Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

33% Positive

Analyzed from 1077 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#power#despite#energy#gas#data#more#going#water#catastrophe#still

Discussion (31 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

vineyardmike29 minutes ago
Those in power seem to think that a compute advantage is necessary to maintain economic advantage. Despite this, the voters universally hate data centers, so much so that both NY and TX have data center construction moratoriums.

Despite this, those in power refuse any environmentally aware energy policy nor water policy. Despite this, companies have been trying to be environmentally aware for either moral or marketing purposes to get social permission to build DCs. Despite this, companies are “forced” to build their own “dirty” power sources since political power is disrupting green energy build out. Despite this, demand is still high so that compute costs are continuing to rise. Despite this, our economy is increasingly predicated on a few companies using more compute than geopolitical rivals with cheaper electricity. Despite this, those in power are, again, unwilling to create a compromising policy (aka clean energy) that voters actually would demand before tolerating more DCs.

What’s going to lose first? Voters/environment, politicians/the oil lobby, big tech, or the overall american economy?

t0mas8822 minutes ago
The overall American economy is going to pay the price in the long term. And current foreign policy is reducing trust in America as a reliable and stable partner, which will make things even worse.
vrganj25 minutes ago
The entire planet will lose as ecosystems die out, food and water supplies run low, refugee crises and global conflicts ramp up.

But hey, line go up!

cyanydeez23 minutes ago
Don't worry; republicans are way ahead of that refugee crises by generation fervent far right ethnic nationalism globally, independently of course.
simianwords14 minutes ago
> The entire planet will lose as ecosystems die out, food and water supplies run low, refugee crises and global conflicts ramp up.

This is not true and this is misinformation in the way stated. While agreed that emissions going up will lead to some ecosystems, some food problems, some water supplies getting worse.

But in aggregate, the things are all around going to get better - life expectancy will go up either way. Food insecurity will go down. Prosperity goes up.

So you will be in a better situation in 100 years without reducing emissions.

flufluflufluffy7 minutes ago
Both you and the person you replied to are making claims about the future. Neither of them are true.
OlivOnTech8 minutes ago
Do you have any source? The global scientific community and more specifically the GIEC have been saying the opposite for years...
solenoid09376 minutes ago
This is just pure histrionics, you have no understanding whatsoever of the scale of data center water consumption, electricity consumption, new capacity coming online, etc.
embedding-shape31 minutes ago
So even when xAI (which is now Tesla? Or SpaceX maybe?) was "operating dozens of unregulated gas turbines that worsen the air quality in one of the most polluted parts of the country"[0] this didn't place them above this new Amazon not-even-built-yet data center? Are they competing who can destroy the earth the fastest or what's going on?

- [0] https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/musks-xai-is-being-sued-ov...

orbifold25 minutes ago
All this AI doomerism is hiding the obvious and immediate harm that will cause a mass extinction event. Funnily enough people at Anthropic are predicting the end of the Anthropocene, completely absolving themselves from any responsibility for the actual reality that the Anthropocene is defined by human made geologically noticeable changes. Like causing a global climate catastrophe.
progbitsabout 1 hour ago
Most polluting power plant so far

This race to the bottom will have plenty more to give us in the coming years.

jstummbillig25 minutes ago
Note that this is about absolute pollution, not relative to power output. Pollution is high, because power output is high. Relatively, for what it's worth, it's just a fairly normal gas plant.

So the most interesting thing to take away from this: There is a lot of demand for more power and in this instance it's satisfied by gas. Which is still much better than coal. Which is still much worse than renewables.

t0mas8819 minutes ago
Luckily the Trump administration has just paid over a billion dollars for the second time to stop a renewable energy project...
mocana25 minutes ago
Ok. A serious question. I frequently hear that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity. Then why are they using gas turbines? Is it because they can generate more power with a smaller real estate footprint?
lee_ars7 minutes ago
Texas specifically has heavily politicized and demonized wind power, in spite of having massive successes with it prior to 2016 and being a leading producer of it. Solar isn't as bad, but is still seen as "leftist." The political landscape in TX is vastly more friendly to natural gas.

In other words, they are using gas turbines because the politicians are stupid.

Schiendelman19 minutes ago
It's because the permits are easier to get. It's very hard to get people to organize to make renewable energy permitting easier.
unnamed76ri9 minutes ago
You need a ton of land for solar and no renewable is as reliable as fossil fuels.
swiftcoder21 minutes ago
Under current administration, I'm not even sure its possible to build out green energy for this sort of thing at scale - this article[1] was on the front page just yesterday

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49208314

matkoniecz1 minute ago
gas turbines are not intermittent

> I frequently hear that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity

presumably they put zero value on stable production or count subsidies as income

jeffrallen3 minutes ago
[delayed]
thelastgallon37 minutes ago
A recent discussion

The Gargantuan Lie That is Collapsing The World’s Climate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49208686

croes37 minutes ago
If we reach AGI at some point, it will wonder why we are so dumb
vrganj35 minutes ago
If we ever reach it, it will tell us "you destroyed any chance of survival in your quest to get to me first, dipshits."
llm_nerd4 minutes ago
A lot of new data centres have been announced in Alberta, Canada. Which is a weird location given that Alberta has a derelict power grid that can barely serve the current load, and runs almost entirely on fossil fuels.

Meta, for instance, plans a $13B data centre in Sturgeon County.

https://www.vozpopuli.com/indux/en/alberta-approved-a-932-me...

They all plan on powering them by building massive natural gas generating stations with each. In a free for all race to destroy the environment and doom humanity (aside from your plutocrats who'll live in their bunkers). Until a week or so ago Meta still had a clean energy pledge, but finally they just abandoned that silly greenwashing lie: https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/meta-quits-clean-e...

We are basically in the end game now, and despite that weird guy running through these comments telling everyone how great everything is going to be in a hundred years, things are looking utterly grim.

vrganjabout 1 hour ago
It is insane how we're accelerating the climate catastrophe in an ideology-driven race to be king of the ashes.

Capitalism is a death cult, AI capitalism doubly so.

throwaway8741123 minutes ago
Communism dried up the third largest lake in the world just for irrigation (while starving tens of millions in the meantime).
Hikikomori15 minutes ago
We only have two options.
simianwords19 minutes ago
Climate catastrophe itself is ideology driven. The mainstream view isn't that if we increase emissions, it will lead to a literal catastrophe. Our lives will become better in 100 years with emissions or without.

I would urge you to stop spreading misinformation about imminent catastrophe unless we reduce emissions. Catastrophe meaning our lives would be even worse in the future than now.

vrganj15 minutes ago
Europe is burning, rivers are at all time lows, new temperature records ar being set every year, oceans are rising and you have the gall to demand we ignore the obvious?
simianwords12 minutes ago
Please share numbers on the predictions instead of anecdotes. You are doing the thing where you focus on specifics instead of focusing on the whole. Please share sources that show that things are overall going to get worse instead of specific cases.
Advertisement
octocop33 minutes ago
Bitcoin received a lot of backslash due to its power usage and ecological footprint. It's obvious that HN users don't have the same criticisms towards AI data centers. Maybe someone with a short position will coordinate that communication soon..
solenoid09374 minutes ago
Why is HN so absolutely terrible at understanding the scale of pollution, water consumption, etc? It is quite minuscule in real terms, but everyone here is losing their mind. Ridiculous.