The problem is that the grid can’t get built out fast enough. You’ll probably see most AI data centers switch to grid power in the coming years using mostly wind and solar because it’s simply cheaper as well
You’re talking about one of the most hated person on hearth with one of the worst reputation. The literal Nazi salute guy. I don’t think he cares much about positive PR like that
At least these sites (its more than Amazon) are being built near the energy source they will consume. Straight out of the ground into a turbine and then into the electron spinners.
Also there's not a lot of anything where these sites are located (Near El Paso). The 4-5 Road Runners who live around there will probably appreciate the change.
No one cares about West Texas, it's about the 33 million tons of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere and warming the world.
Reminder that the USA are the country that historically burned the most fossil fuels, the world's largest extractor of oil, the only country trying to do a 180 on coal power.
Half of the world has experienced unprecedented heatwaves that will become the norm in 2050.
A better question is why a company is allowed to effectively lie using fraudulent false advertising in its marketing and brand image about being environmentally conscious and become the largest polluter in the country?
Is Amazon too broke to buy the necessary land to build out wind/solar/battery? I thought a company that name sponsored “Climate Pledge Arena” could afford to pay a little bit extra to care about the climate.
A wind/solar/battery solution is not even really much more expensive than gas power and it’s far less dependent on fluctuating fuel prices.
I don’t think business really wants interest rates that high. Without conspiracy theories, a simpler explanation is that this is simply democracy in action. People don’t want the spending reigned in, and they don’t want their taxes raised.
If I understand correctly, for speed of deployment they're building a less-efficient simple-cycle plant (instead of the typical combined-cycle). Even though it's larger, the efficiency is worse than a typical natural gas plant.
Natural gas is basically a waste product that gets flared off in many oil-producing parts of Texas. If this private power plant can use that gas for something productive then I guess at least we're no worse off. But it's not clear that is what is happening.
Which is nonsense. There's plenty of pollution that's been diluted as much as it possibly can be and is still problematic. CO2 is an obvious example. Or consider leaded gasoline or mercury. You have to be careful not to eat too much fish or you'll have trouble with the mercury in it. That's been diluted by the entire ocean and that didn't solve it.
A bigger unit is generally more efficient, but this is a single plant with a bunch of units, and I don't know that the individual units are any bigger than they would be elsewhere.
Trees are wonderful for a number of reasons, and the need for them for local climate, which includes shading and their contribution to local humidity, is important as well.
They are not, though, a significant sequestration for CO₂.
A helpful way to think about this is to consider coal. To produce coal the energy input comes from time, pressure, etc over tens to thousands of millions of years.
The significance of trees is for the local climate, or global if you are considering one of handful of rainforests.
Yes, by burning fuels we release carbon from the thing being burned, it gets mixed with oxygen, and released into the atmosphere as co2.
As the suns energy warms the earth, the earth radiates heat back out and away from the surface and normally back out into space. co2 also acts like a blanket for that radiant heat, and traps it inside.
More co2 in the atmosphere traps more energy around the planet like an insulated wrap.
To reduce this, we have to extract the carbon out of the atmosphere and store it.
Let's add as well "SpaceX’s Terafab will rely on natural gas power plants, not Tesla solar panels" to the mix :o(
https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/07/spacexs-terafab-will-rely-...
Don't understand why. AI training can be run during the sunny days. Could be a good PR opportunity for Musk, I'm surprised he doesn't take it.
Especially if he buys from his own company.
The problem is that the grid can’t get built out fast enough. You’ll probably see most AI data centers switch to grid power in the coming years using mostly wind and solar because it’s simply cheaper as well
and would be cheaper in the long run? or maybe they could even do solar + storage.
i guess even at this stage “gas is easier” is still winning…
You’re talking about one of the most hated person on hearth with one of the worst reputation. The literal Nazi salute guy. I don’t think he cares much about positive PR like that
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220350
256 comments, 8 hours ago
At least these sites (its more than Amazon) are being built near the energy source they will consume. Straight out of the ground into a turbine and then into the electron spinners.
Also there's not a lot of anything where these sites are located (Near El Paso). The 4-5 Road Runners who live around there will probably appreciate the change.
West Texas is basically Mad Max 2.
No one cares about West Texas, it's about the 33 million tons of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere and warming the world.
Reminder that the USA are the country that historically burned the most fossil fuels, the world's largest extractor of oil, the only country trying to do a 180 on coal power.
Half of the world has experienced unprecedented heatwaves that will become the norm in 2050.
Stop burning fossil fuels.
Don't these things get more efficient as they scale up? One big plant is probably better than 30 small ones.
A better question is why a company is allowed to effectively lie using fraudulent false advertising in its marketing and brand image about being environmentally conscious and become the largest polluter in the country?
Is Amazon too broke to buy the necessary land to build out wind/solar/battery? I thought a company that name sponsored “Climate Pledge Arena” could afford to pay a little bit extra to care about the climate.
A wind/solar/battery solution is not even really much more expensive than gas power and it’s far less dependent on fluctuating fuel prices.
> Is Amazon too broke to buy the necessary land to build out wind/solar/battery?
It's more capital intensive, and interest rates are 8%, because our elected officials are completely incompetent.
8% interest rates don’t seem to be a problem for financing all the data centers and AI hardware.
Amazon can afford to power their data centers with clean energy.
It’s not called “Climate Pledge But Only If It’s Less Capital Intensive Arena”
They’re absolutely not that incompetent. They’re on the pockets of people who profit directly from this.
Follow the money, and all that.
I don’t think business really wants interest rates that high. Without conspiracy theories, a simpler explanation is that this is simply democracy in action. People don’t want the spending reigned in, and they don’t want their taxes raised.
I am curious how renewables + battery compare here, if at all feasible.
I thought there was a gas turbine shortage?
If I understand correctly, for speed of deployment they're building a less-efficient simple-cycle plant (instead of the typical combined-cycle). Even though it's larger, the efficiency is worse than a typical natural gas plant.
Natural gas is basically a waste product that gets flared off in many oil-producing parts of Texas. If this private power plant can use that gas for something productive then I guess at least we're no worse off. But it's not clear that is what is happening.
efficient in money, nothing is said about other metrics
it's quite possible to have more product made, thus more pollution (or less materials consumed, thus less)
but concentration definitely will rise
sometime in the energy sector once told me "the solution to pollution is dilution"
Which is nonsense. There's plenty of pollution that's been diluted as much as it possibly can be and is still problematic. CO2 is an obvious example. Or consider leaded gasoline or mercury. You have to be careful not to eat too much fish or you'll have trouble with the mercury in it. That's been diluted by the entire ocean and that didn't solve it.
uh, that’s nonsense.
co2 is problematic because of concentration - the sheer volume.
leaded gas and mercury are a problem because of bio-concentration.
dilution still helps!
Of course it helps, but where are you going to dilute more co2 these days?
A bigger unit is generally more efficient, but this is a single plant with a bunch of units, and I don't know that the individual units are any bigger than they would be elsewhere.
These jet engine gas turbines create air pollution in the forms of formaldehyde and NOx and noise pollution.
Someone’s gotta stop this who idk - that’s the problem
Finally, a structure worthy of its namesake.
"Shareholder Value Pledge Arena"
> 7.65 gigawatt gas power plant
This is another level of insanity, right there.
Second largest hydrocarbon power generator in the world. Unreal.
This completely ignores carbon capture and offsets. Amazon remains committed to net zero.
Amazon is not capturing this amount of carbon. And the offsets are all smoke and mirrors.
Amazon is not capturing carbon in any meaningful scale and planting trees is great, until they capture fire.
Trees are wonderful for a number of reasons, and the need for them for local climate, which includes shading and their contribution to local humidity, is important as well.
They are not, though, a significant sequestration for CO₂.
A helpful way to think about this is to consider coal. To produce coal the energy input comes from time, pressure, etc over tens to thousands of millions of years.
The significance of trees is for the local climate, or global if you are considering one of handful of rainforests.
Co2 is pollution now?
On an industrial scale, yes, of course.
Yes
Yes, by burning fuels we release carbon from the thing being burned, it gets mixed with oxygen, and released into the atmosphere as co2.
As the suns energy warms the earth, the earth radiates heat back out and away from the surface and normally back out into space. co2 also acts like a blanket for that radiant heat, and traps it inside.
More co2 in the atmosphere traps more energy around the planet like an insulated wrap.
To reduce this, we have to extract the carbon out of the atmosphere and store it.
It's the main greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Where have you been?
Sure, but it's only damaging globally. It's no more damaging to the local environment than to anywhere else on the planet.