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

211–220 of 266 posts

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

#211

Post by autoexec »

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.

> 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

No because they were extremely rich and lived in massive houses set far back from the city streets filled with polluting cars and well away from factories spewing poison into the air. They've lived perfectly comfortable lives in climate controlled and filtered spaces and traveled around to beautiful remote areas where poor people can never go and the pollution had barely touched. They know that they and their families can buy a comfortable and safe life no matter how miserable and sick they make the rest of us. They will always have healthy food and clean water no matter how many of us don't.

Our government works best when it's "of the people" but instead the octogenarians in power have almost nothing in common with us (even most of us here, in a forum filled with very wealthy people) and so their interests are not our interests and our concerns are not shared by them.

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

#212

Post by cucumber3732842 »

inigyou wrote: post #199
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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"?

Because this is a constraint we've imposed upon ourselves to the detriment of the public. It's like how you have all sorts of workplaces with absolutely moronic rats nests of extension cords and power strips and whatnot because you don't need a permit to plug stuff in. They're following the rule and arriving at a stupider worse solution and we're all poorer for it. We could literally be richer at the stroke of a pen. Whereas to make paving cheaper we'd need to make technological progress.

Nobody's interests, except some spreadsheet pusher who's missing the big picture, and some idiot ideologues, are effectively served by putting a ton of "built to the bare minimum" green space that the users don't actually want anywhere the economic potential of the land supports more density of actual use. And if you have that density there's more than enough money kicking around to manage your stormwater more cheaply than piecemeal private solutions (basically all the same pro/con as septic vs sewer but with less digits in front of the decimal).

Yeah it's nice to have parks and recreational green space, but those are planned to be fit for that purpose. The catchment basin behind the shopping center's parking garage is only fit for making the parties that got to construct and maintain it a little richer.

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

#214

Post by BarnabyQJones »

browningstreet wrote: post #55
shimman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems pretty inline with our leadership tho. This country has always put profits above people.

Go research the green house gas emission projections for the end of Biden's term and the projections for Trump's administration. Hand-waving dismissiveness doesn't serve when there were, in fact, significant (and yet not sufficient) efforts written into law. We can have better things, but we as a people certainly need to do better. There are Mamdanis and there are Trumps. There's a difference.

The difference being the target audience of the respective showman? Seems like a bit of a difference by degrees.

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

#215

Post by TitaRusell »

rangestransform wrote: post #158
Schlagbohrer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It should be mind numbingly trivial to stand up a solar farm and ram through some transmission lines in the desert, and mind numbingly hard to set up a temporary gas generator. We needed regulatory exemptions yesterday for clean energy, public transit, and EV charging.

Oh it would be if AI actually made money. Turns out all those companies cheap out and don't actually want to put down the 20 billion for a nuclear reactor- which should be trivial if they were really the future!

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

#216

Post by rayiner »

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.

CAA regulations are all based on cost-benefit analysis and also seek to exclude sources that are basically too small to be worth regulating. In this case, the governing regulations have a complex set of criteria before the permitting requirements apply: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C...

These criteria were last amended in 2001, so the EPA is just applying a 25 year old regulation here.

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

#217

Post by rayiner »

sensanaty wrote: post #75
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 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

When it comes to laws, do you just look at the title of the law, or do you look at the actual statute and regulations to see what the law applies to and what it doesn’t? Does a “vehicle inspection program” meant for commercial trucks apply to your car just because the title fits?

In this case, there is a 25 year old regulation that specifies what this program applies to and what it doesn’t. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C...

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

#218

Post by cmiles74 »

andsoitis wrote: post #60
cmiles74 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they clarifying? It reads to me like they are making up an exception for data centers out of thin air.

In what way do you think the guidance is in contradiction to the law?

For sure, an argument can be made that the text of the law could be tightened up. In my opinion, there's nothing in that text that would exclude these generators. In addition the rationale provide for excluding these generators seems... disingenuous at best.

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

#220

Post by chrisjj »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #141
KaiserPro wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok, but if AI is doing it better, then they won't be working remote, they'd be just unemployed.

Sure, they'll be unemployed until they chose to do something else that people will pay for. Like I was reading some guy is making downloads for Minecraft and making great living in it (science fiction a few decades ago). Worse case scenerio, move to the country side, and homestead. Thats how people survived wars and famines. Surely they can survive a tech transition.

> move to the country side, and homestead

So, work from home, but you'll need a new home.

What will even pay for it? Not the proceeds from your old home which now nobody wants to buy.

Post reply on HN