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

41–50 of 156 posts

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

#41

Post by rc5150 »

tptacek wrote: post #20
trickypr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way “smoking causes cancer” was a minority opinion in the 50s and 60s.

You hope. People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs! (I think the way through this mess is huge investment in renewables, and that blue states have calamitously dropped the ball by pushing so much data center construction to red states that aren't going to incentivize that.)

"People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!"

This statement can be applied to literally any topic and it fills me with a dread that is only matched by trying to fathom the inifinite nature of the universe and time. The notion of having good faith, well intentioned debate and discourse around any conceivable subject just feels impossible most of the time.

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

#42

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dev_l1x_be wrote: post #3

I wish there was a source of energy that has 100-1000x energy density compare to other sources and it is controllable so capacity factory is close to 100. Ohh wait.

Sorry, best I can do are a bunch of activist hippies.

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

#43

Post by Lerc »

AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #2

This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.

In broad strokes I tend to agree. I think there is a fairly good path to moving most things to electricity and in turn moving most electricity generation to renewables.

The more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job.

By and large, renewables are marching towards a state where they will provide enough of the generation that what remains would be insignificant.

I would be interested to know where the gas is coming from for this particular data centre. There are a few cases that generation by gas is preferable to what is happening right now. One good example is if the gas is from sources that would otherwise be flared off. I have heard in the past that businesses have been reluctant to harness energy from gas rather than flaring it off because any user of the energy gets tagged with the CO2 emissions. If it just gets burnt off it makes no difference to the amount of total emissions, but it avoids the CO2 being attributed to their industry.

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

#44

Post by exabrial »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #42
dev_l1x_be wrote: post #3

I wish there was a source of energy that has 100-1000x energy density compare to other sources and it is controllable so capacity factory is close to 100. Ohh wait.

Sorry, best I can do are a bunch of activist hippies.

Don't worry, the solar dude is about enter the chat.

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

#45

Post by shimman »

tptacek wrote: post #14
AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #2

This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.

This is, putting it gently, not a majority opinion in the US and especially not in Texas.

It's not majority opinion to be against data centers? One of the largest bipartisan issues of our time, something like 70% of the US population being against it in some capacity (likely even higher)?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-ce...

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

#47

Post by tptacek »

rc5150 wrote: post #41
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hope. People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs! (I think the way through this mess is huge investment in renewables, and that blue states have calamitously dropped the ball by pushing so much data center construction to red states that aren't going to incentivize that.)

"People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!" This statement can be applied to literally any topic and it fills me with a dread that is only matched by trying to fathom the inifinite nature of the universe and time. The notion of having good faith, well intentioned debate and discourse around any conceivable subject just feels impossible most of the time.

That was my point. People disagree about this topic. I happen to agree that climate change is a real and imminent problem (though probably not, with the previous commenter, about its solution space). Pointing to public opinion about smoking in the 1950s is a conclusory argument; it doesn't get us anywhere.

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

#48

Post by tptacek »

shimman wrote: post #45
tptacek wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, putting it gently, not a majority opinion in the US and especially not in Texas.

It's not majority opinion to be against data centers? One of the largest bipartisan issues of our time, something like 70% of the US population being against it in some capacity (likely even higher)? https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-ce...

That poll says Americans broadly oppose data centers in their local area. A poll of all Americans would likely find broad majority support for the construction of data centers in Texas; a poll isomorphic to this one would also find similarly broad opposition to the construction of apartment buildings in their local area.

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

#49

Post by Lerc »

nielsbot wrote: post #38
Lerc wrote: post #35

It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a permit > GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States Immediately following that is the text "It’s worth noting that companies rarely em…

You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?

Because without enough information to truly place it in context, you may be focusing on something that may not have a notable impact on the overall problem.

For starters, why focus on the plant being built when it has been permitted. If you focused on the permitting process presumably you could prevent many instances simultaneously.

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

#50

Post by sandworm101 »

Lerc wrote: post #43
AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #2

This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.

In broad strokes I tend to agree. I think there is a fairly good path to moving most things to electricity and in turn moving most electricity generation to renewables. The more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job. By and large, renewables are marching towards…

There is a time and place for fossil fuels. 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 (electrifying a commercial kitchen is a massive ask).
Post reply on HN