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

231–240 of 266 posts

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

#231

Post by 0xy »

kasey_junk wrote: post #70
0xy wrote: post #11

First they say data centers should pay their own way on power infrastructure, then when they start springing up entirely off-grid and fully self-funded power infrastructure, suddenly there's a new problem. The problem was never power or water (water being a known Chinese spy op after Karen Hao was caught exaggerating water usage by 1,000x in her book).

Aluminum smelters have run their own power generation for ages and don’t get to skip epa regulations.

Aluminium isn't the same level of national security importance as AI is.

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

#232

Post by insane_dreamer »

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?

> Are you sure you're aiming your ire in the right direction in this case?

yes

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

#233

Post by ceejayoz »

shimman wrote: post #226
ceejayoz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whataboutism works a lot better if you don't literally start sentences with "what about..."

I didn't know it's whataboutism when you list things to support an argument, good to know.

"what about the Biden admin helping run cover for the Gaza genocide?" in a thread about the Trump EPA is pretty much the textbook example of whataboutism.

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

#234

Post by andsoitis »

convolvatron wrote: post #101
andsoitis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its very much using the letter That’s how law works.

apparently you're very excited about this partisan victory. at some point we do need to actually think about how to effectively manage the country. there should be a back and forth about the appropriate degree of environmental regulation since it is a tradeoff between economic constraint and qualify of life. I grew up in the 70s, and my father was a Nixon supporting environmental engineer. At the time the amount of n…

> apparently you're very excited about this partisan victory.

Labor unions are lobbying for it. Most of the AI leaders vote Democratic. Users of these tools (corporate and consumer) are all over the political spectrum.

Tell us more why you think this is a partisan victory?

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

#235

Post by kasey_junk »

0xy wrote: post #231
kasey_junk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aluminum smelters have run their own power generation for ages and don’t get to skip epa regulations.

Aluminium isn't the same level of national security importance as AI is.

That’s a take for sure…

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

#236

Post by consensus1 »

tavavex wrote: post #223
consensus1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of them are good except for democratic oversight. Those other things are beneficial and cheap and easy to comply with. It's the democratic oversight of what gets built and where that is nothing more than a giveaway to worthless bureaucrats, lawyers, activists, and NIMBYs.

The alternative to democracy is wealthy guys who can buy their way into anything being done forcing their will upon the "worthless" rest of the populace, as you called them. If only billionaires weren't held up by the monsters that are activists protesting their activities and lawyers acting as a check on their legal power. Let's be clear, democracy isn't perfect and it usually isn't fast. But to date, it's the only…

I get that anyway. It's just that in democracy it's a mob of millions of idiots who don't care about me. I guess I'd rather have it be the billionaires because at least they want to build things and advance our infrastructure and technology.

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

#237

Post by s1artibartfast »

gwbas1c wrote: post #45

What's frustrating is that the title in this thread is very misleading. This is the way the laws have been: Separate laws for generators feeding into the grid. Why this is, I don't know. I suspect it's because the vast, vast, majority of non-connected generators were, (until now,) backup generators that only ran occasionally. I even have a "fancy" portable generator in my garage that probably emits way more pollution…

I find this perpetually frustrating.

People mistake carveouts or loopholes in the law for corruption.

This is a problem because it isnt conducive to actually identifying the problem and updating the law through a democratic process.

Same issue with flock cameras.

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

#238

Post by KaiserPro »

RetroTechie wrote: post #187
KaiserPro wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is more cost efficient Depends. Getting a grid connection, and all the equipment to connect and step down with negotiating prices is not always fun. Especially as there is a limited amount of power on the grid. its not a free lunch and takes time. Its far easier to just slap shitty local generators on and live off the crappy noisy electricity they provide.

It's ironic when data center operators, who I'd expect to be experts on calculating complex cost/benefit scenarios, check for & arrange what's needed, sidestep better solutions because there's a bunch of requirements attached. Reads to me as going for a quick & dirty fix.

I'm not an expert in the US grid, but where I am, the grid moves at a different pace.

It also has a bunch of constraints that are not that appealing. For example there is a strict supply limit. You can't just attach 4x6MW connections in a few weeks. More over, that kind of cable is £900 a meter, at the least. Its also oil filled and needs a bunch of other infra to keep it cold.

Then, the lead time for transformers is also quite high. I'm not sure about the switch gear and meters though.

Once you have all that, you need to make sure your local spur of the grid has enough capacity to provide what you need.

Then you can bid for a connection. THe further away you are from the grid the more it costs.

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

#239

Post by convolvatron »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #194
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 ind…

burning methane does produce NO and NO2 (the N2 being oxidized at temperature). that does come down with precipitation and collect in bodies of water. over time as evaporation removes the water and its replenished with acidic rain, the concentration increases arbitrarily high.

idk how much NOx a GW or two of low efficiency (20%) gas turbine units produces, how wide that plume might be, and what the envionmental impact might be. but if we employed a few people that practice doing this kind of I'm sure they could tell us with high confidence.

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

tclancy wrote: post #131
btbuildem wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> truly cannot comprehend the mindset The mindset is "if I could harvest your organs for profit I absolutely would, and I would make it illegal to protest against it"

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN