The trendy desire to blame data centers for everything is nauseating. Data centers aren't poluting the air. Power plants are.
Since Texas has been leading the nation on renewables because it has a fairly free power market amd renewables are the cheapest power available, I'd expect this surge in demand to be eventually replaced by more renewables. In the meantime, extra capacity comes from old plants that can be spun up quickly.
>Data centers aren't poluting the air. Power plants are.
Currently for Datacenter's to move forward in Texas they must have some local power production so you see some of the newer upcoming ones featuring 20+ portable gas turbines on site. Others feature mixed solar/portable gas turbine.
Grid stuff is 5yr out everywhere, including my "we don't even have datacenter projects to speak of because out power is just that expensive" region. That's just how the industry moves.
That doesn't really help the people who suffer serious health issues from the surge of pollution in the neighborhood while waiting for the nearby data center to eventually maybe switch to renewable energy.
Data centers often come with their very own natural gas turbines right outside to provide power the grid can't supply. This is what happened at xAI's data center in Memphis.
Correct. They will operate until the grid can supply reliable power. Give it a few years. There is a massive backlog to grid connectivity and generation construction.
That massive backlog already exists for what is being built now, not things in the pipeline. Your looking at 10+ years at getting that tied in.
I don't think you have any clue on the size of the projects being suggested. We are talking 3 times the size of the current texas grid which is twice as large as the California grid. It is a mind shattering amount of power that would be required if it could all be built.
Let's not ignore the years before LLM-oriented data centers actually if ever switch to renewable energy, never mind whether the switch will "reverse" the long-term effects of high pollution during the first years. Refining GP's and your analogies:
Imagine if an overweight person could only lose significant weight if they temporarily underwent obesity for a few years. While many overweight people exist, we should actively prevent more people from becoming overweight, and we should change the socioeconomic and political circumstances that contribute to excessive weight gain.
Imagine if a moderate exercise session causes a person to feel severe hunger pains for a few hours that do not immediately abate upon eating. Such an unfair biological condition would incentivize the person to avoid moderate or vigorous exercise. If the person attempts to power through the pain, the pain may trick them into eating more than they need to at the expense of their wallets, their health, and collective food supply. We should encourage such individuals to set aside longer times for light exercise if their finances and work allow them to, teach people to reduce their extra calorie margins without sacrificing necessary nutrients (especially because taking in less extra most-things is easier than removing extra most-things), and research palliative and curative medical treatments for this condition.
Natural gas is better than coal. Natural gas exhausts can be sequestered. But since we can't even break the coal habit let alone embrace renewables and clear the path for nuclear as needed, good luck! Stupid meatbags.
Love to know who this actually triggers and what's inaccurate about the above? Coal is super good and clean? Natural gas emissions can't be sequestered despite numerous examples of exactly that? How dare I even suggest nuclear? Or is it just downright America-hating unpatriotic and letting the evil drag queens win? Genuinely curious.
That this feels like such a representative statement is disheartening. Remember, in a functioning free-market (behold. bow.) negative externalities, like socializing the burden of reduced air quality resulting from for-profit enterprises, are considered inefficient (boo. hiss.) and deleterious. Even people with jobs have to breath air.
Of course there is a cost to everyone and the cost is dirtier air. Articles like this don't mention or strongly deemphasize the fact that everything is a tradeoff and a recession or stagnation of growth has horrific consequences as well. No one sees the jobs and welfare that could have been created if environmental regulations were less onerous.
It is also a regular criticism of data centers that they don’t bring jobs to the area. There are some contractors who come in from externally to build the center and that drives up local rents and shopping bills (influx of high earners mean prices go up to extract that money) temporarily which is bad for residents and then when it’s built they move on?
The trendy desire to blame data centers for everything is nauseating. Data centers aren't poluting the air. Power plants are.
Since Texas has been leading the nation on renewables because it has a fairly free power market amd renewables are the cheapest power available, I'd expect this surge in demand to be eventually replaced by more renewables. In the meantime, extra capacity comes from old plants that can be spun up quickly.
>Data centers aren't poluting the air. Power plants are.
Currently for Datacenter's to move forward in Texas they must have some local power production so you see some of the newer upcoming ones featuring 20+ portable gas turbines on site. Others feature mixed solar/portable gas turbine.
Those will all go to renewables over time, just as all of texas has been, because it's cheaper.
This is temporary because of the surge in power. Renewables will be built to handle the surge if it becomes a new baseline.
When?
The equipment for grid connections is already 5 years behind in Texas. Are we talking about 20 or 30 years from now? Might as well be a lifetime.
Grid stuff is 5yr out everywhere, including my "we don't even have datacenter projects to speak of because out power is just that expensive" region. That's just how the industry moves.
That doesn't really help the people who suffer serious health issues from the surge of pollution in the neighborhood while waiting for the nearby data center to eventually maybe switch to renewable energy.
> Data centers aren't poluting the air. Power plants are.
"Guns don't kill people, people do."
Neither argument holds water.
Data centers often come with their very own natural gas turbines right outside to provide power the grid can't supply. This is what happened at xAI's data center in Memphis.
Correct. They will operate until the grid can supply reliable power. Give it a few years. There is a massive backlog to grid connectivity and generation construction.
That massive backlog already exists for what is being built now, not things in the pipeline. Your looking at 10+ years at getting that tied in.
I don't think you have any clue on the size of the projects being suggested. We are talking 3 times the size of the current texas grid which is twice as large as the California grid. It is a mind shattering amount of power that would be required if it could all be built.
The trendy desire to blame obesity for preventable death is nauseating. Obesity doesn't kill people. Heart attacks and cancers do.
FFS.
Your analogy is that data centers are like obesity because they require power. Are Aluminum smelters also like obesity?
A better analogy would be to blame exercise for food shortages because it makes people hungry.
Let's not ignore the years before LLM-oriented data centers actually if ever switch to renewable energy, never mind whether the switch will "reverse" the long-term effects of high pollution during the first years. Refining GP's and your analogies:
Imagine if an overweight person could only lose significant weight if they temporarily underwent obesity for a few years. While many overweight people exist, we should actively prevent more people from becoming overweight, and we should change the socioeconomic and political circumstances that contribute to excessive weight gain.
Imagine if a moderate exercise session causes a person to feel severe hunger pains for a few hours that do not immediately abate upon eating. Such an unfair biological condition would incentivize the person to avoid moderate or vigorous exercise. If the person attempts to power through the pain, the pain may trick them into eating more than they need to at the expense of their wallets, their health, and collective food supply. We should encourage such individuals to set aside longer times for light exercise if their finances and work allow them to, teach people to reduce their extra calorie margins without sacrificing necessary nutrients (especially because taking in less extra most-things is easier than removing extra most-things), and research palliative and curative medical treatments for this condition.
It's election season, and data centers are being thrown around ads continuously to scare the olds into voting.
It's one bridge away from selling them Old Glory robot insurance.
"Data centers are everywhere and they consume old people's medicine for fuel."
Natural gas is better than coal. Natural gas exhausts can be sequestered. But since we can't even break the coal habit let alone embrace renewables and clear the path for nuclear as needed, good luck! Stupid meatbags.
Love to know who this actually triggers and what's inaccurate about the above? Coal is super good and clean? Natural gas emissions can't be sequestered despite numerous examples of exactly that? How dare I even suggest nuclear? Or is it just downright America-hating unpatriotic and letting the evil drag queens win? Genuinely curious.
[flagged]
That this feels like such a representative statement is disheartening. Remember, in a functioning free-market (behold. bow.) negative externalities, like socializing the burden of reduced air quality resulting from for-profit enterprises, are considered inefficient (boo. hiss.) and deleterious. Even people with jobs have to breath air.
Of course there is a cost to everyone and the cost is dirtier air. Articles like this don't mention or strongly deemphasize the fact that everything is a tradeoff and a recession or stagnation of growth has horrific consequences as well. No one sees the jobs and welfare that could have been created if environmental regulations were less onerous.
"We must feed Moloch babies because Moloch requires babies, there is nothing else we could possibly do!"
It is also a regular criticism of data centers that they don’t bring jobs to the area. There are some contractors who come in from externally to build the center and that drives up local rents and shopping bills (influx of high earners mean prices go up to extract that money) temporarily which is bad for residents and then when it’s built they move on?
This is why people won't protest against a refinery or steel plant. Those provide jobs- in some cases for a hundred years.
The promiss of AI is to kill all the jobs.
Another article full of weasel words. Lots of could's and if's.
sippingabonedry is a great username for the current datacenter rollout.