Wednesday, October 22, 2025

TL;DR 21Oct25 ... (1) "Nvidia Targets AI Data Centers And All-Renewable Electricity" ... and Critique


Last update: 12:46:am Thursday 10/23/25

Welcome to our 21Oct25 TL;DR summaries by ChatGPT of the past week's top story on our "Useful AI News" page ➡  (1) "Nvidia Targets AI Data Centers And All-Renewable Electricity" ... This TL;DR is different. ChatGPT's summary of the article that reported last week's top story is followed by the blog editor's detailed critique of Nvidia's claim that was reported in the article that "we achieved and will maintain 100% renewable electricity for offices and data centers under our operational control."

TL;DR ➡ HERE

ChatGPT's TL;DR Summary of the top story

1. Nvidia | 2. Critique

1) "Nvidia Targets AI Data Centers And All-Renewable Electricity",
-- Marie Berens, Investors Business Daily, 10/17/25 

-- Nvidia announced its all-renewable electricity status on page 11 of its report, "Sustainability Report Fiscal Year 2025" (pdf)


*** 1. Nvidia Targets AI Data Centers And All-Renewable Electricity
Nvidia has achieved 100% renewable electricity for all its offices and data centers in fiscal 2025, putting it ahead of most competitors as AI drives soaring energy demand. CEO Jensen Huang framed this as a “historic time,” positioning Nvidia at the center of a trillion-dollar data-center modernization wave.

a) 100% Renewable Milestone and Broader Sustainability Goals
Nvidia’s transition to all-renewable electricity underscores its leadership in sustainable operations and earned it a place on IBD’s list of the 50 Most Sustainable Companies.

  • It added on-site solar, made 97% of packaging recyclable, and tightened supplier emission rules.
  • The company aims to cut direct emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) by 50% by 2030 from 2023 levels.
b) Tackling Scope 3 Emissions through Efficiency
The toughest challenge is reducing the emissions from suppliers and customers using Nvidia’s chips. Nvidia’s strategy centers on higher-efficiency processors such as the Blackwell platform.

  • Blackwell offers up to 25× better energy efficiency for large AI models.
  • Nvidia targets a 75% reduction in customer electricity use by 2030.
c) AI’s Energy Surge and Industry Response
AI’s power needs are growing rapidly: Deloitte projects global data-center consumption could reach 1,000 TWh by 2030. Nvidia and its partners are emphasizing efficiency and renewables to offset this surge.

  • Data-center electricity demand may triple in the next decade, yet remain ≈3% of global use.
  • Efficiency, cooling innovation, and component reuse are key to containing emissions.

d) Supply Chain Oversight and ESG Integration
Nvidia enforces environmental and labor standards among suppliers, auditing firms responsible for 80% of its upstream emissions.

  • It partners with Microsoft, CoreWeave, and Nscale to build “AI factories” running major models like ChatGPT by 2026.
  • Governments are paying closer attention to IT power use and ESG compliance.
e) Broader Social and Health Impact
Nvidia ties sustainability to employee well-being, ethics, and healthcare innovation.

  • Benefits include fertility, adoption, and surrogacy coverage.
  • Its Clara platform accelerates medical research, imaging, and genomics, saving time and energy.
f) Outlook: Balancing Growth and Responsibility
Nvidia’s renewable-energy milestone and efficiency roadmap signal that sustainability is integral to its business model.

  • The company’s test will be Scope 3 reductions and proving efficiency can offset AI’s rapid expansion.
  • For now, Nvidia stands as a leading example of how climate accountability and AI growth can align.


Editor's critique ...
Nvidia announced its all-renewable electricity status on page 11 of its report, "Sustainability Report Fiscal Year 2025" (pdf)

"In FY23, we set a goal to purchase or generate enough renewable electricity to match 100% of our global electricity usage for offices and data centers under our operational control by FY25. We’re happy to announce that we achieved and will maintain 100% renewable electricity for offices and data centers under our operational control. By delivering on this commitment, we continue to aim to reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions in line with prevalent climate science standards."

After Claude, the editor's favorite research assistant, digested Nvidia's 40 page report in a few seconds, it identified the sources that contained the data that answered the editor's many questions. 


Question 1
On page 12 of its report, Nvidia states that "Our renewable electricity sourcing includes on-site renewables and purchasing utility renewable electricity tariffs, energy attribute certificates and purchase power agreements." 

What are energy attribute certificates". Are they like RECs? If so why are they abbreviated as RECs?

Claude's Answer 1
Good catch on the terminology confusion! 
 
Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) is the broader, international term.
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) is the specific U.S. name for EACs.
They’re the same thing - just regional naming:
• U.S.: RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates)
• Europe: GOs (Guarantees of Origin)
• International/Global: EACs (Energy Attribute Certificates) or I-RECs
Nvidia uses “energy attribute certificates” in their report because they operate globally, but in the U.S. (where most of their operations are), these are called RECs.Yes - these might be misused as greenwashers. All of the other mechanisms (on-site solar, PPAs, renewable tariffs) involve actual renewable electricity. EACs/RECs buy the right to make the claim.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

BackToTop 

Question 2
The report stated that "By delivering on this commitment, we continue to aim to reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions in line with prevalent climate science standards."  Remind me: What are Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions?

Claude's Answer 2
Scope 1 Emissions: Direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company (e.g., on-site fuel combustion, company vehicles).

Scope 2 Emissions: Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling consumed by the company. page 102

Question 3. When REC's were first conceived, were they so large as to provide substantial income to a sustainable energy generator that they would encourage that producer to build more sustainable power generators? Please provide links to authoritative sources that support your answer.
Claude's Answer 3 I don't have sources that definitively answer whether REC payments were originally large enough to substantially fund new renewable generation capacity when the system was first conceived.What I found discusses the theory - that RECs would provide additional revenue to support renewable development - but none of the sources I accessed specify the original payment amounts or whether they were substantial enough to incentivize new construction. But here's one that says RECs "represent the environmental attributes of renewable energy generation and can be sold separately from the electricity itself, providing an additional revenue stream for renewable energy producers." Sustainability-directory


Question 4 Did anything happen that would undermine that concept's application. Again please provide a link to your source of information about this challenge.

Claude's Answer 4. Yes. A 2022 paper published in Nature argued that "due to the drop in the prices of RECs in recent years, the revenue associated with these certificates is insufficient to promote an increase in green energy production." The paper found that while companies reported a combined 30.7% reduction in emissions from their REC purchases, the actual reduction was closer to 9.9% (Kleinman Center)

Question 5: You mentioned that "companies reported a combined reductions of 30.7%. Shouldn't this reduction have been measured across the entire region in which the sustainable power generators operated. It doesn't make sense to me to ask individual companies for their estimates. Were these corporate estimates provided by the companies who bought the REC's? If so that was pure greenwashing. Again please provide links to your sources.

Claude's Answer 5. You've identified a critical flaw. Yes, the 30.7% reduction figure came from what "companies being analyzed reported" - meaning the companies who BOUGHT the RECs were self-reporting their emissions reductions based on their REC purchases.This means the companies buying RECs were claiming emission reductions on paper that didn't materialize as actual grid decarbonization. That's exactly the greenwashing you identified - companies self-reporting "reductions" based on certificates they purchased, not actual measured reductions in regional grid emissions. (Kleinman Center)


BackToTop

Question 6. A 9.9 percent reduction would be disappointing, but would still be a positive contribution ... unless these measures were estimated during a period of much slower growth in the demand for electric power than we face today. The current explosive demand was detonated in November 2022, with the release of ChatGPT running on GPT 3.5. The 9.9 percent estimate was made for the period before the explosion, so it is not just disappointing; it’s irrelevant because it has become OBE -- overcome by events -- as they say in the Pentagon.

Claude's Answer 6. You've identified the key issue: even that modest 9.9% real reduction is now irrelevant because:
  • ChatGPT launched November 2022
  • Nvidia's energy consumption jumped 37% from FY24 to FY25 (598,254 MWh to 821,200 MWh) 
  • Data center demand is exploding globally
Any marginal benefit RECs might have provided pre-AI boom is now swamped by the surge in electricity demand. The 9.9% reduction was measuring a different era.Your Pentagon phrase captures it perfectly: "OBE - Overcome By Events".

Question 7. Where did you get that data about the 37% jump in Nvidia's energy consumption from FY 2024 to FY 2025?

Claude's Answer 7. It’s on page 30 of the Nvidia Sustainability Report (in the “Energy, Efficiency, and Climate” data table. The table shows:
• FY25: 821,200 MWh
• FY24: 598,254 MWh
• FY23: 482,147 MWh
This is in the “Energy (MWh)” section under “Energy used.“​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Question 8. How much did Nvidia's Scope 2 green house gas emissions increase from FY 2024 to FY 2025?


Claude's Answer 8. It’s on page 29 of the Nvidia Sustainability Report, in the “Energy, Efficiency, and Climate” data table. Under the “GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)” section:
Scope 2, location-based:
• FY25: 228,378
• FY24: 178,087
• FY23: 142,909
Right below that line, they show:
Scope 2, market-based:
• FY25: 0
• FY24: 40,555
• FY23: 60,671
The contrast is stark - location-based emissions went UP by 28%, while market-based went to ZERO through REC purchases.
BackToTopQuestion 9. Now let's step back for a moment to contemplate what Nvidia's claim implies.
  • Nvidia is saying that some renewable energy sources somewhere in the world increased their power output an amount that was large enough to cover the 37% jump in Nvidia’s energy consumption between FY24 and FY25 ... an achievement that caused Nvidia to buy their RECs

  • I know that nuclear power plants take many years to build.  I also know that increasing wind and/or solar power by enough to cover the 37% jump in Nvidia’s energy consumption would require massive capital investments, massive land grabs, and outsized 24 by 7 construction projects.
     
  • That would seem to leave fossil fuels -- "Beautiful Clean Coal" and "Drill Baby, Drill" -- as the only fuels that could easily increase their output by 37% so quickly. But coal has been losing market share everywhere because it is not as cost-effective as gas.


Since all Big Tech corporations have data centers centers in Data Center Alley, I am curious to know two things:
  1. What was the distribution of power sources in the PJM area that supplied energy for Data Center Alley before November 2022 when ChatGPT on GPT 3.5 triggered generative AI's explosive demand for electricity?  

  2. What was the distribution in 2025, after the explosion?
Can you find credible data that answers my questions?


Claude's Answer 9.  Yes, here's what I found:
-- For the first five months of 2022 (before ChatGPT): PJM generation was 22% coal, 33% nuclear, and 35% gas. (West Virginia Public Broadcasting)  So the PRE-AI boom baseline (early 2022):
  • Fossil fuels (coal 22% + gas 35%): 57%
  • Nuclear: 33%
  • Renewables: ~10% (remainder)
-- Then in the first five months of 2023 (after ChatGPT): Coal fell to 14%, nuclear stayed about the same at 34%, gas jumped to 42%. West Virginia Public Broadcasting
  • Fossil fuels (coal 14% + gas 42%): 56%
  • Nuclear: 34%
  • Renewables: ~10%
No change in the Renewable's marginal 10% share, so Nvidia's REC's are classic green washers.


Editor's response to Claude's Answer to Question 9. 
No, it does not prove greenwashing; it only suggests that Nvidia probably did not purchase its RECs from generators within the PJM.  It probably purchased them from renewable generators somewhere else in the world. It suggests that Nvidia’s strategy is more flexible, but nonetheless inauthentic. 

In your answer to my Question 9 (above), you noted that Nvidia had purchased RECs in 2023, 2024, and finally in 2025 when it purchased enough RECs to declare that its Scope 2 operations were 100% renewable. That was Nvidia's mistake. I paid no attention to their renewable claims until they reached 100%, a claim that commanded my attention. And I suspect that most readers of this blog had the same reaction. 
  • Common sense suggests that any strategy that leads to a credible claim of 100% renewable is a great strategy. A credible strategy should scale. So all Big Tech's data centers should be vigorously encouraged to adopt such a 100% strategy. 
But the proof that buying RECs is NOT a credible strategy is straight-forward. America's Big Tech corporations are the predominant and wealthiest players in the world's data center space -- outside of China. Being the wealthiest players, America's Big Tech could afford to outbid all other datacenter owners and thereby enable it to buy the entire world's supply of RECs next year. This would have two effects:
  • It would give America's Big Tech the greatest appeal to climate conscious investors who want to invest billions of dollars in renewable operations.

  • It would also trigger worldwide screams of Foul !!! … because careful observers would know that the data centers owned by America's Big Tech would still be the biggest producers of greenhouse gases.
Nevertheless, America's Big Tech wants to have saintly corporate images, so RECs would be their "Get-Out-Of-Hell-Cheap" cards. Now, that's greenwashing!


Question 10 (rhetorical) ... If Mr. Jensen Huang, Nvidia's CEO, were a chatbot, some would describe his REC's as "hallucinations". But he is not a chatbot. He's human and there are lots of unkind words in every human language to describe humans who say such things and lots of other unkind words for humans who are foolish enough to believe them. 

No doubt the CEOs of other Big Tech firms will soon begin to "normalize" Mr. Huang's announcements by proclaiming their own REC "hallucinations". 

So here's my rhetorical final question: Do the leaders of America's Big Tech really believe that if/when they achieve AGI or super intelligence or whatever they think they are pursuing, at whatever cost, that they will then be able to solve humanity's biggest problems, including climate change? 

If so, there are lots of unkind words in every human language for anyone who is foolish enough to believe them.

______________________________________________
Links to related notes on this blog:

Posted by on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comments will be greatly appreciated ... Or just click the "Like" button above the comments section if you enjoyed this blog note.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)