5 ms·

I agree but reducing consumption or increase of efficiency are still very important aspects of the energy transition. What is not consumed does not need to be g

I agree but reducing consumption or increase of efficiency are still very important aspects of the energy transition. What is not consumed does not need to be generated.

adrianN 1y ago
Yeah, but pricing signals are a good way of reaching those goals.
Scarblac 1y ago
Businesses will only start doing that in significant amounts when carbon emissions are priced according to their environmental impact.
Lerc 1y ago
I don't think it a given that reducing energy consumption is a required part of the transition. Increasing demand can lead to stimulus of green energy production.
- Uehreka 1y ago
  There’s no rule that increased demand will necessarily stimulate green energy production, only that it will stimulate energy production. And getting people to care about climate gets tougher, not easier, when energy demand goes up.
0_____0 1y ago
Sometimes I see chatter about using solar or nuclear or whatever power for data centers, thereby making them "clean," and it's frustrating that there isn't always the acknowledgement that the clean energy could displace other dirty generation. Even with things like orphaned natural gas that gets flared otherwise - rescuing the energy is great but we could use it for many things, not just LLMs or bitcoin mining!
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > the clean energy could displace other dirty generation. If you would have built 10GW of solar or nuclear to replace other generation and instead the data center operators provide funding to build 20GW so that 10GW can go to data centers, the alternative wasn't replacing any of the other dirty generation. And the economies of scale may give the non-carbon alternatives a better cost advantage so you can build even more.
  - 0_____0 1y ago
    If this scenario relies on DC operators to give away money, I doubt it could ever seriously represent the bulk of what the industry is doing.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      Who is giving away money? They're paying to build power plants because it's cheaper than buying power from the grid.
nostrademons 1y ago
If you internalize emissions costs into the price of electricity, reduced consumption will happen naturally. Precisely nobody likes higher energy bills, so there's a natural incentive to reduce consumption as long as you're paying for it.
- delusional 1y ago
  "internalizing emissions" is the kind of thing that's really easy to say, even conceptualize, but really difficult to implement. You could do it better than we are doing now, but you'll always have people saying: "that's unfair, why are you picking on me"
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    Even pricing CO2 output from burning fossil gas, plus a % for upstream leaks, and the same for car combustion will go a long way. Mind you people won't like that since we're so used to using the atmosphere as a free sewer. The idea of having to pay for our pollution isn't palatable since the gasses are mostly invisible. Though it's sad that we're talking about market solutions rather than outright bans for the majority of applications like we did for leaded gas.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      Outright bans are a non-starter because it requires an infrastructure transition. You couldn't possibly replace every car with an electric one overnight, we can't make them that fast. But if you price carbon then it would cause every new car to be electric, or at least a plug-in hybrid that runs in electric mode 95% of the time. And the people who drive a lot of miles would switch to electric first, which would make a big difference right away. Meanwhile the people with a 10 year old car they drive 5000 miles a year will keep it until it's a 20 year old car, at which point they'll buy another 10 year old car, but by then that one will run on electricity. Then you could theoretically ban it, but by then do you even need to?
      - 1y ago
oezi 1y ago
In some markets this might be right but in others it isn't. For instance, if you have CO2 certificates associated with a product then not buying it won't change emissions. It will make the price of certificates cheaper for everyone else and lead to other consumption elsewhere.
designerarvid 1y ago
Pricing is a good way to steer in this direction. We would have more salad waste if salad was free to bring home from the supermarket I’m sure.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
True, but if data centers were exclusively built along places like the Columbia River, as an example, that energy, even excess energy, is practically free once you have the hydro-electric plant. I guess the same is true for solar, wind — any power generated that does not require consumables. Rivers gotta run, suns gotta shine, winds gotta blow.

I agree but reducing consumption or increase of efficiency are still very important aspects of the energy transition. What is not consumed does not need to be generated.

adrianN 1y ago

Yeah, but pricing signals are a good way of reaching those goals.

Scarblac 1y ago

Businesses will only start doing that in significant amounts when carbon emissions are priced according to their environmental impact.

Lerc 1y ago

I don't think it a given that reducing energy consumption is a required part of the transition. Increasing demand can lead to stimulus of green energy production.

Uehreka 1y ago
There’s no rule that increased demand will necessarily stimulate green energy production, only that it will stimulate energy production. And getting people to care about climate gets tougher, not easier, when energy demand goes up.

0_____0 1y ago

Sometimes I see chatter about using solar or nuclear or whatever power for data centers, thereby making them "clean," and it's frustrating that there isn't always the acknowledgement that the clean energy could displace other dirty generation. Even with things like orphaned natural gas that gets flared otherwise - rescuing the energy is great but we could use it for many things, not just LLMs or bitcoin mining!

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> the clean energy could displace other dirty generation. If you would have built 10GW of solar or nuclear to replace other generation and instead the data center operators provide funding to build 20GW so that 10GW can go to data centers, the alternative wasn't replacing any of the other dirty generation. And the economies of scale may give the non-carbon alternatives a better cost advantage so you can build even more.
- 0_____0 1y ago
  If this scenario relies on DC operators to give away money, I doubt it could ever seriously represent the bulk of what the industry is doing.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Who is giving away money? They're paying to build power plants because it's cheaper than buying power from the grid.

nostrademons 1y ago

If you internalize emissions costs into the price of electricity, reduced consumption will happen naturally. Precisely nobody likes higher energy bills, so there's a natural incentive to reduce consumption as long as you're paying for it.

delusional 1y ago
"internalizing emissions" is the kind of thing that's really easy to say, even conceptualize, but really difficult to implement. You could do it better than we are doing now, but you'll always have people saying: "that's unfair, why are you picking on me"
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  Even pricing CO2 output from burning fossil gas, plus a % for upstream leaks, and the same for car combustion will go a long way. Mind you people won't like that since we're so used to using the atmosphere as a free sewer. The idea of having to pay for our pollution isn't palatable since the gasses are mostly invisible. Though it's sad that we're talking about market solutions rather than outright bans for the majority of applications like we did for leaded gas.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Outright bans are a non-starter because it requires an infrastructure transition. You couldn't possibly replace every car with an electric one overnight, we can't make them that fast. But if you price carbon then it would cause every new car to be electric, or at least a plug-in hybrid that runs in electric mode 95% of the time. And the people who drive a lot of miles would switch to electric first, which would make a big difference right away. Meanwhile the people with a 10 year old car they drive 5000 miles a year will keep it until it's a 20 year old car, at which point they'll buy another 10 year old car, but by then that one will run on electricity. Then you could theoretically ban it, but by then do you even need to?
    - 1y ago

oezi 1y ago

In some markets this might be right but in others it isn't. For instance, if you have CO2 certificates associated with a product then not buying it won't change emissions. It will make the price of certificates cheaper for everyone else and lead to other consumption elsewhere.

designerarvid 1y ago

Pricing is a good way to steer in this direction. We would have more salad waste if salad was free to bring home from the supermarket I’m sure.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

True, but if data centers were exclusively built along places like the Columbia River, as an example, that energy, even excess energy, is practically free once you have the hydro-electric plant. I guess the same is true for solar, wind — any power generated that does not require consumables. Rivers gotta run, suns gotta shine, winds gotta blow.