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

U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#101

Post by jasonjayr »

Gormo wrote: post #61
vintagedave wrote: post #2

> The latest proposal applies to permits for a "minor source" of air pollution ... [the Vantage data center was estimated to contribute] between $53 million and $99 million in annual health damages, the largest estimate for any single facility ever. 'The largest estimate for any single facility ever.' 'Minor source.' I give you double-speak, gentlefolks of HN. Name it something - anything - and you frame it in those…

I'm seeing a lot of these sorts of articles talking about things like air pollution, but something seems a bit off, given that, to my knowledge, computers do not produce any emissions at all. The article lumps data centers in with landfills, laundromats, and steel mills. But landfills, laundromats, and steel mills all involve physical waste products that can have chemical or biological effects on the surrounding envi…

There is also the giant "Tax Incentives" being given to these projects under the guise of them being "job creators". Unfortunately, data center's only need a bunch of jobs at the initial construction + installation of hardware. Once it's operational, it'd need about a dozen staff to maintain round-the-clock on premise supervision.

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#102

Post by defrost »

Gormo wrote: post #97
defrost wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a surge in data centre building - a massive surge of power hungry hungry hyper scaled hippos. Many local grids are currently unable to meet that demand, therefore various "solutions" so far include: * buying up jet engines from COVID era bankrupted / downsized air fleets and running them continuously in banks along side data centres to spin generators. You'll note these aren't the cleanest solution, are a bit…

So it seems like confirmation that this really is a case of disingenuous conflation of power-generation concerns with data centers per se. I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers" any more than concerns about, using the same jet engines to power charging stations in remote areas would, for example, amount to "opposi…

> I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers"

Clearly you don't.

For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory and GPU resources to the detriment of the commons.

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#103

Post by boesboes »

randusername wrote: post #92

How naive I was to hope that the strain data centers will place on the electric grid would spur very big, very public investment in renewable energy and nuclear. Somebody has to realize that gas turbines are backordered to the 2030s meanwhile the ROI on solar is getting impossible to ignore.

They'll just buy you out, no more power or water for you, peasant

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#104

Post by detourdog »

hvb2 wrote: post #94
detourdog wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched Massachusetts fail at this opposition about a decade ago. Courts sided with the feds. https://ferc.gov/ https://nofrackedgasinmass.com/massachusetts-pipelines/

> Courts sided with the feds. After how many years of making it through the court system? Because 5 years of delay all but guarantees that the potential builder is no longer interested.

I watched the forest protected by the Commonwealth’s environmental laws get dynamited and built. I like your optimism but find it misplaced in this case.

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#105

Post by zug_zug »

duskdozer wrote: post #84
m4rtink wrote: post #50

That is totally going to work, doubling down on something unpopular by un unpopular government has never caused exponentially bigger blowback.

They're counting on blowback not mattering.

In this time of drones? I don't see that working out for them...

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#106

Post by forestrywat »

docdeek wrote: post #57
ropbear wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this reasoning is exactly how we got here in the first place. “It’s not that bad, just a little bad, so it’s okay” We’re talking about air pollution and death rates, not financial risk.

I’m not suggesting it is OK or not OK, just that ‘minor source’ of air pollution is probably the right term to use in context for this single site.

60 people over a decade dying is not minor. If a school killed two entire classes of kids over their k-12 education, that'd be a shocking amount of death. If a sports team lost 6 players every year we'd shut down the team instantly. Treating 6 deaths as minor is absurd and callous.

It only feels ok because it's so abstractly connected to pollution.

If this data center killed 6 people every year on site due to industrial accidents, we'd almost certainly close it. What Amazon warehouse kills half a dozen people on site every year?

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#107

Post by docdeek »

duskdozer wrote: post #80
docdeek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: 'The largest estimate for any single facility ever.' From the researcher: 'We estimated between $53 million and $99 million in annual health damages from associated air pollution — among the largest health-damage estimates produced for a single facility to date.' [0] Still enormous, but there is a significant difference between being 'THE X of all time, and being 'among the X of all time'. Regarding 'minor sourc…

Some of these residents will die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay. How many deaths would go from minor to major? How much impact to quality of life that isn't death would there be? There is already very little to make these projects pay the externality costs; at this point paying enough remediation costs to reduce additional deaths should be the minimum.

> How many deaths would go from minor to major? How much impact to quality of life that isn't death would there be?

That’s a good question. It seems in this case that 3 to 6 deaths a year qualifies as ‘minor’ for the government. I don’t know where the line should be but, based on the number of people that suffer and die from air pollution related causes in the US each year, I thought that 6 additional deaths probably meant it qualified as minor. I’d be just as interested as you to know what the answer is.

Edit to add: ‘minor’ in this case doesn’t mean people deserve to die or that we should be happy they are suffering, just that compared to some other even worse projects, this one is less important.

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#108

Post by forestrywat »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #33
ozlikethewizard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the luddites got all their ideas from TikTok aye? At least were not at this point yet: "Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the Luddites were suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites

"The luddites were right" seems like an odd position to have on HN.

Only if you don't know what the Luddites were concerned about. HN users tend to be better educated, and understand that the Luddites probably were right -- they weren't anti technology at all. They just wanted the benefits of the technology to be split between the factory owners and the workers. Instead, the factory owners wanted to keep all the benefits and fire all the workers.

Luddites wanted a rising tide to raise all ships.

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#109

Post by pixl97 »

pjc50 wrote: post #75
Gormo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing a lot of these sorts of articles talking about things like air pollution, but something seems a bit off, given that, to my knowledge, computers do not produce any emissions at all. The article lumps data centers in with landfills, laundromats, and steel mills. But landfills, laundromats, and steel mills all involve physical waste products that can have chemical or biological effects on the surrounding envi…

The specific issue is that because it's a data center, from a company with unlimited money and therefore political power, it's being allowed to skip all the rules about clean generation. The ones in question are building on-side dirty power.

Oh add in the Texas railroad commission just voted to end public participation... they are the regulators that permit natural gas pipelines.

So ya, add that to the corruption.

Re: U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

#110

Post by ravshan »

budman1 wrote: post #67
ModernMech wrote: post #5

It’s funny as Greg Abbott says the data center industry did this to themselves and people’s complaints are justified; the feds say it’s “paid protestors”, the same way they say any protests are inorganic paid leftist agitators. Meanwhile “real” American patriots know data centers make America great, and can’t wait to have one built down the road.

Data Centers is the only time in my memory that Greg Abbott has even thought about listening to citizen concerns. And of course, when the citizens selling THC beverages were concerned about the legislature making the product illegal. Me thinks the Data Center people have been stingy with the checkbook.

Isn't he talking about data centers because he is up to reelection in november?
Post reply on HN