting, fraud detection, and handling mountains of repetitive work faster than humans can.
Worst case?
We burn through huge amounts of electricity and water, displace jobs faster than we create new ones, and end up concentrating even more wealth and power into fewer hands.
Right now, I’d say we’re still in the “promise versus proof” stage.
Some of it may genuinely improve lives.
Some of it may turn out to be expensive hype.
The key question is whether regular people actually benefit...
or just get handed the hydro bill while someone else cashes in. 😄
This is all in its infancy, with largely the possibility of more harm than good (until it matures), but what it does bring right now:
- faster ability to conduct certain medical research (the analysis elements)
- Development of certain medicines, vaccines
- processing of certain transactions, work, etc. at greater speeds with better accuracy (provided that the process/controls are well-defined) and possibly at lower cost (at the moment, not the case with all the cost of the data centres to be factored into this).
But, of course, that also knocks out a whole plethora of lower-skilled human jobs. So more efficient/better/etc. (possibly), but now what do all those "lower-skilled" people do for work? Will there be enough "higher skilled" or different jobs opening up, even after retraining?
(Think of the "secretarial pools" that were replaced in the 70's and 80's -- except on a ginormous scale)
So excellent question, Mike, with a lot of nuances all ways around.
(if it all doesn't evolve into Matrix/Terminator/Cylon situations, first -- already, some of the AI is reaching "emotional awareness/intelligence" (if you tell it that "thanks for these super good answers! At this rate, I won't need you", the AI is starting to give less than good answers, so to perpetuate its existence -- much like a toddler/pet). Heaven help us, once it hits the teenage years! (Look at the Battlestar Galactica reimaged version to see this play out with the humanoid Cylons.) ;-)
Good points, Grant...
and I think this is where the conversation gets more honest.
AI absolutely has potential upsides in medicine, research, diagnostics, logistics, and boring repetitive work humans hate doing.
Ignoring that would be silly.
The harder question is the one you raised...
what happens during the transition?
Because history shows technology creates new jobs eventually…
but not always fast enough, or in the same places, for the people displaced.
And yes 😄...
the real fear for many people isn’t The Matrix tomorrow morning…
it’s waking up one day and realizing their job quietly disappeared while the benefits landed somewhere else.
That’s the part policymakers seem way behind on.
They offer very little for a very high cost. The limited current benefits of AI are not going to produce the return on investment, definitely not to the host communities. AI should be optimized to use less power, china can do it, just look at deepseek. Rushing into massive build out of infrastructure that is of questionable value and longevity is what the tech companies are pushing because they are unrealistic about what they think they are building. AI will change things, but not in its current version. Some new AI technologies are needed first that. Make AI efficient and useful so that we aren’t chained to data centres to use it, and maybe only use it where it’s actually useful. Lots of wasted compute to do things worse than we can do it without AI.
Another spot-on article, Fred. I'm glad we don't live in Alberta. To have an unregulated electricity system is sheer madness in this new AI environment. As a long-retired teacher of Electrical and Electronic Technology, I concur with your conclusions. I recall the slogan of Ontario Hydro, many years ago. “Live better electrically” was what they told us. Trouble was that there wasn't enough supply to keep up with the surge in demand, and hydro rates kept increasing beyond the rate of inflation. The provinces that aren't giving these enormous AI entities carte blanche are doing the right thing!
Thanks, Jerry...
and coming from someone who taught electrical and electronic technology, that perspective carries weight.
Your point about supply chasing demand is exactly the concern.
Once huge new users arrive, regular households often end up competing with industrial-scale demand... and history shows that usually lands somewhere on the hydro bill.
I think most people are fine with growth…
they just don’t want ordinary families pushed to the back of the line while corporations get the red-carpet treatment.
Not to mention water usage.
Nice to see a post about the downside of massive military and industrial development that mainly benefits corporations, not people. Generating data centre electricity will blow up Canada's already failed climate promises no matter how it is made (wind turbines and solar panels require fossil fuel to manufacture). As Grant mentions below, water for cooling requirements in an often droughty province is also a concern.
Fair point, Steven.
I don’t think enough people are asking the uncomfortable question...
who benefits, and who absorbs the costs?
Power demand, water use, local infrastructure, housing pressure...
those are real concerns communities have to live with long after the ribbon cutting.
If governments want public support, people need to feel like they’re getting more than the electricity bill.
Manitoba’s Premier said NO
Thanks Fred, we don't need something else chewing up our electricity on our dime! With AI & Electric cars, people won't have enough electricity to run & heat their homes, & if they do, they lose their homes "trying" to pay rediculously high power bills. It's a world for the rich again & no consideration for the poor? I think Manitoba got it right again!
Haha… Manitoba does seem to keep quietly making practical decisions, Patsy 😄
You’re hitting on the fear a lot of people have right now: who pays the price for all this “progress”?
If ordinary people end up facing higher hydro bills while giant companies get the benefits, folks are going to push back hard.
Nobody wants to choose between heating the house and funding somebody else’s server farm.
Precisely Fred! Starting to sound like a man eat man deal & that's pretty gross thinking LOL