Proenergy Repurposes Jet Engines to Power Data Centers
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
datacenterdynamics.comTechstory
skepticalmixed
Debate
60/100
Data CentersSustainabilityEnergy Generation
Key topics
Data Centers
Sustainability
Energy Generation
ProEnergy is repurposing jet engines to power data centers, sparking discussion about the feasibility, efficiency, and environmental impact of this unconventional energy solution.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
48m
Peak period
24
0-12h
Avg / period
8.2
Comment distribution41 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 41 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 25, 2025 at 3:59 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 25, 2025 at 4:47 PM EDT
48m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
24 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 30, 2025 at 10:16 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45706534Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 6:51:52 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/elon-musk-xai-memph...
Compared to full-size natural gas powerplants they're extremely awful, but they're a necessity when we otherwise wouldn't have reliable power. If it wasn't for NINBYism, we'd have plenty of hydro and nuclear power to meet all of our needs, but with NINBYism the only option is to build smaller, which is also dirtier and less efficient, but avoids the NIMBY blockades.
Nuclear is great at base power, but cannot quickly react to changes in demand. Wind and photovoltaic solar give power whenever it's available, but without storage, they also can't help with peak demands.
Hey now, give the environmentalists some credit too.
Even if the NIMBYs evaporated overnight these projects would still be hobbled by all manner of "you're gonna need an engineered stormwater solution" and "gonna need an impact study" type crap wherein firms and trades that manage to market what they do as being good for the environment (but at what cost?) are empowered sometimes by law, but more often by bureaucratic policy to leech large sums out of money at every step of the process.
They usually only apply to projects over a certain size, hence the shift to smaller projects to avoid NIMBYism.
the reason it sells it that some non small part of the investor marked expects there is a "explosion" in compute needs, cause by AI adoption
which will lead to an explosion of electrical need
except there is limited world wide production capacity for gas power plants and other power plants, and some (e.g. nuclear) are very slow to build
and Trump put a lot of extra artificial hurdles for expanding anything "renewable"
so basically if that happen we most likely will have
- exploding electrical bills, and if no intervention is done for private homes, too.
- air pollution (and other environmental pollution) which doesn't just give people asthma implicitly will kill them (like them ding years earlier, but also potentially through damage from asthma attacks etc.)[1]
- price explosion of any electric components which share production lines with GPU servers (which isn't just GPUs, but also RAM, CPUs, etc.), the predicted price increase of RAM by ~30% is partially due to people anticipating this and already buying capacities :/
Naturally there needs to be a sinner to put the blame one so expect claims that electric price increases are fully at fault of Wind Farms and similar :/
Oh also if the AI bubble goes pop it sadly will not just be all fine, because we now have a double bubble of the core AI bubble and the "speculative new data center investment" bubble. The first will majorly hit the top of SAP100 and with it a lot of founds and similar which try to be "stable"/"reliable" etc. The other is more fulled by private equity and it's (for me) very unclear what is linked to it. One way or another things look pretty bad.
[1]: If anyone is wondering if there will be interventions from the state weather it's the OP politico article or long term promulgated and reported issues with fracking causing mutated fishes and major increases in cancer down stream, or the long history with toxic wast dumping in the US the answer is, most likely, no. And that sadly isn't even Trump specific.
That said, a parking lot full of these things could eventually crank up the ambient NOx levels. The real problem is low stack height. The exhaust being close to the ground creates a hot spot that would have otherwise dispersed into a much larger volume of air. One generator running by itself is probably not an issue in any arrangement. 20 is a medium sized power plant.
but cars normally get replaces with EVs only if you need a new car anyway, so ignoring that different classes of cars are used for different number of years etc. we are speaking about something like (very roughly) 5% or so off the total increase coming per year if no one including truckers would buy non-EVs. So we have a upper ceiling of around 2.5% increase per year, but more realistically we are speaking about less then 1% increase per year (but also that much for the next 20-50 years).
And sure there are other things, like electric heating, full electric cooking etc. which I am fully ignoring.
But for AI needs alone we have a projected increases of 25% in the next 5 years or so, depending on who you ask. And even around 80% until 2050... which is a completely different scale then like 5% in the next 5 years and up to 50% in the next 50 years ...
Edit: Turns out GE makes these things called LM2500 gas turbines and they're pretty much the same thing, CF6 aero turbines set up for power generation. They're advertised as being 35-39% efficient, which makes them rather on the less efficient end of the gas turbine spectrum. But they're light and quick to start so they have seem a lot of use in ships and some peaker plants. They definitely aren't the best turbine to be running a data center with long term, but if they can make them cheap and available that might be good enough. Not a new idea though.
The LM6000 and its variants have been in operation since probably the 1980s. I can ask around at work. I used to develop the code for the LM6000.
You're spot on that people use them for peaking, but it's a big mix. Peaking, mid-merit, and sometimes base load. There are low emissions versions as well, that keep NOx to a handful of ppm without using extra water.
An aviation jet is designed to efficiently generate thrust at minimal weight. A power plant turbine is designed to efficiently turn the generator, and weight is no object.
Different trade-offs.
Of course "jet" aircraft are mostly using the engine to produce shaft power to run a ducted fan anyway.
However, these cores are designed to spin very fast, not at grid speed, so these need some form of gearbox or electronic frequency conversion.
That's true of any gas turbine engine. About the only engines you can use to drive a genny directly are diesels at 1500rpm for 4-pole machines or petrols at 3000rpm for 2-pole machines (or if you're in one of the tiny handful of countries in the world that uses 60Hz, 1800rpm or 3600rpm).
You can of course run these on alternative fuels like waste veg oil for diesels or propane instead of petrol, and the latter used to be quite common on remote farms where you'd have a big propane tank for heating and cooking - may as well run the generator on it too, and not have to worry about exhaust fumes.
I don't believe that's right. Near as I can tell, the large turbines built for power generation, like the GE 9HA spin at 3000 or 3600 RPM. That's how they get efficiencies north of 60%.
You're right that the core doesn't spin at synchronous speed but the LP shaft does. It's optimized for 3600rpm, but could run at other speeds... the machine just isn't designed for it. The LM6000 only uses a gearbox for 50Hz units while 60Hz don't need it.
According to this article, the best current commercial turbofans can reach over 50% thermodynamic efficiency. I remember thinking that 50% seem like an unreachable holy grail when first reading about thermodynamic efficiency of common engines. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/23490/chapter/6#36
...more or less. There have been outliers.
The line must go up.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/turbine-shortage-...