Since every activity has some externalities and also unexpected positive effects, isn’t focusing on just the negative effects of this one thing very lopsided?
Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
51–60 of 168 posts
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides they are over engineered on safety? Didn’t we already learn better safe than sorry?
Specifically, the current regulatory framework requires not just minimization of accident, but also minimization of radiation (to levels well below that of other powerplant types like coal). There probably could be a pretty notable cost savings in nuclear plant construction if they were allowed to regularly leak as much radiation into the environment to that which we already consider acceptable from other power sourc…
So if we just do something politically unacceptable and probably morally unacceptable then nuclear will be viable? And of course you could apply the same thing to other sources of energy and they will equally get cheaper. Wind turbines in beauty spots. Remove the air quality equipment from fossil fuel plants. Dam evey river.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#53We should be building far more nuclear. We wildly overengineered on safety regulations making them far more costly and risky to build than they actually need to be. Even our older Gen II nuclear reactors from the 1990's are orders of magnitude safer than current fossil fuel power stations, in terms of both released radiation and lost human lifespan years. Moreover, the higher electricity prices that resulted from usi…
How about we build this stuff in deserts where you can just plaster everything with solar in like 10% of time and 30% of money investment. You now have 70% of budget to build battery/wind and still got enough time. This is solved with current renewable prices without ideological preferences.
Unfortunately, data centers also need access to considerable amounts of water.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#54This reads as less than useful research to me. E.g.: "The analysis does not account for the purchase of market-based instruments that are meant to represent investments in new renewable energy in the US and that tech companies buy to offset the pollution from their electricity consumption. ... 'Unlike carbon emissions, the health impacts caused by a data centre in one region cannot be offset by cleaner air elsewhere,…
> Why not?
If your house had a carbon monoxide leak but your neighbor’s house did not, would you consider your carbon monoxide leak to be “offset” by that fact?
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#55There’s nothing specific to data centers here, just electricity use. The electricity use generates a shit load of GDP and soft power for the U.S., way more than $5.4B over 5 years. So what do these degrowth people want exactly? Cant have resource extraction. Can’t have manufacturing, pollution. Can’t have tech, pollution. Just twiddling thumbs and money will come? Or keep all the benefits while offloading all the dow…
They are the people who think only one move in chess. I hope this answers your question.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of modern electricity generation is to power data centres and bitcoin mining. Quick googling found a stat that 1.6% of the whole world's electricity supply going on computing and also https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-big-tech-uses-more-... etc. And we need more! On day 2 of his presidency Trump pledged to fast-track new power generation to drive data centres in the US. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/t…
Fuck future generations, fuck our kids... often touted by folks without any or at least somehow normally functioning family. I think we are back in 80s with current orange man defining direction like fashion, 'greed is good' at any cost mantra is certainly back
Greed is why people are going to spend CapEx installing solar to reduce OpEx buying coal.
Greed pushes people out of the status quo.
Greed is why fusion reactors will be reduced in size, cost, and complexity.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#57Sounds to me like the real criticism is dirty electricity generation.
> Sounds to me like the real criticism is dirty electricity generation.
Not when that "dirty electricity generation" was planned to be shut down before the data centers arrived: https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/ai_datacenters_coal/, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m..., https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/31/datacenter_power_crun..., https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/08/eric_schmidt_speech/.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#58Sounds to me like the real criticism is dirty electricity generation.
A lot of modern electricity generation is to power data centres and bitcoin mining. Quick googling found a stat that 1.6% of the whole world's electricity supply going on computing and also https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-big-tech-uses-more-... etc. And we need more! On day 2 of his presidency Trump pledged to fast-track new power generation to drive data centres in the US. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/t…
> Quick googling found a stat that 1.6% of the whole world's electricity supply going on computing
That would imply that it isn't the major issue. Electricity generation as a whole is less than half of US energy consumption, US electricity generation is 35% nuclear or renewable, and computing is using 1.6% of electricity. This is a rounding error compared to e.g. transportation at 37% of all energy consumption, or HVAC at another double-digit percentage.
> And we need more!
New generation capacity in the US is disproportionately renewables because renewables will remain cheaper until they're closer to half of all generation and then have to really deal with the storage issues. Willingness to approve fossil fuel plants doesn't mean anybody really wants them. The large tech companies are buying nuclear:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/business/energy-environme...
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#59Ugh, 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…
> reads veiled de-development. > If you don't like what electricity is being used for, argue for specific regulation to make it more expensive. That reads like veiled de-development. How do you reconcile saying both those things?
De-development is saying we have to e.g. stop driving cars. Regulations that make dirty power more expensive are the likes of a carbon tax, which you can avoid while still having a car by getting an electric car and charging it from solar panels.
Re: Pollution from Big Tech's data centre boom costs US public health $5.4bn
#60Now imagine how much pollution from the airline industry costs public health ...