AINewsIQ by Triuna Labs
Menu
← Search the archive
Discussion / Industry / Hacker News · AI

The same AI request emits 8.5 times more CO2 in Texas than in Sweden

A source-linked abstract prepared once when this article was collected.

· Source claims have not been independently verified.
Open original source ↗
NEWS ABSTRACT10/23/2026 · one shared analysis

Berget AI, a Swedish AI provider, released an open-source method to calculate CO2 emissions for each individual AI request, developed with SEI, WattTime and Klimatkollen. Using the Kimi K3 model, the release estimates about 0.4 g CO2 per request in Sweden versus 3.2 g in Texas, on identical hardware. The method uses location-based grid averages, includes hardware manufacturing emissions, and follows the Green Software Foundation's SCI for AI specification under an MIT licence. The release also includes a correction to earlier grid intensity figures.

Key takeaways

  • A typical Kimi K3 request is estimated at 0.4 g CO2 in Sweden and 3.2 g in Texas.
  • The method calculates each request separately rather than applying an average, and is published under an MIT licence.
  • Location-based figures use average grid mix where servers run and include hardware manufacturing emissions.
  • Marginal emission rates, which may significantly change Swedish data-centre figures, are planned for the calculator next month.

Why it matters

Buyers rarely receive per-request emissions data from AI providers. A transparent, open method could let buyers compare providers and regions on measured figures rather than estimates made from outside.

Read with care

Source claims not independently checked; estimates use average grid intensities, exclude training emissions, and the release itself notes that marginal-rate methods may change results substantially.

ai emissionscarbon accountingper-request co2open modelsdata centres

Links in the source

Public links observed in the fetched page. Inclusion does not verify or endorse the destination.

Discussion

Comments are reviewed before publication. Discuss the evidence, not the person.

No published comments yet.

Reader discussion opens with accounts. You can read the original source and published comments now.