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

81–90 of 156 posts

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

#81

Post by BeetleB »

pixl97 wrote: post #68
BeetleB wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're actually not the highest on a per capita basis. 3 states produce more than double Texas's, by that metric.

I think you're talking about coal production that's sold to other states. Texas leads in both coal and natural gas consumption by far. Texas produces an insane amount of energy.

Yes, but I wouldn't fault Texas for producing electricity to sell to other states.

And in any case, that lowers Texan per capita consumption even more given that they're not actually consuming all of it.

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

#82

Post by bell-cot »

laughing_man wrote: post #33
shafyy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.

Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It takes up a tiny amount of space, and can be reprocessed if necessary.

Nuclear's top 3 problems:

1. Any equipment or substance that is both nuclear and potentially dangerous has some sort of magical mutant super-power to stimulate superhumanly idiotic behavior in a non-trivial fraction of the people handling/operating/managing the equipment or substance. That behavior is almost always coupled with pathological denials - both from the mutant super-idiots and their supposedly non-mutant peers.

2. General population humans are quite aware of problem #1, hence extremely distrustful when any human experts or organizations try to reassure them as to the safety of anything nuclear.

3. That "reprocessing" ain't nothing resembling "put on a lead apron and pour it through a coffee filter". Instead, it's a quagmire of chemicals and processes that'd still be horrific if nothing nuclear was involved, plus weapon proliferation overtones, plus all the problems noted in 1. and 2. above.

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

#83

Post by rgmerk »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #18
cloudie78 wrote: post #17

If only we had the technology and ability to produce enormous quantities of energy non-stop 24/7 365, no matter day or night wind or no wind.

BUT NUKES! All jokes aside, yes, we should invest massively in nuclear.

Nuclear reactors across the US and Europe have been a complete project management omnishambles and consequently have been massively costly and massively late.

SMRs are vapourware and are similarly economically uncompetitive.

Just build solar, wind, and batteries, and we'll worry about solving for the last 15% of electricity demand when that is actually a live problem (for which there are solutions that don't involve nuclear power and don't rely on magic beans being invented).

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

#84

Post by paulryanrogers »

sandworm101 wrote: post #50
Lerc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> 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 less than my father did throughout his life.

Life isn't some strict binary, all or nothing affair.

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

#85

Post by jakebol »

tptacek wrote: post #78
georgemcbay wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced these two things (data centers vs apartment buildings) are that similar, though there is probably some overlap. People don't just hate the idea of data centers "in their backyard" the way they do with housing, they also just fundamentally despise the tech companies and personalities who are creating these data centers.

People say this all the time online, but actual opinion polls show otherwise. People generally love Amazon, and have a high opinion of OpenAI (if you're not in the industry, it's not unlikely you don't really know who Anthropic is.) The underlying principal components of these data center polls are very probably just: (1) Concern about electrical bills, which are often valid, and noise, which sometimes can be as well…

What polls are you seeing where public opposition is starting to break? All the polling seems to be heading strongly in a negative direction. The Texas governor even had to accept political reality and seem like he was recognizing public anger. At a protest in Salem OR a guy just the other day showed up with a literal guillotine and the CEO had to leave the meeting. People making rational arguments don’t recognize this has become a deeply emotional argument and the emotions right now are broadly not good. It feels similar to the Tea Party movement after 2008.

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

#86

Post by rgmerk »

fragmede wrote: post #28
shafyy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.

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

I've no doubt that fusion will be solved, technically.

I am hugely skeptical that it will be solved economically given that it suffers from many of the problems currently pricing coal and nuclear out of the market.

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

#87

Post by belorn »

AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #2

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

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.

Sadly there aren't much support to do this. The largest coalition see thermal power stations as critical to manage grid stability and voted to have natural gas defined as "green", since they view it as necessary to enable renewable energy to be built. The other major coalition do want to decrease the need for thermal power plants by increasing base load through nuclear power, but they are not openly against thermal power plants as a way to reduce costs. EU lacks any movement that are willing to pay the cost of not burning fuel in order to generate electricity. Same for basically every other place on earth right now, despite EU and most countries being in agreement that climate change is real and fossil fuels should be stopped yesterday.

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

#88

Post by snapplebobapple »

belorn wrote: post #87
AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #2

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

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…

thats an excellent way to make your populace poorerand therefore more willing to degrade the en>ironment for a better quality life

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

#89

Post by yunnpp »

captainbland wrote: post #34
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.

Unfortunately opinions don't change the reality of physical processes.

Fortunately.

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

#90

Post by laughing_man »

bell-cot wrote: post #82
laughing_man wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It takes up a tiny amount of space, and can be reprocessed if necessary.

Nuclear's top 3 problems: 1. Any equipment or substance that is both nuclear and potentially dangerous has some sort of magical mutant super-power to stimulate superhumanly idiotic behavior in a non-trivial fraction of the people handling/operating/managing the equipment or substance. That behavior is almost always coupled with pathological denials - both from the mutant super-idiots and their supposedly non-mutant p…

Nuclear's top 3 problems:

1. Plant construction is very expensive, and not in small part because people who don't actually understand the technology take every opportunity to tie up construction in the courts and regulatory agencies.

2. General population of humans are quite aware of #1, so even though they know nuclear wins on a technology basis, they know it will be unduly expensive, preferring to knuckle under to the mob instead of doing the right thing.

3. People not familiar with the technology don't realize that while we don't generally do reprocessing in the west, it's primarily due to cost, and that Japan will start reprocessing 800 tonnes of fuel per year starting next year.

The technology is the safest way we have to generate power, and could be the lowest cost if the regulatory environment was adjusted properly. It's just a shame there are so many people who are irrationally opposed.

Post reply on HN