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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by 7952 »

kergonath wrote: post #76
7952 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thin…

But it is not morally acceptable for coal to release radiation either. It was politically acceptable for a while but less so now. It is right to hold new plants to a higher standard. And as I have been reminded repeatedly in these kind of threads it is perfectly possible to build reactors that have negligible radiation release.

The real question is if humans really can tweak the tradeoffs like this. Can you really change a design to be less safe on a controllable way.

Also, as you say different technologies have different advantages and downsides. That does mean different regulation.

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

#132

Post by bombcar »

nindalf wrote: post #47
ipython wrote: post #27

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-...

Maybe the author thought West Virginia was the western part of Virginia? I know it sounds preposterous, but I think it’s commensurate with the quality of the headline and article.

West Virginia is not West Virginia. Makes more sense if you flip it around.

West Virginia is not west Virginia.

Also West Virginia would more accurately be North Virginia.

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

#133

Post by bombcar »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #36

What about obesity?

Coca Cola and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

(I've always wondered how measurable the effect of subtly reducing the HFCS/sugar quantity in all sodas over decades would be.)

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

#134

Post by rat87 »

SilasX wrote: post #93
rat87 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn’t matter how much they try to walk it back and not sound so criminally insane. Refer again to my second paragraph: The issue is, would the author ever think of writing this article for any other instance of saving lives ? If not, then it’s a case of selective focus, the same problem in this submission. I mean, why not just say the organ shortage is bad, without pointing the finger at the latest hip, hot butt…

I dont think they are walking anything back. They seem a lot more positive about self driving cars then a lot of people. The controversial part of the article for most would be the suggestion to an allow organ market

The article is part of a series about challenges with future technologies. They note that 1/5 of donations come from traffic accidents and there is already a major shortage. If self driving cars reduce most accidents that will mean nearly 1/5 of donations will need to be replaced

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

#135

Post by ZeroGravitas »

freejazz wrote: post #97
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Why do people keep adding "ality" to words? "Addition" works fine here: "I've seen the work that big tech has published to justify the addition of their clean energy purchases and offsets"

Additionality means "does this purchase of clean/green energy increase the total amount on the grid or does it just take it from other users who are now associated with the emissions of the non-clean energy".

Or more broadly "the extent to which something happens as a result of an intervention that would not have occurred in the absence of the intervention."

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

#136

Post by kjkjadksj »

bombcar wrote: post #126
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The cars is a perfect example. Many people who want there to be much fewer car miles in toto will argue they're polluting, but will also not want anything that makes them not polluting - because they're not actually arguing for pollution reduction, they're arguing against the car. Same with this, I feel. It's not anti-pollution, it's anti-AI.

You cant make a car not pollute. Even EV pollutes the local neighborhood. Ever notice how tires and the stains on the curbs and the black soot you wipe off the window sills are all the same color? How tires get bald? You are probably breathing tire right now. It is probably getting on your plate of food and you are eating tire.

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

#137

Post by kjkjadksj »

xyst wrote: post #81
PeterStuer wrote: post #60

Now imagine how much pollution from the airline industry costs public health ...

Or superfluous private jet usage by executives “super commuting” between states …

How about flying the jet 5 minutes to another airfield in the same city?

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

#138

Post by kittikitti »

nayuki wrote: post #61
otikik wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s deflection from the real polluters

Cars and suburban sprawl

Actually, the real danger in society is AI and Big Tech is the only one you can trust. Everyone else should stop research in AI because of carbon emissions!

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

#140

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #59
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Practically speaking, poor people can't just get an electric car.
Post reply on HN