3 ms·
> and we need to decarbonise It won't be used to decarbonize our economy. It will be used to further the profits of Big Tech, who are already preventing coal p
by eesmith 2y ago
> and we need to decarbonise
It won't be used to decarbonize our economy. It will be used to further the profits of Big Tech, who are already preventing coal power plants from shutting down, in their desire to feed their data centers. (Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-meta-omaha-data-centers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-me... )
This will make it harder for other sectors to switch away from fossil fuels, by raising the price of fossil-free electricity relative to planet-killing sources.
As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area.
- sofixa 2y ago> As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. Their other deals with small modular reactor companies will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life, and make it available and affordable.
- eesmith 2y ago> Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. No, it isn't. Tax corporate profits at rates we did in the 1950s, use the taxes and regulations to decarbonize, similar to how we used taxes to electrify and provide phone service. If we build out 20% new non-fossil energy sources, and all of its goes to data centers, then we haven't decarbonized our economy in any ecologically meaningful way. > will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life And if it doesn't, we are 10-15 years later with even more CO2 in the air. This is a Hail Mary by companies afraid to suffer from the consequences of their pollution.