Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

Because without context you have no idea what that actually means.

If you get attacked by an unknown number of duck sized horses, how much of an effect would defeating the largest of them have?

For every person asking a company to do the right thing there seems to be a dozen who will say there's no point and how dare you even talk to them.

I don't think that represents the majority of people. I think, in general, people see the toxicity of the debate and decide to just keep their heads down.

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.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-wary-ai-driven-da...

People don't just hate the idea of data centers "in their backyard" the way they do with housing, they also just fundamentally despise the tech companies and personalities who are creating these data centers.

Every corporation and even most small businesses have had a machine room, wiring closet, or some kind of server shoved into a room, since 30 years ago now. They all had them in every office building you ever drove by, or lived next to, or shopped near. It's simply that people didn't even register them, because none of the general public really sees or knows what goes on in office parks, and behind the tinted corporate windows. It could be as benign as a toy distributor or as wicked as a defense contractor, and from the outside, they look alike.

But they've all had computers, and networks, for decades. And what we are seeing now is consolidation and concentration. The offices and parks and buildings are hollowed out -- they've laid off workers, they've gone WFH, and most importantly, they've gutted their machine rooms and removed on-prem equipment in migration to the cloud. So each and every company that migrated to the cloud has shrunk their own machine room's footprint by X amount that is reflected in data-center capacity by an identical (or perhaps larger) X. And that, of course, means that power, cooling, and resource consumption is not necessarily enlarged, but merely transferred and concentrated into DCs rather than power-hungry machine rooms, humming secretly inside every office building.

I look back to my first job--I worked at an ISP, and we colocated with the San Diego Supercomputer Center. The SDSC was a data center par excellence with the finest machines that ever existed on the floor. And I was still a kid when I'd be admitted to the main floor, I'd walk past a Y-MP, a Thinking Machine, an Intel Paragon, a Nearline Tape Robot, and there were our humble little pizza-boxes, sitting on a table trying to keep up with Usenet. Our own ISP offices didn't even have a machine room of our own, just a rack with a hub--yeah a hub--and a Sparc 2 pizza box to serve the office. We were already "in the cloud", as it were. More or less literally--SDSC was where they tested nuclear weapons, predicted the weather, and explored outer space, through the magic of FORTRAN...

So what people are complaining about is something they can see. If you're dying of cancer for 20 years but you never go to a doctor, you won't feel it. Once you see the doctor, the chemotherapy starts, and then you croak from the chemo. So this building of datacenters is simply bringing this into the open, and into the light. And people are angrily reactive at social media, and techbros, and surveillance capitalism, and AI-job-losses, and corporate hijinks in general, so data centers do give a focus to that futile rage.

But it's futile, and we all depend on data centers already, even before they are built, and we need DCs now to sustain our economy and our civilization as it already is. It's futile to resist and if you want to come in with a tractor to demolish them, you'll be arrested, and the Flock camera attackers will be hauled into prison too, and technology will just impassively march along as a juggernaut with no feelings, no remorse, and no mercy.

It's a pity; we were really nice folks for a few hundred years.

Also need to reduce use of coal in steel production too, yet.

Australia is experiencing this problem now to a limited extent, and is walking in to a disaster scenario with the scheduled shutdown of 5 gigawatts of coal fired electricity generating across three sites over the next three years with nothing in the pipeline to replace that 5GW.

I am hugely skeptical that it will be solved economically given that it suffers from many of the problems currently pricing coal and nuclear out of the market.

1. Any equipment or substance that is both nuclear and potentially dangerous has some sort of magical mutant super-power to stimulate superhumanly idiotic behavior in a non-trivial fraction of the people handling/operating/managing the equipment or substance. That behavior is almost always coupled with pathological denials - both from the mutant super-idiots and their supposedly non-mutant peers.

2. General population humans are quite aware of problem #1, hence extremely distrustful when any human experts or organizations try to reassure them as to the safety of anything nuclear.

3. That "reprocessing" ain't nothing resembling "put on a lead apron and pour it through a coffee filter". Instead, it's a quagmire of chemicals and processes that'd still be horrific if nothing nuclear was involved, plus weapon proliferation overtones, plus all the problems noted in 1. and 2. above.

I’d add that any new nuclear projects, if anyone is courageous enough to attempt them, are likely to face similar cost increases because many of the same factors apply to them.