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

Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#111

Post by fc417fc802 »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #60
jzymbaluk wrote: post #25

The fact that these behemoths are being powered by gas generators is horrifying

The reason is because permitting and building a natgas generator is the easiest among the energy production methods in the US. Datacenters need to be close-ish to Internet Exchanges to be cost competitive when lighting up network capacity. Solar cells are expensive (Chinese tariffs or domestic production) and permitting is tough. Nuclear is still a permitting and cost nightmare. Wind requires a lot of land. Hydroelec…

> Solar cells are expensive (Chinese tariffs or domestic production) and permitting is tough.

The tariffs I understand (even if they really don't make sense in this particular case) but the permitting I do not. Do you have more information or links?

> Wind requires a lot of land.

In rural but populated areas wind is generally installed on someone else's grazing area for a small fee. In truly unpopulated areas (ie desert) access to land isn't usually an issue since there's approximately zero demand for it.

That said I do agree with your general theme that our grid is underinvested and the management and policy surrounding it are a mess.

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#112

Post by fc417fc802 »

daedrdev wrote: post #91
unknownfuture wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer they use cheap and available renewables rather than accelerating climate change. But to each their own I guess. (And to head it off at the pass: if that can't be done then this should be done at all)

There is currently 2x us electricity production in solar and batteries stuck in permit hell due to the US requiring they pay for grid upgrades before connection in a first in first out line that has grown in length and costs. We could have cheap and available renewables, but we instead destroy them in bureaucratic hell that nobody cares about.

> due to the US requiring they pay for grid upgrades before connection

Is that not perfectly reasonable? Someone doing half the job and dumping the rest on everyone else seems like exactly the sort of thing a regulator exists to prevent.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like the issue is that solar would be located somewhere remote, the backhaul to get that electricity where it needs to be requires significant upgrades, and that takes time. Which is unfortunate and indicates historic mismanagement of said infrastructure but nonetheless the present day policy of "fix the problem first" seems perfectly reasonable.

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#113

Post by fc417fc802 »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #96
Grombobulous wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political approval is the basis of societal consent. A whole lot of things are allowed/disallowed based on political approval. Zoning laws, noise ordinances, toxic waste disposal, food safety standards, etc. I can't run a frozen lasagna factory from my house. It's illegal. I don't have political approval. If the people do not approve of data centers, they don't get built. Simple as that. Businesses do not have an inh…

You're right. Of course political approval tends to involve a few more people than a couple dissenting commenters on a ratioed HN comment thread, depending on the regime in question. Pretty sure the entities in question had business licenses as well.

> Of course political approval tends to involve a few more people than a couple dissenting commenters

You mean such as the broad nationwide concern regarding data center construction in recent months? A large portion of the population expressing concern and alarm that the bureaucratic processes involved don't adequately represent their stake in the matter? That sort of political (dis)approval?

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#114

Post by Karrot_Kream »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #111
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is because permitting and building a natgas generator is the easiest among the energy production methods in the US. Datacenters need to be close-ish to Internet Exchanges to be cost competitive when lighting up network capacity. Solar cells are expensive (Chinese tariffs or domestic production) and permitting is tough. Nuclear is still a permitting and cost nightmare. Wind requires a lot of land. Hydroelec…

> Solar cells are expensive (Chinese tariffs or domestic production) and permitting is tough. The tariffs I understand (even if they really don't make sense in this particular case) but the permitting I do not. Do you have more information or links? > Wind requires a lot of land. In rural but populated areas wind is generally installed on someone else's grazing area for a small fee. In truly unpopulated areas (ie des…

> The tariffs I understand (even if they really don't make sense in this particular case) but the permitting I do not. Do you have more information or links?

Take a look at [1]. The current admin felt that NEPA reviews were taking too long for utility grade energy projects and put in a cap for NEPA review length that does not apply to wind and solar. The article goes into how long utility scale solar projects can take to go through NEPA.

> In rural but populated areas wind is generally installed on someone else's grazing area for a small fee. In truly unpopulated areas (ie desert) access to land isn't usually an issue since there's approximately zero demand for it.

The challenge then is bringing the power to the datacenter, which often involves transmission lines, which goes back to permitting.

[1]: https://www.resources.org/archives/delays-to-wind-and-solar-...

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#115

Post by Karrot_Kream »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #113
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. Of course political approval tends to involve a few more people than a couple dissenting commenters on a ratioed HN comment thread, depending on the regime in question. Pretty sure the entities in question had business licenses as well.

> Of course political approval tends to involve a few more people than a couple dissenting commenters You mean such as the broad nationwide concern regarding data center construction in recent months? A large portion of the population expressing concern and alarm that the bureaucratic processes involved don't adequately represent their stake in the matter? That sort of political (dis)approval?

See this kind of response is why online discussions of the topic become so silly. What is "broad nationwide"? What is "large portion"? How large should a "large portion" be? We have a history of blocking housing because of local opposition, should we use the same model to block datacenters? How much "stake" should they have in the matter? These are all hard questions and I'm not sure a comment section and polarized social media communities are the right place to think about them.

This is a complicated issue. Datacenters don't just depend on energy, they also generate noise, use water, but also generate some jobs and have fewer of the externalities (such as big trucks that load and unload regularly, and less water usage, no chemical usage, etc) that come with the usual light industrial uses. Most of these comments are just ways for people to vent and at best confuse the issue and at worst set them back, IMO at least.

My comment in this chain was glib but it was responding to a comment whose purpose was to vent or express disapproval, so I don't think I brought the conversation down. That didn't stop me from picking up downvotes of course.

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#116

Post by fc417fc802 »

scottlamb wrote: post #85
bluGill wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess the real problem is contractors are bottle-necked in good times, but not stupid enough to expand - knowing that bad times will come and they have to pay for all the expansion. (humans can be laid off, but you still need to make the payment on the bulldozer)

That makes sense. Although I have to pick on your example a bit: wouldn't they still need a concrete foundation for all that weight and thus still need bulldozers? Still unsure how much of the work they're actually avoiding.

It's funny because at first I thought it made sense but the more I think about your question the more I'm skeptical. You still need the rack. Power distribution. Data lines. Cooling lines and whatever those connect back to. All the stuff that would have been embedded under the floor has to go somewhere (labor) and still has to be assembled (more labor). So they're saving time on what, the cement and steel shell?

Or is this a building permitting issue where for some reason the bureaucracy surrounding a permanent structure is expected to drag on for years but somehow they got the tents permitted rapidly?

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#117

Post by fc417fc802 »

vel0city wrote: post #35

Microsoft had trialed datacenters in tents nearly 20 years ago. I remember hearing about their trials at some talks back in the day. Crazy to look back on the dates here, felt like it wasn't that long ago. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/hyperscalers/new-from-mi...

They also tested out sinking data center modules in shallow water to reduce the difficulties surrounding both cooling and land use. I wonder if anyone has revisited that idea in light of present market conditions?

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#118

Post by unknownfuture »

john_strinlai wrote: post #64
unknownfuture wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically an argument about revealed preference, and these things are always more complicated than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

revealed preference theory is typically applied to individuals or single decision-making units like a household, rather than worldwide aggregate market behavior. in any case, its not really that complicated in this case. - the ai companies have a billion active users and billions of dollars in revenue. - a poll comes back with 30% of respondents saying they are angry about ai. so, why do the ai companies keep doing a…

The same could be said for hard drugs.

It can be simultaneously true that a large part of the public objects to a thing while the market generates profits from that very thing.

Of course the answer is for governments to step in as, as you point out, the AI-related companies are behaving as rational actors given their incentive structure.

Re: Meta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents

#120

Post by scottlamb »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #116
scottlamb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. Although I have to pick on your example a bit: wouldn't they still need a concrete foundation for all that weight and thus still need bulldozers? Still unsure how much of the work they're actually avoiding.

It's funny because at first I thought it made sense but the more I think about your question the more I'm skeptical. You still need the rack. Power distribution. Data lines. Cooling lines and whatever those connect back to. All the stuff that would have been embedded under the floor has to go somewhere (labor) and still has to be assembled (more labor). So they're saving time on what, the cement and steel shell? Or i…

> Or is this a building permitting issue where for some reason the bureaucracy surrounding a permanent structure is expected to drag on for years but somehow they got the tents permitted rapidly?

Good point; some permit loophole might make sense.

It occurs to me this also could still turn out to be a giant failure: these may all still be unpowered, empty tents. They might end up taking two to three years to turn on, might never get a critical permit at all, etc. I'm vaguely recalling some story from Google's past. They had an experimental datacenter (`pq` maybe?) built out of shipping containers. There was some way they had hoped this would be cheaper that (iirc) didn't work out at all because the local fire marshal declared each shipping container to be a full structure and thus an unexpected set of regulations applied. and/or each may also have been required to have an emergency power-off button for the entire facility, which were hit by accident more than one might hope. They never built a second datacenter with that design.

Also remembering that for a long while Google's Dalles, Oregon site had building 1, building 3, and an empty concrete slab between them called building 2. I suppose Meta could have done something similar and had the slabs ready to go long ago.

Post reply on HN