It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a
permit
>GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States
Immediately following that is the text
"It’s worth noting that companies rarely emit as much as their permits allow"
It's also worth noting that the headline turns "largest single source" of CO2 to "top source" of climate pollution. They say pollution in the text, but context would suggest they are talking about CO2. To say otherwise would be a much stronger claim which I don't think you can assume unless they clearly assert it.
I'm not sure if it is possible to quantify scale of climate impact between different types of pollution, but it seems like a stretch to unilaterally declare that the single top producer of CO2 is the top environmental impact. It may be, but they are making claims beyond what were made in their sources.
I was under the impression that there were a few chemicals that had an outsize effect on climate pollution.
You hope. People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!
(I think the way through this mess is huge investment in renewables, and that blue states have calamitously dropped the ball by pushing so much data center construction to red states that aren't going to incentivize that.)
"People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!"
This statement can be applied to literally any topic and it fills me with a dread that is only matched by trying to fathom the inifinite nature of the universe and time. The notion of having good faith, well intentioned debate and discourse around any conceivable subject just feels impossible most of the time.
I mean, marginally, any data center (or mall, house, but the numbers involved are smaller) you'll build in Texas is going to be a lot of tons of CO2 just from their added marginal power consumption
The harder thing would be to explain why your species continues to get energy by burning things despite having multiple alternatives and that many people are deeply ideologically opposed to moving away from burning things.
Or maybe not. Maybe this is a civilizational growing pain these aliens are familiar with. Maybe they went through the same period themselves.
Imagine the type II alien nods with understanding in a human way that your species just isn't ready and it might not ever be as it erases your memory of the encounter and returns to the stars, stopping only to scan your anal sphincter because all the type II civilizations remain puzzled by it.
I think they'd give you some leeway if you fired up gas plants to not freeze in the winter, I want to see their faces when you tell them you turned them on because you wanted to generate more digital slop during a climate crisis
China and India pollute several times times more than US. If this activist wants to make a change, she should be writing her articles in Hindi and Chinese. Also, great job on capping US energy production. India won't attack US, but China will. US needs all the industrial capacity it can have. If I didn't know better, I would have thought she is working for the enemy.
I wish there was a source of energy that has 100-1000x energy density compare to other sources and it is controllable so capacity factory is close to 100. Ohh wait.
It seems strange for this article to word this as a new or unusual source of pollution, natural gas is the primary source of energy in the US, adding 10% to existing thermal fleet in ERCOT https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards is not a huge deal and its disingenuous to say this one plant will become a "top source of US pollution".
Solar generation buildout in ERCOT is also proceeding very quickly, the new Tesla megapack factory outside Houston and proposed new solar factory will help speed up the transition to sustainable energy.
It's also, as the article points out later, a permitted cap, not an emissions estimate. New plants generally have permitted caps far higher than their expected emissions.
Judas H. Priest there is no such thing. Can we stop with this nonsense already. George Orwell would be proud of the radical left. They are very proficient in Newspeak.
> {THING_I_WISH_DID_NOT_EXIST} Judas H. Priest there is no such thing.
Forget newspeak, get out of your bubble and find actual facts from contrasting sources, make your own informed conclusion. Fact finding is not a dirty word. I mean, two words.
It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a permit
>GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States
Immediately following that is the text
"It’s worth noting that companies rarely emit as much as their permits allow"
It's also worth noting that the headline turns "largest single source" of CO2 to "top source" of climate pollution. They say pollution in the text, but context would suggest they are talking about CO2. To say otherwise would be a much stronger claim which I don't think you can assume unless they clearly assert it.
I'm not sure if it is possible to quantify scale of climate impact between different types of pollution, but it seems like a stretch to unilaterally declare that the single top producer of CO2 is the top environmental impact. It may be, but they are making claims beyond what were made in their sources.
I was under the impression that there were a few chemicals that had an outsize effect on climate pollution.
You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?
This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.
This is, putting it gently, not a majority opinion in the US and especially not in Texas.
Unfortunately opinions don't change the reality of physical processes.
In the same way “smoking causes cancer” was a minority opinion in the 50s and 60s.
You hope. People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!
(I think the way through this mess is huge investment in renewables, and that blue states have calamitously dropped the ball by pushing so much data center construction to red states that aren't going to incentivize that.)
"People who believe things you disagree with say the same thing about their beliefs!"
This statement can be applied to literally any topic and it fills me with a dread that is only matched by trying to fathom the inifinite nature of the universe and time. The notion of having good faith, well intentioned debate and discourse around any conceivable subject just feels impossible most of the time.
A surprisingly small number though. 15%.
> This is, putting it gently, not a majority opinion in the US and especially not in Texas.
Texas is the largest producer of renewable energy in the country.
Yes, because they have open permitting and encourage development. But they are also the largest producers of fossil fuels in the country.
Indirect side effect of the fact that you can build things in Texas.
I mean, marginally, any data center (or mall, house, but the numbers involved are smaller) you'll build in Texas is going to be a lot of tons of CO2 just from their added marginal power consumption
Imagine that you need to explain to a type II alien that your species still burns things.
The harder thing would be to explain why your species continues to get energy by burning things despite having multiple alternatives and that many people are deeply ideologically opposed to moving away from burning things.
Or maybe not. Maybe this is a civilizational growing pain these aliens are familiar with. Maybe they went through the same period themselves.
Imagine the type II alien nods with understanding in a human way that your species just isn't ready and it might not ever be as it erases your memory of the encounter and returns to the stars, stopping only to scan your anal sphincter because all the type II civilizations remain puzzled by it.
Or maybe you'd prefer this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbT1fCHOjfI
I think they'd give you some leeway if you fired up gas plants to not freeze in the winter, I want to see their faces when you tell them you turned them on because you wanted to generate more digital slop during a climate crisis
Who were you able to entertain with that "digital slop", and how many father's did you disappoint with it?
Imagine they got here without burning anything, ever, in the history of their species.
If only we had the technology and ability to produce enormous quantities of energy non-stop 24/7 365, no matter day or night wind or no wind.
BUT NUKES!
All jokes aside, yes, we should invest massively in nuclear.
No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.
Deaths per terawatt-hour of nuclear is still lower than any fossil fuel per https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It takes up a tiny amount of space, and can be reprocessed if necessary.
We absolutely will solve it. That's called fusion.
Nuclear material literally came out of the ground...m you can put it back..we have literally infinite amount of rock under us
China and India pollute several times times more than US. If this activist wants to make a change, she should be writing her articles in Hindi and Chinese. Also, great job on capping US energy production. India won't attack US, but China will. US needs all the industrial capacity it can have. If I didn't know better, I would have thought she is working for the enemy.
I wish there was a source of energy that has 100-1000x energy density compare to other sources and it is controllable so capacity factory is close to 100. Ohh wait.
Sorry, best I can do are a bunch of activist hippies.
Amazon is also investing in nuclear power for data centers:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/amazon-updates-s...
However, building new nuclear reactors is a slow process. These reactors aren't expected to be built before the 2030s.
China is currently the fastest at bringing new reactors online. Even there it takes 6-7 years from construction start to commercial power generation, e.g. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chinese-reactors...
Yeah they are betting on everything at this stage.
Unless you're French.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220350
See also,
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220350 ("New Amazon Data Center Is Set to Have the Most Polluting Power Plant in the U.S. (nytimes.com)", 2 days ago, 354 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49223845 ("Amazon Is Creating the Biggest Pollution Source in the Country (newrepublic.com)", 2 days ago, 171 comments)
It seems strange for this article to word this as a new or unusual source of pollution, natural gas is the primary source of energy in the US, adding 10% to existing thermal fleet in ERCOT https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards is not a huge deal and its disingenuous to say this one plant will become a "top source of US pollution".
Solar generation buildout in ERCOT is also proceeding very quickly, the new Tesla megapack factory outside Houston and proposed new solar factory will help speed up the transition to sustainable energy.
It's also, as the article points out later, a permitted cap, not an emissions estimate. New plants generally have permitted caps far higher than their expected emissions.
The article says "could become the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States".
I'm so old I can remember when ars technica published actual technical content.
"Climate pollution" ?
Judas H. Priest there is no such thing. Can we stop with this nonsense already. George Orwell would be proud of the radical left. They are very proficient in Newspeak.
> {THING_I_WISH_DID_NOT_EXIST} Judas H. Priest there is no such thing.
Forget newspeak, get out of your bubble and find actual facts from contrasting sources, make your own informed conclusion. Fact finding is not a dirty word. I mean, two words.
Imagine saying this with a serious face...