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

71–80 of 168 posts

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

#71

Post by kergonath »

jltsiren wrote: post #14
scarab92 wrote: post #3

We 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…

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…

> When a major nuclear disaster happens, it can cause hundreds of billions of damage.

Fossil fuels also cause hundreds of billions of damage, simply when being used, no need for accidents. Your argument is useful, because it highlights that we are better equipped to deal with a predictable level of damage than rare events. But overall, having more nuclear plants and using less fossil fuels over a couple of decades would have left us better off by billions of dollars.

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

#72

Post by scarab92 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #24
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.

The media A/B tests headlines to see what generates the most clicks.

The journalists then learn what their audience responds to and creates narratives around that.

The result is the reality and the narrative often differ dramatically.

"News" is just "Reality TV" but in text format.

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

#73

Post by fsflover »

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?

Nuclear kills less people than almost any other source.

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

#74

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kaonwarb wrote: post #46

This 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,…

I'm a fan of the general concept of credit-based market systems and for carbon or carbon equivalents it is basically fungible by location.

That's not true for other pollutants though, which is one of the reasons that e.g EVs shifting emissions to powerplants is good because cars are used in dense urban environments where the pollution affects more people.

I've seen the work that big tech has published to justify the additionality of their clean energy purchases and offsets. They have the data to refute this if they can do so. I'd guess they can't due to their renewables and other offers being further away from population than these data centres.

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

#75

Post by fsflover »

7952 wrote: post #52
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the other way around. We should apply equal regulations to coal making nuclear more competing.

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

#76

Post by kergonath »

7952 wrote: post #52
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So if we just do something politically unacceptable and probably morally unacceptable then nuclear will be viable?

I think you missed the point. Coal-fired plants leak radiation significantly. If this is not morally unacceptable in one case, why would it be in another?

They did not say that nuclear should have a free pass, just that the regulations should be consistent.

> And of course you could apply the same thing to other sources of energy and they will equally get cheaper.

Different technologies have different downsides and advantages. The parent was talking about 2 technologies having inconsistent expectations for the same metric. Personally, I do not want wind turbines everywhere or a nuclear plant in a city centre, but I think that both technologies (plus solar and hydro) need to be developed, because both have much smaller ecological and human costs than the alternative.

> Dam evey river.

That is counter-productive as there are diminishing returns, and not every river is worth daming.

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

#77

Post by ZeroGravitas »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #29
boxedemp wrote: post #26

Sounds to me like the real criticism is dirty electricity generation.

Everyone needs a pollution tax, hardly anyone wants one

Mancur Olson's work "The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups" would suggest that lots of people want one, but only a little (they'd gain billions spread over half a billion people) while a few actors who it would financially affect directly really don't want one and the latter wins.

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

#78

Post by ZeroGravitas »

fsflover wrote: post #73
vasco wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nuclear kills less people than almost any other source.

Though probably not the two main modern rivals, wind and solar, which are also cheaper (and lives and money are, at a very abstract level, interchangeable).

I've not seen numbers updated with the latest data, the old data had them basically drawn on death per TWh and in the time between that data being gathered solar and wind have gone from a rounding error even when combined to each individual predcited to generate more than nuclear next year, so double nuclear generation per year and still accelerating away from it.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

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

#79

Post by weberer »

jajko wrote: post #50
willvarfar wrote: post #32

Earlier 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

We've been trying to build more clean nuclear plants for decades, but its been ironically the self-proclaimed environmentalists who have been blocking it every step of the way. We could have had 0 carbon electricity production nation wide since the 1980's.

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

#80

Post by rat87 »

SilasX wrote: post #28
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-...

From the article you linked > We’re all for saving lives—we aren’t saying that we should stop self-driving cars so we can preserve a source of organ donation. But we also need to start thinking now about how to address this coming problem.
Post reply on HN