4 ms·

What an absolute ecological disaster. If bubble there is, now would be a great time for it to pop.

trhway 4mo ago
Alternatively the crisis can be used to accelerate right development - quickly build up solar farms and transmission lines. Both of these can be done quickly if there were a political will. Yet, that will is missing. So, we're talking 40GW. Lets see what China does: https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-trends-march-2026-snapshot/ https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-tre... "In the first two months of 2026, China added: 32.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity, down 18% from last year. 11 GW of wind power capacity, up 19% from last year. 20 GW of thermal power capacity, up 414% from last year. 1.2 GW of hydro power capacity, down 36% from last year. 1.2 GW of nuclear power capacity. " Edit: to the proponents of nuclear - i think nuclear is very damaging to society as it promotes corrupt crony-government capitalism instead of market forces.
- PunchyHamster 4mo ago
  solar farms are worst kind of power source for constant loads like datacenters running AI training
  - spacington 4mo ago
    Solar power still can take a certain amount of load from any other source and saving money and CO2 while doing so. And grid battery works and is cheap enough now.
  - actionfromafar 4mo ago
    That's why we are getting clean, beautiful coal the likes of which nobodys ever seen before!
  - alex_duf 4mo ago
    I'm hoping the kind of gas turbines being installed on these datacenters are capable of quickly responding to a load change, meaning the primary source of energy could be solar during the day and complement when there isn't enough energy. But I haven't looked into where these datacenter are being placed, I'm assuming that although solar is cheap now, the surface needed would make the purchase of nearby land probably not worth it. These new categories of datacenters are becoming very energy dense...
  - trhway 4mo ago
    you're just incorrect. You probably missed 2 points : - battery storage - and in the article "However, AI labs and some hyperscalers have relaxed those requirements as there is now a lower uptime tolerance applied to both inference and training, not just training. Many of Meta’s self-built AI datacenters, for example, target just two nines of uptime and forgo backup generators entirely, as detailed in our Industrials Model."
  - numpad0 4mo ago
    but you can't trust especially hyperscalers with securely sealed HEUs in shipping containers
  - adornKey 4mo ago
    Why? Unlike loads involving a real physical process there is absolutely no need for AI-training to be constant.
    - pu_pe 4mo ago
      If you invest into chips that deprecate in value really fast, not utilizing them to their full capacity because of power constraints would be counter productive.
    - everfrustrated 4mo ago
      You are correct in the sense that they can stop work in a way many generic server use cases can't (which is seen in lowering power supply reliability requirements as the article mentions), but running expensive servers at 50% utilization would dramatically affect the revenue generated per capital invested - IE you couldn't afford to buy the servers.
      - ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
        If it just costs more, similar to how it's possible to have a low water use datacenter, then in a perfect spherical cow economic universe then the lower cost option is better. In the real world you'd need to add some cost to account for the externalities on water and GHG. Do the numbers still work out for the gas powered plant? If not then you're just exploiting unaccounted for externalities.
- clarionbell 4mo ago
  I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources. In Europe, we approach energy generation as a political, or climate problem. We are building solar and wind power sources, not to make energy cheaper, or to make grid more resilient, but to fulfill an ideological goal. The results are, not great, to be honest. The energy prices have increased substantially, and are now driving our chemical industry bankrupt. Edit: I do not dispute the climate change. I am only highlighting impacts of current policy.
  - trhway 4mo ago
    >I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources. yes, they don't seem to fall for the "solar is unstable" trap and recognize new reality - the solar + wind smoothed by nuclear/gas is the new baseline To the comment on the coal below : not really. You don't need that much as a smoothing capacity.
    - boelboel 4mo ago
      You mean + coal, they don't have a meaningful amount of nuclear (just under 5% of electricity mix and 2% of energy). 50% of electricity is coal.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - toast0 4mo ago
    China is building all types of generation because they are rapidly growing their electric network (generation doubled from 2014 to 2024). Europe's generation is roughly flat during the same period. It doesn't make sense to build a lot of everything in a system without growth in generation. Replacing decommisioned generators would be enough. Growth in solar and wind generation (for ideological or economic reasons) means there's less reason to build new capacity of other types. There's complications there with firm vs intermittent capacity, but that's a different discussion. US electrical generation was also flat from 2000 to 2020, but seems to be growing again since then, but not anywhere near China's growth rate.
- spacington 4mo ago
  Yeah and the richest person on the planet with full vertical integration (with partner) Elon musk and Tesla aka solar roof and power wall wants to sell DC in space and hasn't fixed any use of gas turbine for Colossus 1&2. Without enforcement it will happen continuously with snail pace
- cloudie78 4mo ago
  Right off the top of my head, to power a 500MW Datacenter we need: 2.2-2.5 GWdc solar capacity which at 600W/panel amounts to 14-17sq mi plus additional 8-12GWh of storage to deal with nighttime, two-three days of cloud cover is not going to work with these numbers. Ballpark 5-7BN$ Nuclear otoh, 1GW continuous - gives constant power, badly managed first of a kind (or first one after decades) build will be at around 10-15BN and that’ll cover two 500MW data centres. There’s also the second/third degree order effects nuclear power stations have of creating jobs and industrial manufacturing demand. To run a nuclear power station you need to employ 1000 people (engineers plus support staff) - that’s a small town’s worth of adults. So you’ll need a town with a school, hospitals, stores - those need staffing as well. Unfortunately building nuclear is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning. So gas turbines it is at around ~1BN$
  - psd1 4mo ago
    > is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning HN arguing in favour of a planned economy - see, we aren't free-market cultists!
- stouset 4mo ago
  If we build a terawatt of green energy capacity then turn around and immediately use it for datacenters rather than to replace fossil fuel generation, we haven’t gained anything. If anything we’ve lost out.
  - polski-g 4mo ago
    You gained the datacenter, which is providing a highly desired service... Are you European?
    - stouset 4mo ago
      Personally I prefer a livable climate and affordable power over yet another datacenter for AI or mining crypto.
- leonidasrup 4mo ago
  Proponents of solar power always like to equate 1 GW of solar power capacity with 1 GW of wind power capacity or 1 GW of thermal power capacity, ignoring capacity factors, ignoring need for reliable backup. Sometimes they ignore the transportation costs, as for example: capital costs for transporting 1 GW of electricity over 1,000 km using High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology costs more then the 1 GW peak solar power plant attached to the power line. China builds everything solar, coal, wind, hydro, nuclear. So if you want follow the example of China, then you have to, like China, build everything and don't just pick one part of Chinas energy strategy. Also I would not present China as an example of market capitalism, they have a very strong government capitalism. Probably the strongest government capitalism in the world.
marcyb5st 4mo ago
And especially terrible for the communities that have to live with gas turbines or other local power generators as neighbors. Noise and air pollution constantly [1]. But fuck them, they are poor people so we don't care about them /s . Additionally, people against data centers are accused of being paid by China [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/13/elon-musk-xai-datacenters-air-pollution-mississippi https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/13/elon-mus... [2] https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/kevin-oleary-trump-administration-china-data-center-sentiment-ai/ https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/kevin-oleary-trump-administra...
- trhway 4mo ago
  you can't put an ADU, yet, you can put in 200MW generating capacity.
- everfrustrated 4mo ago
  It wasn't long ago that every city had a coal power station right in the center of it. Things aren't nearly as bad as you suggest.
  - expedition32 4mo ago
    It's called progress. People like clean air and rivers that don't glow. Sacrificing it all for making tech bros richer seems like a ridiculously bad play.
  - marcyb5st 4mo ago
    Let's go back to have open air sewers while we are at it. I mean, if the goal is to bring back stuff that lowered life expectancy and reduce 50+ years of progress, I don't see why not. I really believe that as arguments go, yours is truly terrible. Additionally, you proved my point that the majority really doesn't care about the folks whose quality of life worsen because someone built a datacenter close to their homes. Or the fact that turbines still pollute the air with NOx emissions (which cause lung cancer and other respiratory problems). You are basically saying that it is not so bad, but (I guess) it is because you aren't close to a datacenter not depending on the grid. And I trust more hearing about live accounts of people being affected, than a "trust me bro, it is not as bad". Are the accounts cherry-picked? Maybe, but they are also supported by videos that substantiate what they are saying.
logicchains 4mo ago
By that logic almost any kind of economic development is an ecological disaster because it uses power.
- everfrustrated 4mo ago
  Welcome to European thought
- alex_duf 4mo ago
  Economic development is great and I'm all for it, but it shouldn't be done at any cost. I quite like our atmosphere, ideally with less than 400ppm of CO2. We're finally seeing signs of economic development decoupling from primary energy consumption, there are positive signs. I find that it's just a shame to be so close to energy abundance - through renewables - to only be set back by the installation of "temporary" gas turbines. The economic incentive is so great that delaying the datacenters in order to power them cleanly isn't even considered: there's no incentive to do so. This may sound a little alarmist, but if it's GW of capacity in 2028, it's TW in the mid 30s. I'd much rather live in a heavily compute-constrained world for the next 5 years or so than in a world that keeps increasing its gas consumption. There's just no way to force our incentive to align with preserving our climate, and it's making me extremely depressed. By your logic we shouldn't question any development, at any cost, including if it contributes to making our world uninhabitable for billions of people within our life's timescale?
rapsey 4mo ago
This is a defeatist EU attitude that leads to the worse outcomes. Expensive power and a failing economy. There is money now for a huge investment boom, which is what is happening in the US and China. With EU failing completely.
- logicchains 4mo ago
  >There is money now for a huge investment boom Not in western Europe, because they spent almost all their excess economic output over the past few decades on welfare/transfer payments.
  - rapsey 4mo ago
    That was my point. We in the EU are destroying ourselves. The US is racing ahead and investing in all kinds of power generation technologies.
    - everfrustrated 4mo ago
      The difference is Europeans expect government to "fix" things. Americans expect companies to do that. Eg, the disastrous energy policies all across Europe which have made price of energy insanely high with no hope of ever coming down (these high prices are all locked in with long term contracts). America just builds lots of new power. Because of fewer market distorting policies the new power comes online at cheaper marginal rates so the price doesn't go up. And now Texas has some of the greener and cheapest energy in the West.
      - ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
        Texas's CO2 per KWh of electricity (which is roughly equal to the US as a whole) at about 330 is equidistant between China's (470) and EU's (190) it is not close to the greenest in the West.
      - leonidasrup 4mo ago
        America has a lot of cheap fracking gas. Europe imports this gas from US in form of LNG at much higher prices. The Russian gas is cheaper, but paid by Ukrainian blood.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
Tade0 4mo ago
As an (eastern) European this is to me a greater concern than the Russian invasion in terms of availability of gas for the winter, considering how so many of those places run on gas turbines. Putin only has a certain amount of the resource on tap and sells it to someone eventually. Meanwhile data centers will eat up whatever you throw at them at any price, especially that in principle they don't need to be connected to the grid, so I imagine setting up their power supply must take months at the longest.
- rapsey 4mo ago
  The US has incredible gas reserves. Much more that can be exported with ships.
  - Tade0 4mo ago
    The issue is with the price - why bother shipping LNG half the planet when one can just sell it at a significant markup domestically? When the price is right all kinds of contracts and agreements are usually thrown out the window - especially if the penalties are small enough to make it worth it.
    - rapsey 4mo ago
      No they can not sell it with a markup domestically. LNG price is much higher.
      - Tade0 4mo ago
        That's the point - a huge part of the cost of LNG is the "L". Way easier to just sell it closer to home and not bother with transporting it in a tanker which has to return empty. Demand is clearly there and not somewhere else.
        rapsey 3mo ago
        Supply domestically outstrips demand, so no they can not sell it locally at that price. The US did not spend billions building LNG terminals for nothing.

Alternatively the crisis can be used to accelerate right development - quickly build up solar farms and transmission lines. Both of these can be done quickly if there were a political will. Yet, that will is missing. So, we're talking 40GW. Lets see what China does: https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-trends-march-2026-snapshot/ https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-tre... "In the first two months of 2026, China added: 32.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity, down 18% from last year. 11 GW of wind power capacity, up 19% from last year. 20 GW of thermal power capacity, up 414% from last year. 1.2 GW of hydro power capacity, down 36% from last year. 1.2 GW of nuclear power capacity. " Edit: to the proponents of nuclear - i think nuclear is very damaging to society as it promotes corrupt crony-government capitalism instead of market forces.

PunchyHamster 4mo ago
solar farms are worst kind of power source for constant loads like datacenters running AI training
- spacington 4mo ago
  Solar power still can take a certain amount of load from any other source and saving money and CO2 while doing so. And grid battery works and is cheap enough now.
- actionfromafar 4mo ago
  That's why we are getting clean, beautiful coal the likes of which nobodys ever seen before!
- alex_duf 4mo ago
  I'm hoping the kind of gas turbines being installed on these datacenters are capable of quickly responding to a load change, meaning the primary source of energy could be solar during the day and complement when there isn't enough energy. But I haven't looked into where these datacenter are being placed, I'm assuming that although solar is cheap now, the surface needed would make the purchase of nearby land probably not worth it. These new categories of datacenters are becoming very energy dense...
- trhway 4mo ago
  you're just incorrect. You probably missed 2 points : - battery storage - and in the article "However, AI labs and some hyperscalers have relaxed those requirements as there is now a lower uptime tolerance applied to both inference and training, not just training. Many of Meta’s self-built AI datacenters, for example, target just two nines of uptime and forgo backup generators entirely, as detailed in our Industrials Model."
- numpad0 4mo ago
  but you can't trust especially hyperscalers with securely sealed HEUs in shipping containers
- adornKey 4mo ago
  Why? Unlike loads involving a real physical process there is absolutely no need for AI-training to be constant.
  - pu_pe 4mo ago
    If you invest into chips that deprecate in value really fast, not utilizing them to their full capacity because of power constraints would be counter productive.
  - everfrustrated 4mo ago
    You are correct in the sense that they can stop work in a way many generic server use cases can't (which is seen in lowering power supply reliability requirements as the article mentions), but running expensive servers at 50% utilization would dramatically affect the revenue generated per capital invested - IE you couldn't afford to buy the servers.
    - ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
      If it just costs more, similar to how it's possible to have a low water use datacenter, then in a perfect spherical cow economic universe then the lower cost option is better. In the real world you'd need to add some cost to account for the externalities on water and GHG. Do the numbers still work out for the gas powered plant? If not then you're just exploiting unaccounted for externalities.
clarionbell 4mo ago
I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources. In Europe, we approach energy generation as a political, or climate problem. We are building solar and wind power sources, not to make energy cheaper, or to make grid more resilient, but to fulfill an ideological goal. The results are, not great, to be honest. The energy prices have increased substantially, and are now driving our chemical industry bankrupt. Edit: I do not dispute the climate change. I am only highlighting impacts of current policy.
- trhway 4mo ago
  >I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources. yes, they don't seem to fall for the "solar is unstable" trap and recognize new reality - the solar + wind smoothed by nuclear/gas is the new baseline To the comment on the coal below : not really. You don't need that much as a smoothing capacity.
  - boelboel 4mo ago
    You mean + coal, they don't have a meaningful amount of nuclear (just under 5% of electricity mix and 2% of energy). 50% of electricity is coal.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- toast0 4mo ago
  China is building all types of generation because they are rapidly growing their electric network (generation doubled from 2014 to 2024). Europe's generation is roughly flat during the same period. It doesn't make sense to build a lot of everything in a system without growth in generation. Replacing decommisioned generators would be enough. Growth in solar and wind generation (for ideological or economic reasons) means there's less reason to build new capacity of other types. There's complications there with firm vs intermittent capacity, but that's a different discussion. US electrical generation was also flat from 2000 to 2020, but seems to be growing again since then, but not anywhere near China's growth rate.
spacington 4mo ago
Yeah and the richest person on the planet with full vertical integration (with partner) Elon musk and Tesla aka solar roof and power wall wants to sell DC in space and hasn't fixed any use of gas turbine for Colossus 1&2. Without enforcement it will happen continuously with snail pace
cloudie78 4mo ago
Right off the top of my head, to power a 500MW Datacenter we need: 2.2-2.5 GWdc solar capacity which at 600W/panel amounts to 14-17sq mi plus additional 8-12GWh of storage to deal with nighttime, two-three days of cloud cover is not going to work with these numbers. Ballpark 5-7BN$ Nuclear otoh, 1GW continuous - gives constant power, badly managed first of a kind (or first one after decades) build will be at around 10-15BN and that’ll cover two 500MW data centres. There’s also the second/third degree order effects nuclear power stations have of creating jobs and industrial manufacturing demand. To run a nuclear power station you need to employ 1000 people (engineers plus support staff) - that’s a small town’s worth of adults. So you’ll need a town with a school, hospitals, stores - those need staffing as well. Unfortunately building nuclear is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning. So gas turbines it is at around ~1BN$
- psd1 4mo ago
  > is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning HN arguing in favour of a planned economy - see, we aren't free-market cultists!
stouset 4mo ago
If we build a terawatt of green energy capacity then turn around and immediately use it for datacenters rather than to replace fossil fuel generation, we haven’t gained anything. If anything we’ve lost out.
- polski-g 4mo ago
  You gained the datacenter, which is providing a highly desired service... Are you European?
  - stouset 4mo ago
    Personally I prefer a livable climate and affordable power over yet another datacenter for AI or mining crypto.
leonidasrup 4mo ago
Proponents of solar power always like to equate 1 GW of solar power capacity with 1 GW of wind power capacity or 1 GW of thermal power capacity, ignoring capacity factors, ignoring need for reliable backup. Sometimes they ignore the transportation costs, as for example: capital costs for transporting 1 GW of electricity over 1,000 km using High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology costs more then the 1 GW peak solar power plant attached to the power line. China builds everything solar, coal, wind, hydro, nuclear. So if you want follow the example of China, then you have to, like China, build everything and don't just pick one part of Chinas energy strategy. Also I would not present China as an example of market capitalism, they have a very strong government capitalism. Probably the strongest government capitalism in the world.

marcyb5st 4mo ago

And especially terrible for the communities that have to live with gas turbines or other local power generators as neighbors. Noise and air pollution constantly [1]. But fuck them, they are poor people so we don't care about them /s . Additionally, people against data centers are accused of being paid by China [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/13/elon-musk-xai-datacenters-air-pollution-mississippi https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/13/elon-mus... [2] https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/kevin-oleary-trump-administration-china-data-center-sentiment-ai/ https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/kevin-oleary-trump-administra...

trhway 4mo ago
you can't put an ADU, yet, you can put in 200MW generating capacity.
everfrustrated 4mo ago
It wasn't long ago that every city had a coal power station right in the center of it. Things aren't nearly as bad as you suggest.
- expedition32 4mo ago
  It's called progress. People like clean air and rivers that don't glow. Sacrificing it all for making tech bros richer seems like a ridiculously bad play.
- marcyb5st 4mo ago
  Let's go back to have open air sewers while we are at it. I mean, if the goal is to bring back stuff that lowered life expectancy and reduce 50+ years of progress, I don't see why not. I really believe that as arguments go, yours is truly terrible. Additionally, you proved my point that the majority really doesn't care about the folks whose quality of life worsen because someone built a datacenter close to their homes. Or the fact that turbines still pollute the air with NOx emissions (which cause lung cancer and other respiratory problems). You are basically saying that it is not so bad, but (I guess) it is because you aren't close to a datacenter not depending on the grid. And I trust more hearing about live accounts of people being affected, than a "trust me bro, it is not as bad". Are the accounts cherry-picked? Maybe, but they are also supported by videos that substantiate what they are saying.

logicchains 4mo ago

By that logic almost any kind of economic development is an ecological disaster because it uses power.

everfrustrated 4mo ago
Welcome to European thought
alex_duf 4mo ago
Economic development is great and I'm all for it, but it shouldn't be done at any cost. I quite like our atmosphere, ideally with less than 400ppm of CO2. We're finally seeing signs of economic development decoupling from primary energy consumption, there are positive signs. I find that it's just a shame to be so close to energy abundance - through renewables - to only be set back by the installation of "temporary" gas turbines. The economic incentive is so great that delaying the datacenters in order to power them cleanly isn't even considered: there's no incentive to do so. This may sound a little alarmist, but if it's GW of capacity in 2028, it's TW in the mid 30s. I'd much rather live in a heavily compute-constrained world for the next 5 years or so than in a world that keeps increasing its gas consumption. There's just no way to force our incentive to align with preserving our climate, and it's making me extremely depressed. By your logic we shouldn't question any development, at any cost, including if it contributes to making our world uninhabitable for billions of people within our life's timescale?

rapsey 4mo ago

This is a defeatist EU attitude that leads to the worse outcomes. Expensive power and a failing economy. There is money now for a huge investment boom, which is what is happening in the US and China. With EU failing completely.

logicchains 4mo ago
>There is money now for a huge investment boom Not in western Europe, because they spent almost all their excess economic output over the past few decades on welfare/transfer payments.
- rapsey 4mo ago
  That was my point. We in the EU are destroying ourselves. The US is racing ahead and investing in all kinds of power generation technologies.
  - everfrustrated 4mo ago
    The difference is Europeans expect government to "fix" things. Americans expect companies to do that. Eg, the disastrous energy policies all across Europe which have made price of energy insanely high with no hope of ever coming down (these high prices are all locked in with long term contracts). America just builds lots of new power. Because of fewer market distorting policies the new power comes online at cheaper marginal rates so the price doesn't go up. And now Texas has some of the greener and cheapest energy in the West.
    - ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
      Texas's CO2 per KWh of electricity (which is roughly equal to the US as a whole) at about 330 is equidistant between China's (470) and EU's (190) it is not close to the greenest in the West.
    - leonidasrup 4mo ago
      America has a lot of cheap fracking gas. Europe imports this gas from US in form of LNG at much higher prices. The Russian gas is cheaper, but paid by Ukrainian blood.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

Tade0 4mo ago

As an (eastern) European this is to me a greater concern than the Russian invasion in terms of availability of gas for the winter, considering how so many of those places run on gas turbines. Putin only has a certain amount of the resource on tap and sells it to someone eventually. Meanwhile data centers will eat up whatever you throw at them at any price, especially that in principle they don't need to be connected to the grid, so I imagine setting up their power supply must take months at the longest.

rapsey 4mo ago
The US has incredible gas reserves. Much more that can be exported with ships.
- Tade0 4mo ago
  The issue is with the price - why bother shipping LNG half the planet when one can just sell it at a significant markup domestically? When the price is right all kinds of contracts and agreements are usually thrown out the window - especially if the penalties are small enough to make it worth it.
  - rapsey 4mo ago
    No they can not sell it with a markup domestically. LNG price is much higher.
    - Tade0 4mo ago
      That's the point - a huge part of the cost of LNG is the "L". Way easier to just sell it closer to home and not bother with transporting it in a tanker which has to return empty. Demand is clearly there and not somewhere else.
      - rapsey 3mo ago
        Supply domestically outstrips demand, so no they can not sell it locally at that price. The US did not spend billions building LNG terminals for nothing.