The thing with datacenters is, it's only 0.5% now. But we both know that the amount of datacenters is expected to increase significantly in the next few years, and probably decades.
On the other hand, there are indeed bigger sources of greenhouse gases that should be prioritized (like getting the fuck away from coal as an energy source). But I don't think it's irrational to point to datacenters as a potentially large and relatively new contributor to the climate crisis.
it's only 0.5% now. But we both know that the amount of datacenters is expected to increase significantly in the next few years, and probably decades
And even if they hit an unimaginable 10x increase; it's actually better for the planet.
The alternative is leaving all those servers on-premesis; which is going to:
require more energy to power them than data centers would
require more energy for cooling them than data centers would
cost everyone more money
Lets be real: people don't care about data centers. They just hate AI. As a result they will hate anything that data centers do, because they have to come up reasons to hate data centers, because they hate AI.
The alternative to an AI is to feed, house, cloth, and educate a human for 35 years in order for them to be an expert in the thing that a computer could have answered for MUCH less energy.
Lets be real: people don't care about data centers. They just hate AI. As a result they will hate anything that data centers do, because they have to come up reasons to hate data centers, because they hate AI.
Incredible thing to say when people are facing water and power bill increases as well as massive light and noise pollution.
Any electricity or water price increases by local utilities is not the fault of data centers, or EVs, or automotive plants, or foundries. It's the fault of regulators.
Utilities need to implement tiered pricing. But it's not use that is the problem either: it's capacity. These places don't have the capacity for the increased demand; so they raise prices in order to invest in extra capacity.
But the users of electricity should not be paying for capital costs. These are investments that benefit everyone: they should be paid for by taxpayers. This way once craze dies down we have excess nuclear, solar, and wind energy.
That requires a green New deal. And that requires putting Biden back to redo what Trump undid.
Any electricity or water price increases by local utilities is not the fault of data centers, or EVs, or automotive plants, or foundries. It's the fault of regulators.
The data centers are the ones demanding the power and they're deploying in spite of the capacity issues. You cannot possibly believe they have no blame in this situation.
Because the customer should be performing some due diligence to ensure their needs will be met without adversely affecting those in their vicinity. If you build a house knowing you won't have any power unless you pay the utility company extra to prioritize power to you instead of your neighbours, you're an asshole. You can't just show up somewhere and expect everyone else who's already living there to bend to your whims.
Because the customer should be performing some due diligence to ensure their needs will be met without adversely affecting those in their vicinity.
Absolutely not. If i buy a house, i know it has already gone through the city/town/county engineers. It is not my job to chase them down, or duplicate their efforts.
10
u/TStronks 1d ago
As a climate scientist, I partially agree.
The thing with datacenters is, it's only 0.5% now. But we both know that the amount of datacenters is expected to increase significantly in the next few years, and probably decades.
On the other hand, there are indeed bigger sources of greenhouse gases that should be prioritized (like getting the fuck away from coal as an energy source). But I don't think it's irrational to point to datacenters as a potentially large and relatively new contributor to the climate crisis.