3 ms·

No, I'm not saying that and I don't think 1.5% is particularly large. Moreover many of these projects are built out with on site 0 carbon generation so they're

by ch4s3 1mo ago

No, I'm not saying that and I don't think 1.5% is particularly large. Moreover many of these projects are built out with on site 0 carbon generation so they're in some ways a net benefit.

cogman10 1mo ago
The largest projects, like Box Elder County Utah and Pecos County Texas, are using fossil fuels. In fact, I'm unaware of any new AI data center also being built with 0 carbon generation. Do you have a source?
hunter-gatherer 1mo ago
This is wildly out of touch with reality. Have you never seen a construction site? A 0 carbon generation site doesn't exist.
- ch4s3 1mo ago
  You know what’s meant by that, it refers to ongoing generation emissions.
- sfn42 1mo ago
  This is so lame man. A few construction vehicles aren't why the world is burning. It's burning because we pump and dig up billions of tons of fossil fuels to burn in large scale power plants, cargo ships etc. And a bunch of other reasons of course, but the main point is we could easily run data centers and everything else includibg most if not all construction vehicles etc on renewables and nuclear if we wanted to. The problem is not that we are building more things that use electricity, the problem is that we are generating electricity using fossil fuels. We should have phased out fossil fuels decades ago yet here we are ramping it up while everyone's bickering about inconsequential bullshit like datacenters. Datacenters are not the problem. Construction is not the problem (except concrete which generates huge emissions but we can't really do much about that). Some things are infinitely easier to fix than others. Power generation is such a thing. We have the solution, we've had it for like a century (nuclear) and we're getting even more solutions. We could run all power production with hardly any fossil fuels if we really wanted, nearly all land transport could be electric. These two changes alone would eliminate the vast majority of emissions. And we can do that, it's realistically possible. We could also probably run global shipping and aviation on non-fossil fuels if we really wanted to, though I don't really know anything about that. There are large scale mining excavators, dozers and trucks running on electricity, and hybrid solutions. Stop bickering about the small stuff. The only thing we should be focused on is transitioning all electricity production to green as fast as possible. That takes care of almost half of all emissions by itself and opens up lots of opportunities for solving other problems without emissions. For example we could use green energy to produce hydrogen from water, or biogas, ethanol etc, and then we'd have emission-free fuels we could use where combustion engines are still necessary. But no let's just bicker about data centers and other inconsequential shit while the world ends.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
jamiek88 1mo ago
Link some zero carbon ones if there are ‘many’.
cdrnsf 1mo ago
Like xAI's running gas generators non-stop?
netsharc 1mo ago
Can I have 1.5% of your net worth? Ohhh, carbon neutral energy generation, if only we could use that to replace the non-neutral energy sources, instead of using it to power virtual X-Ray goggles so MAGA incels can goon at "naked Taylor Swift". Or to answer "please do my work for me" of lazy fucks planet-wide. You know, to stay relevant to the comment thread of "Oceans hit highest temperature on record"...
dgellow 1mo ago
We are already in a very bad situation regarding climate change. Do you really think we have the buffer for an increase in percentage points of energy consumption?

by ch4s3 1mo ago

No, I'm not saying that and I don't think 1.5% is particularly large. Moreover many of these projects are built out with on site 0 carbon generation so they're in some ways a net benefit.

cogman10 1mo ago

The largest projects, like Box Elder County Utah and Pecos County Texas, are using fossil fuels. In fact, I'm unaware of any new AI data center also being built with 0 carbon generation. Do you have a source?

hunter-gatherer 1mo ago

This is wildly out of touch with reality. Have you never seen a construction site? A 0 carbon generation site doesn't exist.

ch4s3 1mo ago
You know what’s meant by that, it refers to ongoing generation emissions.
sfn42 1mo ago
This is so lame man. A few construction vehicles aren't why the world is burning. It's burning because we pump and dig up billions of tons of fossil fuels to burn in large scale power plants, cargo ships etc. And a bunch of other reasons of course, but the main point is we could easily run data centers and everything else includibg most if not all construction vehicles etc on renewables and nuclear if we wanted to. The problem is not that we are building more things that use electricity, the problem is that we are generating electricity using fossil fuels. We should have phased out fossil fuels decades ago yet here we are ramping it up while everyone's bickering about inconsequential bullshit like datacenters. Datacenters are not the problem. Construction is not the problem (except concrete which generates huge emissions but we can't really do much about that). Some things are infinitely easier to fix than others. Power generation is such a thing. We have the solution, we've had it for like a century (nuclear) and we're getting even more solutions. We could run all power production with hardly any fossil fuels if we really wanted, nearly all land transport could be electric. These two changes alone would eliminate the vast majority of emissions. And we can do that, it's realistically possible. We could also probably run global shipping and aviation on non-fossil fuels if we really wanted to, though I don't really know anything about that. There are large scale mining excavators, dozers and trucks running on electricity, and hybrid solutions. Stop bickering about the small stuff. The only thing we should be focused on is transitioning all electricity production to green as fast as possible. That takes care of almost half of all emissions by itself and opens up lots of opportunities for solving other problems without emissions. For example we could use green energy to produce hydrogen from water, or biogas, ethanol etc, and then we'd have emission-free fuels we could use where combustion engines are still necessary. But no let's just bicker about data centers and other inconsequential shit while the world ends.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

jamiek88 1mo ago

Link some zero carbon ones if there are ‘many’.

cdrnsf 1mo ago

Like xAI's running gas generators non-stop?

netsharc 1mo ago

Can I have 1.5% of your net worth? Ohhh, carbon neutral energy generation, if only we could use that to replace the non-neutral energy sources, instead of using it to power virtual X-Ray goggles so MAGA incels can goon at "naked Taylor Swift". Or to answer "please do my work for me" of lazy fucks planet-wide. You know, to stay relevant to the comment thread of "Oceans hit highest temperature on record"...

dgellow 1mo ago

We are already in a very bad situation regarding climate change. Do you really think we have the buffer for an increase in percentage points of energy consumption?