This Week's Expert Blog Post

October 19, 2026

At our Humanizing Quantum roundtable on 2 October, David McCollum of Oak Ridge National Laboratory asked us to consider a thought experiment. Knowing what we now know about classical computing, what do we wish we had understood earlier? Would we have made different decisions about where data centres were built, how much water and electricity they would need, and how the communities hosting them would be affected? 

We have an opportunity to ask those questions about quantum computing before the industry reaches that scale. 

McCollum and his colleagues have been studying what large quantum computers might require to operate. Their 2026 research models future superconducting quantum computers and finds that water and helium-3 could constrain their expansion under some scenarios. Electricity may be less of a limiting factor than expected. The estimates remain uncertain, as the researchers themselves stress. 

Other quantum computing designs have different needs. Some depend on extremely low temperatures, others on lasers, vacuum systems or specialised detectors. Each brings its own demands for materials, manufacturing, cooling and maintenance. Even within one architecture, a laboratory machine and a large commercial installation present very different problems. 

Where these machines sit will also matter. Large fault-tolerant quantum computers will need classical computing equipment close enough to handle time-sensitive control and error correction. Their users could be thousands of kilometres away. That opens the possibility of serving customers around the world from a small number of specialised facilities, wherever the infrastructure and operating conditions make sense. 

But whose conditions? 

We have seen the arguments surrounding AI data centres: pressure on electricity grids, water consumption, local opposition and disputes over who pays for infrastructure upgrades. Quantum computing may never reach the same physical scale. We simply do not know. Yet companies are already making choices about hardware, suppliers and facilities that will influence what becomes possible later. 

Materials present similar questions. A mineral may be mined in one country, processed in another and manufactured into a component somewhere else. Some of these supply chains run through African countries. Having the raw material does not necessarily mean participating in the technology or sharing substantially in its value. Companies need to understand those relationships, including the conditions under which their inputs are produced. 

The conversation becomes wider when we consider quantum technologies beyond computing. Post-quantum cryptography is already changing how organisations protect information. Quantum communications will involve choices about networks, satellites and access. Quantum sensing could create new ways to measure the environment, navigate and investigate natural resources. Different technologies, different consequences, and different people who will live with them.

Adrian Schmidt of Karlsruhe Institute of Technology brought the discussion back to those people. He studies the relationship between quantum technologies and society, including questions of participation, culture and responsibility. His point was that regions often inherit technological priorities developed elsewhere, sometimes without first asking what they need. 

Consider how differently countries might answer that question. One may have an urgent need to secure banking and government systems. Another may have research strengths in sensing or materials. A third may be considering whether to host computing infrastructure. There is little reason to assume they should follow the same path. 

Schmidt's recent work with the Responsible Quantum Technologies community also examines how art and public engagement can bring more people into discussions about emerging technologies. 

We saw a practical example from Egypt. In New Alamein, university students brought quantum science onto a public walkway through games and interactive activities. Their project won the Africa award in World Quantum Day's Quantum City Prize and placed second worldwide. People encountered quantum while going about their day, with opportunities to ask questions and explore unfamiliar ideas. 

It is easy for an industry absorbed in technical milestones to overlook the people outside its laboratories. Those people may eventually host its infrastructure, supply its materials, regulate its products or depend on its services. Their questions deserve attention before the decisions are settled. 

McCollum's thought experiment has stayed with me because we already know how difficult it can be to revisit infrastructure choices made years earlier. Quantum gives us some time to examine those choices, including who makes them and who lives with the results. 

We should use it. 

You can watch the full Humanizing Quantum roundtable, including David McCollum's session, here: [YOUTUBE LINK]

By Farai  Mazhandu