3 ms·
It's a useful stepping stone, and probably better for the environment than not doing it, but ultimately the emissions still happen. The sad reality is that in s
by danpalmer 2y ago
It's a useful stepping stone, and probably better for the environment than not doing it, but ultimately the emissions still happen. The sad reality is that in some areas there is no emissions free energy to buy no matter how much you want to. Some would say not to put datacenters there, but if there are customers wanting them I understand why companies do it (even if I don't agree).
- Arnt 2y agoWell… the emissions happen so long as someone else wants to buy fossil power, but you can hardly blame the DC company for some other company wanting to buy fossil power. In the case where I came across it, the problem was contractual. Only one vendor could supply power to that site. So by applying that hack, ① new renewable energy generation was built ② a conventional power plant lost a contract with Otherco and ③ another conventional plant gained a contract of the same size. After a while the contractual problem was solved. IMO it doens't make sense to choose site based on something as flimsy as a contract. Contracts are changeable on a timescale of months or years, buildings last longer.
- blueflow 2y agoIf the emissions still happen, its not useful in doing anything for the climate.
- Arnt 2y agoWhat are "the emissions" in your sentence? When a new server boots in such a DC, the increased power usage is matched by increased regenerative power generation, so what are "the emissions" that "still happen"?
- blueflow 2y ago> and buy fossil power in Seattle.
- dialup_sounds 2y agoThis is offset by the amount of fossil power you replaced in Kansas by selling the clean power you purchased there. The net emissions are zero.
- blueflow 2y agoThe "net emissions" are zero because "having 1 fossil plant running somewhere" is your baseline. You only move the location of that plant around.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIf you buy solar credits from KC to use in Seattle, you've increased the solar generation in KC without affecting demand in KC. This will idle one plant's worth of fossil generation in KC. In Seattle, you're buying one plant's worth of additional power. In Seattle excess demand is generally met by buying Hydro from BC, but let's assume worst case and it spins up previously-idle fossil. So in KC you're +1 solar, -1 fossil. In Seattle you're +1 fossil. Net: +1 solar.
- Arnt 2y agoRight — this only works because someone else wants to buy fossil power. If no one wanted to buy fossil power this would stop working. But if/when we get that far, there shouldn't any need for hacks like this.
- dialup_sounds 2y agoNo, there are two consumers, the baseline is two units of fossil energy. The clean energy you're paying for is still being used by someone in lieu of more fossil energy. It doesn't just disappear.
- Arnt 2y agoAnd sell elsewhere. The CO₂ doesn't stay in place very long, so it doesn't really make a difference when you move emissions from one place to another. If we had a world without wind it would be different, but we do have wind on this planet.