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

191–200 of 266 posts

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

#191

Post by toast0 »

tialaramex wrote: post #173
inigyou wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because coal is the cheapest source of electricity that isn't banned in the USA.

Are you looking at a textbook from the 1990s or something? I'm sure that was true at some point, but it hasn't been true for a long time.

It seems likely to happen again. Many US utility coal fired power plants are scheduled for retirement and will not be replaced with new coal facilities. [1]

China is building lots of new coal generation, but also lots of new solar so coal use will be reduced during daylight (not the way a coal plant wants to run, but they'll adapt)

Give it a few more years and data centers with onsite coal will look like a genius cost cutting idea. Never mind all the pollution.

[1] https://ieefa.org/resources/nowhere-go-down-us-coal-capacity...

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

#192

Post by bob1029 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #181
testing22321 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we enforced strict regulations on all generators without any exceptions at all, your sewage lift station might not have a backup source anymore. No need for the FUD. It would just mean the backup generator connected to the sewage lift station must meet emissions regulations, like in every developed country on earth. If you’re trying to say there are simply some generators that can’t meet emissions standards, I’m…

Yes, that's what we're saying. A small generator cannot meet the emissions standards of a large generator.

Some of the most effective emissions control equipment scales down very poorly. The bigger you can make the plant, the more viable these technologies become.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_scrubber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_catalytic_reduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_emissions_monitorin...

(et. al.)

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

#193

Post by underlipton »

orbifold wrote: post #170
tclancy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s completely unfair. They would also rent the organs back to us on a subscription plan.

Step 1: steal all of the worlds IP and make a judge rule it is fair use Step 2: declare end of the Anthropocene (defined by man made influence on earth), while simultaneously accelerating mass extinction Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit?

They definitely use three exclamation points instead of that last question mark.

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

#194

Post by jandrewrogers »

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.

This program targets acid rain. It only applies to coal and diesel. No one is building off-grid coal power plants.

Diesel generators are the standard for power generation where a grid connection is not readily available and/or the power needs are temporary (e.g. emergency backups). Cheap, easy logistics, and durable. This use case has always been allowed in practice because there is no practical alternative. Many industries rely on diesel generators for reliable site power.

It doesn't apply to natural gas power plants such as those used in data center builds at all because they don't produce this type of pollution.

I fail to see the big deal. This guidance appears to clarify the language so that it matches actual practice and intent.

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

#196

Post by Kubuxu »

inigyou wrote: post #121
jaapz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be a reason, but probably more relevant is the fact that when you want solar to provide all power for a data center, you need a lot of buffering capacity (batteries). And then you also need a back up for when the sun doesn't shine... Which is probably a gas generator. Easier to just install a gas generator then

AI training , not inference, seems like it would actually be a good application for a solar powered DC because you could just checkpoint and pause when it gets cloudy. It might end up worth it for the free electricity.

It doesn’t make sense to do that, hardware deprecates in 5years (it used to be 3) and is currently very expensive. So by using this approach you double the average cost of hardware per unit of compute completed.

If there wasn’t such a hardware squeeze and electricity was a higher percentage of the cost, yes, it would have made sense.

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

#197

Post by toast0 »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #171
ceejayoz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize 49.8% of the vote as a "clear outright victory". Harris got 48.3%; that's a pretty close to even split. The majority of voters didn't vote for this.

It is nonsensical to consider popular vote numbers in an election not decided on the popular vote. How many Democrats stayed home in red states because they knew their vote wouldn't matter? And how many Republicans stayed home in blue states for the same reason? It's unknowable. I'm all for the presidency being decided by popular vote, but until it is there is no point using those statistically-flawed numbers in any…

> How many Democrats stayed home in red states because they knew their vote wouldn't matter? And how many Republicans stayed home in blue states for the same reason? It's unknowable.

Just to add on, not voting in decided states is appealing for the winning party as well as the losing party.

Personally, I think a nationwide popular vote would be a logistical disaster, especially in the modern era of alternative facts.

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

#198

Post by dukeofdoom »

inigyou wrote: post #188
dukeofdoom wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not much. But even if it's zero, it's still better than falling behind in a City. The profit margins of being a wagie living in a city, is just a few hundred dollars left over a month, if that. Statistics back this up. Almost all of the money goes to rent and basic necessities now. Most people are broke! In a relatively wealthy country like Canada, something like 10 million / 40 million have food insecurity.…

So how much money is your homestead making?

Thirty healthy laying hens will produce about 21 to 24 eggs a day, which can gross you roughly $262 to $300 a month if sold at $5 per dozen. 10 bee hives, making 8,000-10,000 dollars a year profit. Supplement that with even a part time manual labor job, or a remote tech job.

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

#199

Post by inigyou »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #190
inigyou wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did that happen? The former sounds like a guy being told his trash needs to be picked up and not being able to afford it so not being allowed to generate trash, and the latter was provided with no details at all so I can't evaluate it.

>Did that happen? I chose 7-mile for my hypothetical example because the road is an absolute goldmine for "you can't do that these days it's too dense" site plans and there's at least one liquor store with a dirt lot on it but I don't recall where. The "we want to make it nicer but it's not worth the stormwater treatment cost" example is from a business down the street from me. These things get stopped at the enginee…

Why is it any different from "we want an asphalt parking lot but it's not worth the asphalt cost" or "we want a giant sign but the pole to hang it on is too expensive" or "we want an asphalt parking lot but renting the machine to paint the lines is too expensive" or "we want to be open 24/7 but we can't afford to cover third shift"?

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

#200

Post by malvim »

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.

Yeah, username checks out
Post reply on HN