AI energy comparison
AI images
≈0.09 Wh/image · SANA 1.5 1.6B · B200 minimum-energy configuration · GPU energy only
Everyday-energy scale
Logarithmic range / 20 Wh — 2.4 kWhWorking assumption
Heat 250 mL of water from 20–100°C in a 90%-efficient electric kettle.
The unit gets smaller while the system gets bigger.
AI’s environmental problem is real, but the debate is often aimed at the wrong scale. Efficient modern inference can make a single image or text response surprisingly cheap in energy terms, while total AI electricity demand can still grow enormously as usage, model capability, and data-centre capacity expand. That means the serious environmental question is increasingly not whether an ordinary person should feel guilty for generating an image, but how efficiently AI infrastructure runs, what energy sources power it, where new generation and grid capacity come from, and who is accountable for those choices. The unit can get smaller while the system gets bigger. So the conversation should move upstream: don’t police the prompt; govern the megawatts.
Ten working positions
- Per-request AI energy can be very small, especially on efficient modern hardware.
- Small per-request energy does not mean small total energy use.
- AI demand can rise faster than efficiency improves.
- The real environmental scale problem is data centres, not individual prompts.
- What powers those data centres matters as much as how much electricity they use.
- The same workload can have very different emissions depending on the grid and generation mix.
- Users do not choose data-centre siting, cooling systems, grid connections, or power procurement.
- Environmental accountability should focus increasingly on infrastructure decisions.
- Individual use still contributes to demand, but it is not the whole system.
- The key question is not “Should people generate?” but “What are we building to power all this generation?”
Don’t police the prompt. Govern the megawatts.