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

Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#131

Post by HDBaseT »

sandworm101 wrote: post #127
paulryanrogers wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see too many people scream for electrification in new biuldings yet do not hesitate to operate a backyard grill, or eat out at restaurants It's not hypocrisy to want things to be better and tolerate that some things are net negative. I have a fireplace and enjoy using it. But it's bad for my kids health and neighborhood air quality. So I use it far less than my parents did theirs. I also don't commute and fly far…

Well, for those who want to ban gas stovetops in new biulding, it is a binary world. The reality is that home cooking is a rounding error in terms of energy usage.

Side question, what is your native language or autocorrect/keyboard application?

You've spelt "building' wrong twice, the exact same way 'biulding'.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#132

Post by sandworm101 »

HDBaseT wrote: post #131
sandworm101 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for those who want to ban gas stovetops in new biulding, it is a binary world. The reality is that home cooking is a rounding error in terms of energy usage.

Side question, what is your native language or autocorrect/keyboard application? You've spelt "building' wrong twice, the exact same way 'biulding'.

Lol. GrapheneOS. I like it but it does have the worst autocorrect ever, so bad i have disabled it.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#133

Post by sfdlkj3jk342a »

RunSet wrote: post #58
sfdlkj3jk342a wrote: post #51

Why do we put so much focus on CO2 emissions? Sure, climate change is bad and has the potential to disrupt and end the lives of many in the future. But other forms of air pollution like pm2.5 particulates in the air are already causing an estimated 5 million premature deaths per year as well as a slew of other health problems including lowering of IQ.

> Why do we put so much focus on CO2 emissions? Any amount of focus would be "so much". I gather you believe other people pay too much attention to CO2. That the planet is warming suggests to me they do not pay enough.

> I gather you believe other people pay too much attention to CO2.

Why would you think that? I care a great deal about the environment.. I've been working on several reforestation projects for the last 5 years.

I wish there was 100x more funding for CO2 emission reduction. But it frustrates me far more how little attention pm2.5 pollution gets. I live in Asia and see the effects that pm2.5 pollution has on 100's of millions of people every day.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#134

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1786171869 | Amazon behind private gas plant for new data centers | https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/amazon-behind-mass... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49219445

1786183626 | New Amazon Data Center Is Set to Have the Most Polluting Power Plant in the U.S. | https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/08/climate/amazon-data-cente... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220350

1786210072 | Amazon Is Creating the Biggest Pollution Source in the Country | https://newrepublic.com/post/214111/amazon-data-center-bigge... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49223845

1786350058 | Amazon plans gigantic gas power plant for new AI data center | https://www.heise.de/en/news/Amazon-plans-gigantic-gas-power... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49240853

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#135

Post by bryanlarsen »

sandworm101 wrote: post #127
paulryanrogers wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see too many people scream for electrification in new biuldings yet do not hesitate to operate a backyard grill, or eat out at restaurants It's not hypocrisy to want things to be better and tolerate that some things are net negative. I have a fireplace and enjoy using it. But it's bad for my kids health and neighborhood air quality. So I use it far less than my parents did theirs. I also don't commute and fly far…

Well, for those who want to ban gas stovetops in new biulding, it is a binary world. The reality is that home cooking is a rounding error in terms of energy usage.

But methane leaks from residential connections are a significant source. Requiring people who want to cook with gas inside or outside to use bottles instead of a piped connection is not unreasonable, IMO.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#136

Post by Lerc »

bix6 wrote: post #129
Lerc wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How would focusing on one of the largest new CO2 emitters not have a notable impact? Because without context you have no idea what that actually means. If you get attacked by an unknown number of duck sized horses, how much of an effect would defeating the largest of them have?

So what context do you think is missing from this debate about whether massive GHG emissions are good or bad?

That is not what this debate is about. The debate is about whether we know that the point of focus can be described as massive GHG when compared in proportion to other emitters.

How much is the plant actually going to emit? Is the number the largest because the field is dominated by many many smaller things that cumulatively sum to a figure so large that if any one value (even if the largest) is removed, it makes no meaningful difference.

What happens to the fuel if they don't use it? Does it get used by someone else who would otherwise had used renewables.

I don't think it is unreasonable to have the relevant information to hand before making a decision. I might make the same decision as you have already done. I'd just like it to be based on actual information that I have.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#138

Post by doc_ick »

tptacek wrote: post #109
harimau777 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the two sides disagreeing are not equal.

Unfortunately for your point, their votes count equivalently.

It’s a good thing then we know the science for smoking is bad and too many data centers == bad

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#139

Post by teravor »

hocuspocus wrote: post #79
fragmede wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely will solve it. That's called fusion.

You don't even need that. Fast breeder reactors are enough.

while at it you might as well argue for highly enriched fuel for compact SMRs.

the politics of the threat of proliferation kills it in the crib.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#140

Post by rickydroll »

spacephysics wrote: post #93
belorn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have long advocated that EU should be in the forefront and start sunsetting fossil fueled power generation, by setting a date when no new construction is allowed and then letting the existing fleet naturally die. It would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we can't keep constructing new thermal power stations that continue to burn fuel whenever we have need to increase capacity and grid stability. S…

This is a national security nightmare. For better or worse, fossil fuels have massive energy densities, which makes economics in defense context (and others) extremely favorable. Even with today’s energy polices, electricity costs have skyrocketed (this was the case before the data center demand). Couple that with electrification of vehicles, phase out of natural gas/oil heaters, I think its reckless abandon to push…

I apologize, but I must disagree.

The national security nightmare is the dependency on fossil fuel sources. If we were to lose our crude oil supplies because of a war in the Middle East, blocking a strait for tankers, we would be well and truly fucked. We don't produce enough domestic natural gas to replace it.

The only options we have today are solar, wind, and, given enough time, nuclear. These three sources remove external dependencies for generating energy. I'm not sure how much uranium we have in the States, but once the blades are spinning or the sun is shining, we keep getting energy, and no war overseas can stop that.

Electric prices are climbing because we're doing externalities wrong. For example, utility charges for data centers should be significantly higher than what we charge residential and non-DC businesses. The goal is for data centers to absorb the cost of the impact they have on the grid and water.

They could have on-prem power plants, but those plants should belong to the local utility and charge the data centers the data center rate. It also should be a surcharge for the air pollution those fossil fuel monstrosities create. Again, paying for the externalities.

They could get a break if they deployed gigawatts of solar and batteries or used their waste heat for district heating, but yeah, I'm tired of letting them get away with dumping externalities on us. We now have a nicely delineated scenario where we can focus it on them and make them pay.

Post reply on HN