Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#21

Post by Hammershaft »

tmpz22 wrote: post #17
markhahn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"better safe than sorry" is the definition of a slippery slope. but I'm curious: what event do you think taught us that? IMO, there's far mode damage being done to the world by, say, mercury in batteries than by nuclear accidents (of which chernobyl is the only serious one).

$PROBLEM_2 being worse than $PROBLEM_1 does not mean $PROBLEM_1 is over regulated. Nuclear Waste handling and disposal is a significant regulatory issue and includes many REACTIVE measures that have been hard-learned over the past century at sites like Pennsylvania, Fukushima, and Chernobyl. This blind lashing out at any and all forms of regulation is ignorant. Each of these situations needs to be considered thoughtf…

We do not thoughtfully balance regulatory costs on nuclear vs say coal... Nuclear regulatory compliance is orders of magnitude more expensive despite being orders of magnitude safer for human health (on top of the climate).

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#22

Post by [deleted] »

scarab92 wrote: post #20
jltsiren wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a major nuclear disaster happens, it can cause hundreds of billions of damage. To make it worse from a liability perspective, that damage can be attributed to a specific power plant. We know from natural disasters that insurance is usually insufficient to cover the true damage. Either governments have to step in, or the victims have to bear the costs. If the government has to pay for damages but someone else pay…

It's overall beneficial for society to switch to nuclear. The problem you posed is just a market structure implementation detail. Government could operate the plants, or they could offer insurance to private sector operators.

[deleted]

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#23

Post by vasco »

scarab92 wrote: post #20
jltsiren wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a major nuclear disaster happens, it can cause hundreds of billions of damage. To make it worse from a liability perspective, that damage can be attributed to a specific power plant. We know from natural disasters that insurance is usually insufficient to cover the true damage. Either governments have to step in, or the victims have to bear the costs. If the government has to pay for damages but someone else pay…

It's overall beneficial for society to switch to nuclear. The problem you posed is just a market structure implementation detail. Government could operate the plants, or they could offer insurance to private sector operators.

I'm pro-nuclear but the idea that insurance fixes everything is strange to me. How much insurance money fixes you getting killed, would you say?

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#24

Post by tbrownaw »

markhahn wrote: post #12

Ugh, this is horrible writing. For instance, "Data centres cause pollution through high eletricity use" - high relative to what, residential housing? Aluminum smelting? It's fine to be skeptical of the AI bubble, but this article (ironic for FT) reads like veiled de-development. We also don't need any fizzy-drinks - shall we calculate the deaths due to pollution caused by that, let alone the primary effect on health…

> but this article (ironic for FT) reads like veiled de-development.

Hard to tell if they're singling out AI because it's the current hot thing that everyone's talking about (and afraid of being replaced by), or if they're singling out "big tech" because they're rich and cool to hate on.

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#25

Post by boxedemp »

vasco wrote: post #23
scarab92 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's overall beneficial for society to switch to nuclear. The problem you posed is just a market structure implementation detail. Government could operate the plants, or they could offer insurance to private sector operators.

I'm pro-nuclear but the idea that insurance fixes everything is strange to me. How much insurance money fixes you getting killed, would you say?

I missed where they say insurance solves everything. I understood it as the government running it solves many of the issues introduced by the private sector, and the insurance was another thought.

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#27

Post by ipython »

I’m confused by the article mentioning West Virginia as a prime location for data centers along side Ohio - I am not aware of a large concentration of data centers in WV? (Unlike VA, of course)

https://westvirginiawatch.com/2025/01/16/west-virginia-isnt-...

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#28

Post by SilasX »

markhahn wrote: post #12

Ugh, this is horrible writing. For instance, "Data centres cause pollution through high eletricity use" - high relative to what, residential housing? Aluminum smelting? It's fine to be skeptical of the AI bubble, but this article (ironic for FT) reads like veiled de-development. We also don't need any fizzy-drinks - shall we calculate the deaths due to pollution caused by that, let alone the primary effect on health…

Agreed. It reminds me of the article about how self-driving cars, by being safer, would worsen the organ waitlist.[1]

Like, in what other context would you raise this concern about saving lives?

It's the same kind of dishonesty, picking out one hot-button source of pollution, apportioning out its health impact, and complaining about it alone.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/self-driving-cars-will-...

Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn

#30

Post by KennyBlanken »

Hammershaft wrote: post #21
tmpz22 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$PROBLEM_2 being worse than $PROBLEM_1 does not mean $PROBLEM_1 is over regulated. Nuclear Waste handling and disposal is a significant regulatory issue and includes many REACTIVE measures that have been hard-learned over the past century at sites like Pennsylvania, Fukushima, and Chernobyl. This blind lashing out at any and all forms of regulation is ignorant. Each of these situations needs to be considered thoughtf…

We do not thoughtfully balance regulatory costs on nuclear vs say coal... Nuclear regulatory compliance is orders of magnitude more expensive despite being orders of magnitude safer for human health (on top of the climate).

90% of new electricity generation in the US is solar or wind.

Coal generation has generally trended downward since the mid 2000s.

We don't need nuclear to replace coal.

Post reply on HN