4 ms·

There's a surge in data centre building - a massive surge of power hungry hungry hyper scaled hippos. Many local grids are currently unable to meet that demand

by defrost 2mo ago

There's a surge in data centre building - a massive surge of power hungry hungry hyper scaled hippos. Many local grids are currently unable to meet that demand, therefore various "solutions" so far include: * buying up jet engines from COVID era bankrupted / downsized air fleets and running them continuously in banks along side data centres to spin generators. You'll note these aren't the cleanest solution, are a bit noisy, and not renewable. * building a data centre AND and onsite LNG gas extraction facility to directly on site gas supply and derived electrical power. This one is expected to be the single largest CO2 source in mainland USofA (or some similar stat, it was recent news). So these are fossil fuel polluting sources that are directly attached to specific data centres and not being used for non data centre purposes.

Gormo 2mo ago
So it seems like confirmation that this really is a case of disingenuous conflation of power-generation concerns with data centers per se. I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers" any more than concerns about, using the same jet engines to power charging stations in remote areas would, for example, amount to "opposition to EVs".
- defrost 2mo ago
  > I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers" Clearly you don't. For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory and GPU resources to the detriment of the commons.
  - Gormo 2mo ago
    > Clearly you don't. Obviously, since I'm the one discussing it here. The broader question is whether the people who are conflating them together are doing so out of honest confusion or out of ulterior motives. > For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory and GPU resources to the detriment of the commons. This seems like a hodgepodge of concerns that are all quite distinct from each other. None of them is necessarily invalid in its own right, but lumping them all together and treating them as irresolvable problems in order to oppose data centers per se -- rather than issues that can and should be mitigated independently of anything related to AI -- seems to be disingenuous.
    - gopher_space 2mo ago
      The people presenting these different concerns are all individuals with their own agendas. You're the person lumping them all into one confusing mass so you don't have to deal with each viewpoint. When people are assholes across multiple domains they get pushback from each of them. This isn't emergent behavior, it's emergent consequences.
      - Gormo 2mo ago
        > You're the person lumping them all into one confusing mass so you don't have to deal with each viewpoint. Rather, I was responding to the comment that did explicitly lump all of these concerns together in a single sentence that was trying to explain and/or justify opposition to AI per se, in a thread that originated from merely discussing how it makes sense to attribute pollution to data centers, without bringing up those other concerns. > When people are assholes across multiple domains they get pushback from each of them. This isn't emergent behavior, it's emergent consequences. That's true. But the issues are about neither about people being assholes, nor people giving pushback, but rather addressing legitimate concerns, each within its own domain. The fact that some of the people involved are assholes makes it more likely, not less so, that opposition is originating from emotional rather than objective factors, and makes it more necessary to disentangle the issues from each other and deal with them each appropriately.
    - goatlover 2mo ago
      Ask the people living near them what their agenda is regarding the different issues they're dealing with.
      - Gormo 2mo ago
        Which ones? The people living near the thousands of data centers that have already been running for decades, the people living near the sites of proposed data centers that include plans for repurposed jet engines to run continuously to power them, or the people living near the sites of proposed data centers that plan to be powered normally in ways that don't generating any localized pollution? I'd expect the different issues involved in each of these distinct scenarios to be, well, different. And it doesn't quite make sense that someone living near the proposed site of a normal data center would oppose that project on account of some other project proposal, from someplace else, including something outlandish.

by defrost 2mo ago

Gormo 2mo ago

So it seems like confirmation that this really is a case of disingenuous conflation of power-generation concerns with data centers per se. I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers" any more than concerns about, using the same jet engines to power charging stations in remote areas would, for example, amount to "opposition to EVs".

defrost 2mo ago
> I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers" Clearly you don't. For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory and GPU resources to the detriment of the commons.
- Gormo 2mo ago
  > Clearly you don't. Obviously, since I'm the one discussing it here. The broader question is whether the people who are conflating them together are doing so out of honest confusion or out of ulterior motives. > For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory and GPU resources to the detriment of the commons. This seems like a hodgepodge of concerns that are all quite distinct from each other. None of them is necessarily invalid in its own right, but lumping them all together and treating them as irresolvable problems in order to oppose data centers per se -- rather than issues that can and should be mitigated independently of anything related to AI -- seems to be disingenuous.
  - gopher_space 2mo ago
    The people presenting these different concerns are all individuals with their own agendas. You're the person lumping them all into one confusing mass so you don't have to deal with each viewpoint. When people are assholes across multiple domains they get pushback from each of them. This isn't emergent behavior, it's emergent consequences.
    - Gormo 2mo ago
      > You're the person lumping them all into one confusing mass so you don't have to deal with each viewpoint. Rather, I was responding to the comment that did explicitly lump all of these concerns together in a single sentence that was trying to explain and/or justify opposition to AI per se, in a thread that originated from merely discussing how it makes sense to attribute pollution to data centers, without bringing up those other concerns. > When people are assholes across multiple domains they get pushback from each of them. This isn't emergent behavior, it's emergent consequences. That's true. But the issues are about neither about people being assholes, nor people giving pushback, but rather addressing legitimate concerns, each within its own domain. The fact that some of the people involved are assholes makes it more likely, not less so, that opposition is originating from emotional rather than objective factors, and makes it more necessary to disentangle the issues from each other and deal with them each appropriately.
  - goatlover 2mo ago
    Ask the people living near them what their agenda is regarding the different issues they're dealing with.
    - Gormo 2mo ago
      Which ones? The people living near the thousands of data centers that have already been running for decades, the people living near the sites of proposed data centers that include plans for repurposed jet engines to run continuously to power them, or the people living near the sites of proposed data centers that plan to be powered normally in ways that don't generating any localized pollution? I'd expect the different issues involved in each of these distinct scenarios to be, well, different. And it doesn't quite make sense that someone living near the proposed site of a normal data center would oppose that project on account of some other project proposal, from someplace else, including something outlandish.