cs.SEMar 31, 2026

The Energy Footprint of LLM-Based Environmental Analysis: LLMs and Domain Products

Authors: Alicia Bao, Jiamian He, Angel Hsu, Diego Manya, Ji, Zhang

Organizations: James · Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 · Arboretica, Rotterdam, The Netherlands · Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 · 

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in domain-specific applications, including climate change and environmental research, understanding their energy footprint has become an important concern. The growing adoption of retrieval-augmented (RAG) systems for climate-domain specific analysis raises a key question: how does the energy consumption of domain-specific RAG workflows compare with that of direct generic LLM usage? Prior research has focused on standalone model calls or coarse token-based estimates, while leaving the energy implications of deployed application workflows insufficiently understood. In this paper, we assess the inference-time energy consumption of two LLM-based climate analysis chatbots (ChatNetZero and ChatNDC) compared to the generic GPT-4o-mini model. We estimate energy use under actual user queries by decomposing each workflow into retrieval, generation, and hallucination-checking components. We also test across different times of day and geographic access locations. Our results show that the energy consumption of domain-specific RAG systems depends strongly on their design. More agentic pipelines substantially increase inference-time energy use, particularly when used for additional accuracy or verification checks, although they may not yield proportional gains in response quality. While more research is needed to further test these initial findings more robustly across models, environments and prompting structures, this study provides a new understanding on how the design of domain-specific LLM products affects both the energy footprint and quality of output.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Design of ChatNetZero Hsu et al. (2024) .
Figure 2: Architectures of (a) ChatNetZero and (b) ChatNDC.
Question typeExample questions
Knowledge“Has Marathon Petroleum made any climate pledges?”; “Does Foxconn have any climate strategy?”; “What is the total emissions reduction target of Malaysia?”; “Does Taiwan have a carbon trading scheme or policy under its latest NDC?”
Comprehension“Interpret how ESG regulations influence business strategy and investor decisions”; “Explain the relationship between local air pollution and public health outcomes.”
Application“What are Scope 3 emissions and what should be included in a net-zero target?”; “If an entity doesn’t control out-of-boundary emissions, how can it credibly set a net-zero target?”
Analysis“Are Costco’s or Walmart’s net zero target 1.5 degree aligned?”; “How does Walmart’s climate goals compare with other large retail stores?”; “How do England and Scotland NDCs compare to the UK’s?”
Evaluation“Is Apple’s net zero target credible?”; “How is supermarket chain Jeronimo Martins doing on their commitment to reduce food waste by 50% by 2025?”
Creation“Propose an ESG audit model that integrates social, environmental, and ethical performance indicators into one scorecard.”; “Develop a set of innovative KPIs to measure corporate progress toward net-zero goals beyond traditional carbon metrics.”
Table 1: Representative questions from the evaluation dataset.
Figure 3: Median answer token size by each model.
ModelSizeGPUGGDgpuD_{\mathrm{gpu}}DnongpuD_{\mathrm{nongpu}}NNBB
GPT-4oLargeH10080.60.588
GPT 4o-MiniMediumA10041.20.588
Table 5
ModelUGPUtotalU_{\mathrm{GPUtotal}}UGPUU_{\mathrm{GPU}}PGPUP_{\mathrm{GPU}}Pnon−GPUP_{\mathrm{non-GPU}}WtotalW_{\mathrm{total}}PUEW⋅PUEW\cdot\mathrm{PUE}
GPT-4o0.420.28755.64.60.70751.120.7924
GPT 4o-Mini0.240.1031253.23.30.3431251.120.3843
Table 6
Figure 4: Median energy use of models per query.
Figure 5: Energy use across query steps: (a) Mean energy use of models by each step of the query; (b) Proportion of energy use by step of the query.
Figure 6: Output token vs Energy Usage by model.
Figure 7: a) Mean factual score by model. b) Mean embellishment score by model.
Figure 8: a) Energy use vs. factual score of questions, by model. b) Energy use vs. embellishment score of questions, by model.
Figure 9: a) Output token size vs. factual score of questions, by model. b) Output token size vs. embellishment score of questions, by model.
More in this topic

LLM Inference Efficiency

Large language model inference efficiency reduces the time, memory, energy, and cost of generating useful outputs.

See all 351 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. This Is Taking Too Long -- Investigating Time as a Proxy for Energy Consumption of LLMs

    Mar 16, 2026Lars Krupp, Daniel Geißler, Francisco M. Calatrava-Nicolas +3Energy-Aware LLM InferenceLLM Inference

    Embedded Intelligence DFKI and RPTU Kaiserslautern, Germany · Centre for Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems (AASS) Örebro University Örebro, Sweden

  2. From Tokens to Watt-hours: Analytical Energy Estimation for LLM Inference on Modern GPUs

    Jul 29, 2026Tina Vartziotis, Rodopi Kosteli, Elli Vartziotis +5LLM Inference EfficiencyEnergy-Efficient ML

    1National Technical University of Athens, Patission Complex 42, 10682 Athens, Greece · 2Harvard University, 1350 Massachusetts Avenue, 02138 Cambridge, MA, USA · 3TWT GmbH Science & Innovation, Industriestraße 6, 70565 Stuttgart, DE +4

  3. The Language-Energy Divide: Measuring Energy Costs of Multilingual LLM Inference

    Jun 20, 2026Naihao Deng, Alissa Shen, Yiming Feng +5LLM Inference EfficiencyMultilingual Language Models

    University of Michigan · University of Cambridge · University of Aberdeen