5 ms·

It’s not just a feel good thing. There are real resource limits, even if someone chooses to foolishly not believe that. If you can get more done with a given le

It’s not just a feel good thing. There are real resource limits, even if someone chooses to foolishly not believe that. If you can get more done with a given level of power and other resources, you get more out of your data centers.

alex43578 19d ago
"Given level of power" is meaningless for data centers. If they can get 50MW of power, they'll obviously try to use it as efficiently as possible to generate as much compute/value. But that's not what anyone means when they're talking about sustainability for data centers in terms of power usage: they're either talking less power (ie less value) or power from renewable sources, which can't compete with sources like gas turbines across a mix of setup time, consistency, and power/$. If solar and batteries were available sooner than gas turbines, GE wouldn't have a multiyear waiting list. If solar/batteries were cheaper than gas turbines after accounting for land/permitting/maintenance, every DC would be buying the empty land next to them for an eventual switch to solar. Notably these many-million dollar investments aren't doing those things, and I guarantee you they have tried every angle imaginable to get power to the DC as quickly and cheaply as possible.
- questionableans 19d ago
  I don’t mean for one data center, I mean globally. There are resource limits to this planet, and we’ve been stretching past them in the short term, and are starting to see the long term consequences. The problem is people think “oh, it’s ok if I pollute a little more because the world is large, and the god we’ll create in our image with these machines will figure it all out for us.” That’s an unsustainable business model based on impressive technology managed by people stuck in childlike fantasies.
  - alex43578 19d ago
    It’s an unsustainable model, but you’re proposing an unenforceable guideline. China hasn’t stopped using coal because of climate concerns. The US hasn’t stopped fracking. Africa won’t stop adding another billion people. None of those things are going to change because of a potential issue, distributed across the globe 50 years from now. If it doesn’t make economic sense (at a micro or macro level), it doesn’t happen.
    - questionableans 19d ago
      Or it does make economic sense, but the people drawn to power are too deluded to understand.

alex43578 19d ago

"Given level of power" is meaningless for data centers. If they can get 50MW of power, they'll obviously try to use it as efficiently as possible to generate as much compute/value. But that's not what anyone means when they're talking about sustainability for data centers in terms of power usage: they're either talking less power (ie less value) or power from renewable sources, which can't compete with sources like gas turbines across a mix of setup time, consistency, and power/$. If solar and batteries were available sooner than gas turbines, GE wouldn't have a multiyear waiting list. If solar/batteries were cheaper than gas turbines after accounting for land/permitting/maintenance, every DC would be buying the empty land next to them for an eventual switch to solar. Notably these many-million dollar investments aren't doing those things, and I guarantee you they have tried every angle imaginable to get power to the DC as quickly and cheaply as possible.

questionableans 19d ago
I don’t mean for one data center, I mean globally. There are resource limits to this planet, and we’ve been stretching past them in the short term, and are starting to see the long term consequences. The problem is people think “oh, it’s ok if I pollute a little more because the world is large, and the god we’ll create in our image with these machines will figure it all out for us.” That’s an unsustainable business model based on impressive technology managed by people stuck in childlike fantasies.
- alex43578 19d ago
  It’s an unsustainable model, but you’re proposing an unenforceable guideline. China hasn’t stopped using coal because of climate concerns. The US hasn’t stopped fracking. Africa won’t stop adding another billion people. None of those things are going to change because of a potential issue, distributed across the globe 50 years from now. If it doesn’t make economic sense (at a micro or macro level), it doesn’t happen.
  - questionableans 19d ago
    Or it does make economic sense, but the people drawn to power are too deluded to understand.