Live data from Hacker News

EPA says power for data centers can sidestep pollution laws

epa.gov

251–260 of 266 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You’re just not trying. There’s no reason at all that “generator” can’t be batteries rated for x hours, or a small generator that IS emissions certified. I.e. https://www.reddit.com/r/Generator/comments/1hydy6j/recommen...

that's a very different standard.

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

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do the octogenarians in power not remember when they couldn’t breathe because of the lead in the gas Lead causes brain damage and memory impairment...

...and lead was standardized only because it was patentable . Otherwise ethanol was enough to achieve the same thing. Brought you proudly by Thomas Midgley, Jr., who solved science problems by making bigger ones. - https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/thomas-midgley-and-t... - https://www.ehn.org/thomas-midgley-jr-lead-poisoning

Ethanol cost more at the time, doesn’t help seal valves, lowers energy density, and eats certain kinds of plastic and rubber that are often used in fuel systems.

Leaded gasoline caused colossal harm, but it did a good job of solving problems with fuel at the time.

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

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/curre…

Blah blah blah. Yap yap yap. It’s funny how the laws always apply until it’s a rich fucker breaking them. You might be fine with skirting the technicalities, but the rest of us have to live here and breathe the air.

These aren’t “technicalities.” What types of activities the laws apply to is a central aspect of every regulatory regime.

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

#255

> 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.

There is no law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM4H6Ix1Lt4

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

#256
post #96

> 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.

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.

And now we will have to add more bureaucracy and regulations to the process because of the tech bro's abuses of reasonable carveouts. More bureaucracy that future tech bros/right wingers will complain about existing even though they chose to force the matter to the point of regulation.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blah blah blah. Yap yap yap. It’s funny how the laws always apply until it’s a rich fucker breaking them. You might be fine with skirting the technicalities, but the rest of us have to live here and breathe the air.

These aren’t “technicalities.” What types of activities the laws apply to is a central aspect of every regulatory regime.

They are technicalities, because the intent of the law is clean air. A carve out for temporary generators is clearly not intended to allow megawatts of permanent generation to operate outside of the regulatory umbrella and abuse of it is allowing the rich to skate by on a technicality.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

[deleted]

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Paying third shift a minimum wage is also a constraint we imposed on ourselves to the detriment of the public. Is it overreach when a store owner wants to be open 24/7, but can only afford to pay third shift $0.07 an hour and then government won't let him?

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds an awful lot like you are willfully ignorant on water management. Considering how accessable the basics are, I'm having trouble believing your argument is in good faith.

It's all bullshit. I get the whole sponge principal. It's make-work bullshit to make everyone do all this BS when it would be infinitely more efficient to solve this stuff wholesale on a municipal level and reap the benefits of letting property development be constrained by one less requirement to shovel money at certain people. Same basic argument in favor of municipal sewer over super fancy super high cost septic s…

Municipal level stuff is highly constrained in the US because most suburban municipalities are bleeding money - they're either propped up by an urban core, or they're bankrupt and already letting vital services rot.
Post reply on HN