This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.
Sadly there aren't much support to do this. The largest coalition see thermal power stations as critical to manage grid stability and voted to have natural gas defined as "green", since they view it as necessary to enable renewable energy to be built. The other major coalition do want to decrease the need for thermal power plants by increasing base load through nuclear power, but they are not openly against thermal power plants as a way to reduce costs. EU lacks any movement that are willing to pay the cost of not burning fuel in order to generate electricity. Same for basically every other place on earth right now, despite EU and most countries being in agreement that climate change is real and fossil fuels should be stopped yesterday.
Even with today’s energy polices, electricity costs have skyrocketed (this was the case before the data center demand). Couple that with electrification of vehicles, phase out of natural gas/oil heaters, I think its reckless abandon to push policies which harm middle and lower class families. Not to say some of these countries even consider nuclear energy “evil”. Absolutely ridiculous.
The national security nightmare is the dependency on fossil fuel sources. If we were to lose our crude oil supplies because of a war in the Middle East, blocking a strait for tankers, we would be well and truly fucked. We don't produce enough domestic natural gas to replace it.
The only options we have today are solar, wind, and, given enough time, nuclear. These three sources remove external dependencies for generating energy. I'm not sure how much uranium we have in the States, but once the blades are spinning or the sun is shining, we keep getting energy, and no war overseas can stop that.
Electric prices are climbing because we're doing externalities wrong. For example, utility charges for data centers should be significantly higher than what we charge residential and non-DC businesses. The goal is for data centers to absorb the cost of the impact they have on the grid and water.
They could have on-prem power plants, but those plants should belong to the local utility and charge the data centers the data center rate. It also should be a surcharge for the air pollution those fossil fuel monstrosities create. Again, paying for the externalities.
They could get a break if they deployed gigawatts of solar and batteries or used their waste heat for district heating, but yeah, I'm tired of letting them get away with dumping externalities on us. We now have a nicely delineated scenario where we can focus it on them and make them pay.
The more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job.
By and large, renewables are marching towards a state where they will provide enough of the generation that what remains would be insignificant.
I would be interested to know where the gas is coming from for this particular data centre. There are a few cases that generation by gas is preferable to what is happening right now. One good example is if the gas is from sources that would otherwise be flared off. I have heard in the past that businesses have been reluctant to harness energy from gas rather than flaring it off because any user of the energy gets tagged with the CO2 emissions. If it just gets burnt off it makes no difference to the amount of total emissions, but it avoids the CO2 being attributed to their industry.
Now you will have the AI lobby pushing against EVs (so that oil drilling can create gas as a byproduct), as if it wasn't already an uphill battle in the US...
It's not hypocrisy to want things to be better and tolerate that some things are net negative. I have a fireplace and enjoy using it. But it's bad for my kids health and neighborhood air quality. So I use it far less than my parents did theirs. I also don't commute and fly far less than my father did throughout his life.
Life isn't some strict binary, all or nothing affair.
You've spelt "building' wrong twice, the exact same way 'biulding'.
Very whataboutism
(I think the way through this mess is huge investment in renewables, and that blue states have calamitously dropped the ball by pushing so much data center construction to red states that aren't going to incentivize that.)
This statement can be applied to literally any topic and it fills me with a dread that is only matched by trying to fathom the inifinite nature of the universe and time. The notion of having good faith, well intentioned debate and discourse around any conceivable subject just feels impossible most of the time.
Texas is the largest producer of renewable energy in the country.
And in any case, that lowers Texan per capita consumption even more given that they're not actually consuming all of it.
>Texas led the nation in energy consumption in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA reported Texas' total energy consumption was twice as much as California's, the second-highest energy-consuming state, and more than three times as much as third-place Florida. The EIA's State Energy Data System finds U.S. total energy use peaked in 2007. Between 2007 and 2023, Texas energy consumption rose 21% while U.S. energy use decreased 5%.
I have zero idea where you're thinking that Texas exports power, or doesn't use it all, but it's very odd given the plethora of evidence to the contrary.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-ce...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-wary-ai-driven-da...
People don't just hate the idea of data centers "in their backyard" the way they do with housing, they also just fundamentally despise the tech companies and personalities who are creating these data centers.
The underlying principal components of these data center polls are very probably just:
(1) Concern about electrical bills, which are often valid, and noise, which sometimes can be as well
(2) Political polarization (Democrats --- I'm a lifelong Democrat --- are currently getting marching orders to oppose data centers)
(3) Bogus concerns about water.
We spend a great deal more time and energy thinking about DCs on HN than the median poll respondant ever will. And still, the idea that there's striking public opposition to data centers anywhere in the country is hard to support with evidence.
Fortunately, I think the public opinion fever about data centers is starting to break. I'm reading more and more left-leaning stories questioning the narrative. I think there's a good chance this sentiment crystalizes to something more specific and productive, like "stop letting Elon Musk do things".
Every corporation and even most small businesses have had a machine room, wiring closet, or some kind of server shoved into a room, since 30 years ago now. They all had them in every office building you ever drove by, or lived next to, or shopped near. It's simply that people didn't even register them, because none of the general public really sees or knows what goes on in office parks, and behind the tinted corporate windows. It could be as benign as a toy distributor or as wicked as a defense contractor, and from the outside, they look alike.
But they've all had computers, and networks, for decades. And what we are seeing now is consolidation and concentration. The offices and parks and buildings are hollowed out -- they've laid off workers, they've gone WFH, and most importantly, they've gutted their machine rooms and removed on-prem equipment in migration to the cloud. So each and every company that migrated to the cloud has shrunk their own machine room's footprint by X amount that is reflected in data-center capacity by an identical (or perhaps larger) X. And that, of course, means that power, cooling, and resource consumption is not necessarily enlarged, but merely transferred and concentrated into DCs rather than power-hungry machine rooms, humming secretly inside every office building.
I look back to my first job--I worked at an ISP, and we colocated with the San Diego Supercomputer Center. The SDSC was a data center par excellence with the finest machines that ever existed on the floor. And I was still a kid when I'd be admitted to the main floor, I'd walk past a Y-MP, a Thinking Machine, an Intel Paragon, a Nearline Tape Robot, and there were our humble little pizza-boxes, sitting on a table trying to keep up with Usenet. Our own ISP offices didn't even have a machine room of our own, just a rack with a hub--yeah a hub--and a Sparc 2 pizza box to serve the office. We were already "in the cloud", as it were. More or less literally--SDSC was where they tested nuclear weapons, predicted the weather, and explored outer space, through the magic of FORTRAN...
So what people are complaining about is something they can see. If you're dying of cancer for 20 years but you never go to a doctor, you won't feel it. Once you see the doctor, the chemotherapy starts, and then you croak from the chemo. So this building of datacenters is simply bringing this into the open, and into the light. And people are angrily reactive at social media, and techbros, and surveillance capitalism, and AI-job-losses, and corporate hijinks in general, so data centers do give a focus to that futile rage.
But it's futile, and we all depend on data centers already, even before they are built, and we need DCs now to sustain our economy and our civilization as it already is. It's futile to resist and if you want to come in with a tractor to demolish them, you'll be arrested, and the Flock camera attackers will be hauled into prison too, and technology will just impassively march along as a juggernaut with no feelings, no remorse, and no mercy.
It's a pity; we were really nice folks for a few hundred years.
Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
We started in a garage, but we’re not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders create more than they consume and always leave things better than how they found them.
these actions are exactly the opposite of what they claim to try to strive towards.
At the current rate it will stop in four to ten centuries.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...
That said there has never been argument about whether we are on that trajectory, we want to be on that trajectory
Or maybe not. Maybe this is a civilizational growing pain these aliens are familiar with. Maybe they went through the same period themselves.
Or maybe you'd prefer this?
So China and India can use all the fossil fuels they want, and other counties too not just them.
But the West has to kowtow to Net Zero / ”Renewables” nonsense?
We’re not buying it anymore.
Everything has tradeoffs.
Destroying the economy and letting low income and poor people freeze in the dark or melt in the sun is passé.
The #1 increase in world electricity demand is people rising out of poverty. China has been producing the most solar in the world and still hasn't been able to cover their own demand increase with it. Eventually that form of growth will slow down. Sustainability should always look at the second derivative.
Also need to reduce use of coal in steel production too, yet.
Australia is experiencing this problem now to a limited extent, and is walking in to a disaster scenario with the scheduled shutdown of 5 gigawatts of coal fired electricity generating across three sites over the next three years with nothing in the pipeline to replace that 5GW.
Like it genuinely sounds like you're suggesting our current terrible system shouldn't even be attempted to be improved unless there's a magic perfect solution to replace it.