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

EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

epa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 265 posts

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#111

Post by mk89 »

Noaidi wrote: post #40
londons_explore wrote: post #9

There are big benefits to having power generation grid connected. It is more reliable (due to many possible generation sources). It is more eco-friendly (solar in daytime, wind when the wind blows). It is more cost efficient (no need to overbuild for peak usage, generators don't sit idle when computers are off for maintenance). Yet our electricity grid has such a mass of regulations attached that people are choosing…

Those regulations are there for a reason though. I’ll never understand this logic. We have regulations so things are clean and safe. Yes, it would be easier to not have those regulations and just have dirty and unsafe electricity. But that’s the cost of having a business and also having a clean and safe society. Corporations love to externalize costs and that’s what’s happening here again.

Becoming and staying a leader in innovation sometimes requires shortcuts. You can also frame a law to make that exception specific for an industry, a field or a group so it doesn't become the norm (or time box it, if you want). You need innovation, there is no other way USA can lead in AI if you don't build these damn data centers.

Come to live in Europe and you will see how nice it is to stagnate because rule A depends on rule B, but there is an exception C that requires D....

Death by a thousand cuts.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#112

Post by Muromec »

techpression wrote: post #97
adamgordonbell wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody mentioned that a solar panel field to power a data center requires a lot of impact assessment paper work and approvals. Whereas natural gas generators do not. Hence the runs on gas turbines, while solar panels are plentiful. ( Although I'd guess the consistency of power is a bigger issue. ) Running existing coal is now supposedly more expensive then putting in new wind or solar ... all else being equal.

They should definitely use wind power, since you could use the fans to cool the computers at the same time! I for one would love a nice HTTP status in the form of "due to the weather being nice and calm outside, AI services are down, go outside and enjoy the day"

Imposing rules like that is what we are supposed to use religion for.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#113

Post by Schlagbohrer »

consensus1 wrote: post #95
sensanaty wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally is just a cartoon villain plan. The AI companies look at something called the "Acid Rain Program" and think to themselves "Fuck that, what's a bit of acid rain going to do?". I truly cannot comprehend the mindset here as hard as I try

The AI companies look at something called the "endless government bureaucracy" and they think to themselves "fuck that, I'm not waiting 10 years for all that bullshit, I'll just use the loophole." I truly cannot comprehend any other reaction because I would rather have my fingernails ripped out than deal with years of government bureaucracy.

Government beauracracy, which provides things like democratic oversight, environmental protection, enforcing power grid standards and interoperability, construction regulations, etc? Would you rather we just didn't have those things?

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#114

Post by bpodgursky »

jaapz wrote: post #102
bob1029 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most generators not connected to the grid are for emergency backup purposes. Granted, this carve out is now clearly being abused, but the original intent is quite rational. If we enforced strict regulations on all generators without any exceptions at all, your sewage lift station might not have a backup source anymore.

If that is the original intent, why did that not get added into the law? Explicitly specififying that the exception only applies to emergency backup situations would have solved this, right?

Because congress passed the law in 1970 and did not expect we'd lose the ability to pass legislation that fixes minor problems with the original laws.

Since congress can't do that anymore, to maintain a functional civilization we have to turn minor loopholes in the original law into load-bearing aspects of an industrial society.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#115

Post by manwe150 »

pyrophane wrote: post #37

> Clean Air Act (CAA) Acid Rain Program (ARP) does not apply to power generation facilities that are not connected to a public electricity grid, commonly referred to as “islanded” power generation facilities. This of course makes no sense whatever, as whether or not a power generator is connected to the grid has nothing to do with its environmental impact.

It seems pretty much how law (specifically common law) has always worked though. If Congress thinks the law should apply to them, then Congress's job is to write a law that applies to them. The president and judicial branches are not supposed to make new laws, but rather to enforce the laws as written.

My reading of the EPA's statement here is they also wanted to mildly warn the companies that if they ever in the future want to contemplate connecting to the grid (eg. to bring down costs), they should be aware that bypassing compliance now could have expensive consequences for them later. Of course, Congress (local or federal) could also change the law in the much shorter term, so there's risk to them either way if they design without any forward thought for how to comply. On the other hand, if this inquiry to the EPA was merely requesting clarity on whether they are exempt from the reporting paperwork, but are using otherwise standard and compliant designs, then maybe the law is already working generally as intended.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#116

Post by Muromec »

sailfast wrote: post #49
lanstin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing more carbon dioxide sources is going to be distinctly harmful to profits in the mid-term. As with racial bias, strict gender roles, anti-vaxxing, and being anti-science, being pro-carbon burn is ultimately a foolish anti-truth stance as silly and ill-outcomed as any three year old insisting that they can stay up all night.

Do the octogenarians in power not remember when they couldn’t breathe because of the lead in the gas in the 60s and the lack of emissions controls on everything? Do they yearn for the mines and coal dust of early industrial England? Everybody loves clean air and water but apparently forget why they have it in the first place.

Just wait for the new generation of grifters to get their chance to be at the wheel. Current timid bullshit will be billed under nostalgia then.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#117

Post by inigyou »

pyrophane wrote: post #37

> Clean Air Act (CAA) Acid Rain Program (ARP) does not apply to power generation facilities that are not connected to a public electricity grid, commonly referred to as “islanded” power generation facilities. This of course makes no sense whatever, as whether or not a power generator is connected to the grid has nothing to do with its environmental impact.

But it does have to do with whether it's interstate commerce!

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#118

Post by peri-cl »

andsoitis wrote: post #98
peri-cl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so amateurish. This document misquotes its own authorities, with grade-school grammar mistakes: > "In particular, while a “utility” under ARP regulations includes any person that sells electricity, the 1990 edition of DOE Form 860 only covers those electricity generators who sell “electric energy primary [sic] for use by the public.” Said "1990 edition of DOE Form 860" is included on page 8 of the pdf, and it…

What about the substance?

I think it's plausible and I don't disagree with you on that.

But: legal drafts failing at basic correctness issues, like quoting laws accurately, is an anti-signal.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#119

Post by pkilgore »

claytongulick wrote: post #94
metalliqaz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's consistent leadership. Malevolent and stupid, but consistent.

Are you sure you're aiming your ire in the right direction in this case? The EPA provided guidance that the CAA (Clean Air Act) itself was written to not apply in these cases. Shouldn't you be angry at the authors of the law?

Well the one thing I know about lawyers:

Utterly impossible to get them to write a dishonest guidance document interpreting the law in a way that benefits them somehow.

You got me. Check mate. No counterarguments here.

Re: EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

#120

Post by Muromec »

shimman wrote: post #73
bayindirh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This country has always put profits above people. Please, the correct word is "value". Using the word p-word makes people understand and get irritated.

The easiest way to radicalize workers is to simply tell them what profit is.

You are not radicalized enough.
Post reply on HN