Hacker News

points by cmarschner 1 day ago | 0 comments

We can’t build out data centers that are not running on renewable energy. It’s too critical to get global warming under control, and the AI build-out is going in the opposite direction of where we need to be heading, and at a huge scale.

It’s just greediness unhinged by lack of policies. And the voters have finally had a say.

[–] mbreese 18 hours ago

You’re making the wrong argument. Making a pitch for renewable energy-powered data centers shouldn’t be about the environmental impact. If you do that you’ll only convince people who already agree with you.

I think you’ll have better luck by arguing the economics and cost predictability. Not everyplace has a natural gas field next door, and in those places you’ll have a compelling argument.

But I’m not entirely convinced that all of the anti-data center voter backlash was about the physical infrastructure and power usage. I think a large fraction was general anti AI sentiment. And you’ll have a much harder time getting people who hate all AI to think putting a datacenter powered by anything is a good idea.

[–] ksec 7 hours ago

I am thinking of the same. My questions would be why are the not on renewable ( Or Solar ) as they are the cheapest source of energy at that scale with Battery included.

>I think a large fraction was general anti AI sentiment

Agree and I still dont have time to dig out how we got to here. All of a sudden AI is like Anti-Christ or Nuclear Reactor.

[–] dingaling911 6 hours ago

> All of a sudden AI is like Anti-Christ or Nuclear Reactor.

A little off topic, but I began to explore the "truth" of various religions from the perspective of an adherent and... the news isn't good.

If there is a compelling case for AI to be the anti-Christ, that's probably one of them.

[–] SteveNuts 18 hours ago

Anecdotally my hunch is voters care about what impacts their wallet primarily, even if they won’t admit it.

People don’t want these in their backyard but also care about lot about their energy costs.

[–] nonethewiser 18 hours ago

And their 401ks

[–] anon84873628 17 hours ago

And by anti-AI sentiment it's really more like "anti- oligarchs controlling everything and making us live in the sewers."

[–] timmg 20 hours ago

Not for nothing, but voters also have a say in what kind of car they buy. I checked the Q2 numbers -- when gas prices were high. In the US, 8% of people bought fully electric cars. Around 22% bought some sort of hybrid.

Each of these people made a choice about how they were going to affect the environment. The vast majority "voted" to use fossil fuels.

[–] tclancy 17 hours ago

This is disingenuous if you don’t note that in the US we essentially subsidize/ encourage fossil fuel.

[–] timmg 16 hours ago

Is that really true?

Up until two years ago, we very explicitly subsidized electric cars. And for the past six-plus months we've caused oil/gas prices to double.

In any case: is it worth spending a little more money (maybe?) to save the world from climate change? Or isn't it?

[–] Timon3 7 hours ago

Yes, the US subsidizes fossil industries with several billion dollars per year.

[–] WarmWash 19 hours ago

I could write an essay of pure rage about how many overtly liberal people in my life and online still decide against electric over minor or non-existent inconveniences or extra upfront cost (for people who definitely aren't broke).

These people will yell and complain about anything and everything destroying the Earth, but then when it's their turn?

"We just couldn't figure out how to make the extra 30 minute charge stop on our annual vacation work..."

[–] nonethewiser 17 hours ago

You should stop tying your emotions to other people’s purchasing habits. For your own mental health. And its kind of narcissistic to be offended that people aren’t spending their money how you think they should.

[–] anon84873628 17 hours ago

To be fare, they said they could write an essay full of rage :-)

It's not unreasonable to be frustrated by people's hypocrisy.

[–] WarmWash 17 hours ago

My complaint is the cavernous gap I have uncovered of people who hold beliefs for social points and people who hold beliefs because they themselves are making the world a better place.

Turns out everyone's a selfless hero at the dinner table or in the comment section, but few are on the ground.

[–] tehjoker 18 hours ago

This is why it shouldn't be only consumer choices but intentional policy guiding production and product availability. The government should be mandating EVs.

As an individual, your impact is minor. The problem is that there are hundreds of millions of vehicles on the road.

[–] anon84873628 17 hours ago

In fact, policy is the only way to unblock multi-agent coordination problems. Of which environmental protection is definitely one.

[–] estearum 18 hours ago

Do you also get mad when people who are upset about the deficit don't donate extra money to Treasury?

This is a pretty typical coordination problem where people are reluctant to make personal sacrifices when they know others will not make similar sacrifices which are necessary to achieve the goal.

[–] nonethewiser 21 hours ago

You have to be kidding me

[–] madaxe_again 18 hours ago

Whatever you do, never look at the energy cost of shipping.

Global shipping uses the equivalent energy of a Hiroshima bomb every two minutes - that's about 4000TWh over the course of a year.

ALL data centre use, worldwide, totals 490TWh - that's inclusive of AI data centres.

AI data centre use - 155 TWh.

All data centre use, worldwide, accounts for less than 0.5% of CO2 emissions.

This is "use paper straws to save the whales" territory.

[–] dnautics 17 hours ago

so what you're saying is... tariffs are great for fighting climate change?

[–] spwa4 17 hours ago

Yes, like any other tax, it destroys economic activity. Which is "good for the environment", or at least you can argue that (given what people always do when they're losing money it obviously isn't, but let's not get into reality here, this is politics)

It keeps surprising me that Trump got elected as politician on the promise of introducing new taxes. Tariffs. Republicans at the midterms seemed very surprised that extra taxes affected their election chances negatively. I mean you wouldn't believe it but it's pretty clear who is the pro-tax party now, isn't it?

I mean you couldn't make this up. You'd almost think Trump is like some sort of llama, or perhaps a Russian camel (do those exist?) spitting in the face of his voters, kicking them in the balls to get elected. And it worked.

Twice.

[–] dnautics 16 hours ago

at this point, I think it's more likely that Trump and Zelensky are secretly working together, and the whole Trump loves Putin thing is a facade to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war (remember, they are both TV actors).

[–] spwa4 17 hours ago

But we can't do without! Without shipping cheap crap from China (and now South America) to Germany, and cheap gas from Russia, oh and without checking labor laws, environment laws, ... normal Germans (and Europeans) would have more jobs, be paid more, it would be a lot more comfortable living on the countryside AND politicians would make less. There would be no German politicians getting very high wages from Putin without Europe paying billions to Putin for his war in Ukraine.

What is the problem with a few thousand terrawatt-hours if it allows politicians to get paid?

WILL SOMEONE think of the politicians?