Each ChatGPT question consumes a tiny amount of water and power, sparking new debates on AI's sustainability and environmental impact.
 |
| ChatGPT’s water and energy consumption per question is small but gaining attention amid rising AI adoption and concerns over sustainability. Image: CH |
Tech Desk – June 15, 2025:
As artificial intelligence becomes an integral part of daily life, its environmental footprint is under growing scrutiny. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently revealed that each ChatGPT question uses approximately 0.000085 gallons of water, equivalent to one-fifth of a teaspoon, and 0.34 watt-hours of electricity, about the same as running an LED bulb for two minutes or an oven for one second.
Altman’s statement has reignited global discussions on the sustainability of AI technologies. The water and electricity are primarily used to power massive server farms and maintain optimal temperatures through cooling systems. With server infrastructure expanding rapidly, water consumption has emerged as a central concern.
According to researchers, by 2025, the electricity required to run AI systems could surpass the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining—a comparison that adds urgency to the sustainability debate.
A report from The Washington Post highlighted that composing just a 100-word email using GPT-4 may consume water equivalent to a small bottle of liquid. Although the exact methodology behind Altman’s figures remains unclear, many observers see his comments as an attempt to pre-empt criticism and underscore OpenAI’s efforts toward transparency and efficiency.
Still, the broader question persists: Is this environmental cost justifiable? And more importantly, what solutions are on the horizon to reduce AI’s ecological impact?
With AI technologies continuing to scale, developers and data centers may need to prioritize greener computing strategies, such as renewable energy adoption, closed-loop water systems, and more efficient cooling technologies.
For now, each query to ChatGPT may seem negligible on its own—but multiplied by billions, the environmental toll is anything but small.