Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers • Hacker News Board

Re: Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers

#531

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Aug 20, 2026, 10:31 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #526

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Noise, pollution Both of these are complaints about gas turbines rather than data centers. Data centers can pretty easily do the opposite by offering to curtail load during energy supply shortfalls, both through region shifting and by temporarily operating backup generators, which allows the grid to add more renewable generation without having intermittency issues, and thereby operate fewer gas turbines. Obviously…

>Do the math on what percentage of any given region's available water is consumed by data centers. Compare this to e.g. agriculture. This one isn't even a plausible concern, it's manufactured outrage. Is it more than zero? I need to eat (although I do wish we all paid more for cleaner and more ethical food) but I explicitly don't want data centers. I think this compares to pesticide to control malaria vs. herbicide t…

> Is it more than zero?

This is like complaining that Fox News offices use water in their restrooms because you don't like their reporting. It's transparently not about that.

> I need to eat

Do you need to eat alfalfa grown in California rather than the midwest?

> What are the benefits to more data centers?

Large loads that can be curtailed during supply shortfalls via region shifting or operation of backup generators allow the grid to use a higher percentage of renewable generation without having intermittency issues.

> If we're just doing ad-hominen we need a name for your group.

NIMBY and regulatory capture are both descriptions of behavior rather than group identities.

Re: Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers

#532

Post by everdrive » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 3:24 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #531

everdrive wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do the math on what percentage of any given region's available water is consumed by data centers. Compare this to e.g. agriculture. This one isn't even a plausible concern, it's manufactured outrage. Is it more than zero? I need to eat (although I do wish we all paid more for cleaner and more ethical food) but I explicitly don't want data centers. I think this compares to pesticide to control malaria vs. herbicide t…

> Is it more than zero? This is like complaining that Fox News offices use water in their restrooms because you don't like their reporting. It's transparently not about that. > I need to eat Do you need to eat alfalfa grown in California rather than the midwest? > What are the benefits to more data centers? Large loads that can be curtailed during supply shortfalls via region shifting or operation of backup generator…

>This is like complaining that Fox News offices use water in their restrooms because you don't like their reporting. It's transparently not about that.

If Fox news were trying to put a huge bathroom next to my property I certainly would care, though.

> Do you need to eat alfalfa grown in California rather than the midwest?

The only alfalfa I have right now is made of little pellets that I give to my chickens.

> Large loads that can be curtailed during supply shortfalls via region shifting or operation of backup generators allow the grid to use a higher percentage of renewable generation without having intermittency issues.

I don't see how this is a benefit to building more data centers. This sounds like an explanation of how you might mitigate their impact.

> NIMBY

I'm not interested in this term until you'll happily accept a carpet factory next to you that poisons your water for years. There is TONS of stuff that no sane person would want in their back yards.

Re: Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers

#533

Post by ben_w » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 7:49 PM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #525

ben_w wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, that's ignoring carbon capture by means natural or artificial, and therefore is a totally irrelevant number, both to this conversation, and to most others. No, it inherently incorporates all natural processes that capture carbon. Artificial, sure, if you want to point at them I believe current effots might reduce the required reductions from 99.9% to 99.8%. However, I wrote "emissions", and the overwhelming maj…

> No, it inherently incorporates all natural processes that capture carbon. It literally cannot, because it's not parameterized on the amount of additional plants being planted. > Artificial, sure, if you want to point at them I believe current effots might reduce the required reductions from 99.9% to 99.8%. Goalpost moving (i.e. fixing a particular value in hypothetical future assumptions that was not fixed or agree…

> It literally cannot, because it's not parameterized on the amount of additional plants being planted.

Primary production of the planet, i.e. total carbon fixation, is broadly not influenced in this manner.

The things which do influence it, are included in the function.

> Goalpost moving (i.e. fixing a particular value in hypothetical future assumptions that was not fixed or agreed-upon previously in order to support an otherwise-false point), which solidly sets the original claim as false.

My point is that it is tiny in scale even at best.

Furthermore, I claim it is unlikely to get meaningfully better than it already is, given the economics at present appear to be more "how do we game government objectives to get subsidies" rather than directly performing useful work that does not require subsidy. Perhaps I am too cynical, but typically if there's a good economic reason for doing something anyway, it's not in a list of big showy projects that might happen at some unspecified time in the future, it gets implemented by people who are happy to never get noticed.

> Technically compatible with your statement but not how the vast majority of individuals would interpret it as you originally wrote it.

Can you prove that?

> To be clear: I'm not arguing that we don't need to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions or that carbon capture is necessary. I'm arguing that last point, that "we need to reduce emissions by 99.9%" is extremely misleading and much more harmful than hurtful for those ends.

I do not accept your argument.

Especially "much more harmful than [presumably auto-corrupt and you meant helpful]".

*Net* emissions must go down approximately that scale. The common phrasing is "net zero" rather than "net 0.1%". However, your assertion that me missing the word "net" from "We (humanity worldwide) need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 99.9%" seems pedantic rather than helpful.

Re: Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers

#534

Post by throw10920 » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #533

throw10920 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it inherently incorporates all natural processes that capture carbon. It literally cannot, because it's not parameterized on the amount of additional plants being planted. > Artificial, sure, if you want to point at them I believe current effots might reduce the required reductions from 99.9% to 99.8%. Goalpost moving (i.e. fixing a particular value in hypothetical future assumptions that was not fixed or agree…

> It literally cannot, because it's not parameterized on the amount of additional plants being planted. Primary production of the planet, i.e. total carbon fixation, is broadly not influenced in this manner. The things which do influence it, are included in the function. > Goalpost moving (i.e. fixing a particular value in hypothetical future assumptions that was not fixed or agreed-upon previously in order to suppor…

> Primary production of the planet, i.e. total carbon fixation, is broadly not influenced in this manner.

Plants account for roughly half of global carbon fixation. "Broadly not influenced" is straight-up false. Your follow-on arguments are consequently false as a result.

> My point is that it is tiny in scale even at best.

Such as this one.

Re: Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers

#535

Post by jvilalta » Sun, Aug 23, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

thegrim33 wrote: post #212

If even on Hacker News a topic like this can't be objectively discussed, what hope do we really have? What is the solution? Even in a place like this, the comments are full of extremist ideology, bickering, people arguing from feelings, people just repeating echo chambers mantras, and a significant portion of the comments are probably from inauthentic/propaganda accounts. We're incapable of just using a place like th…

It Is Difficult to Get a (Hu)Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.