Some thoughts:
* you can run data centres on grid electricity, which can come from mostly-renewable sources (in short, you need gas mainly as as an occasional backup).
* running things off-grid is dumb, and they’re only doing it because they’re desperate to get their data centres up and running yesterday so that they’re the ones who get to the singularity first (or some approximation thereof).
* the US electricity grid is f**d, mostly for the same reasons you can’t build any linear infrastructure in the United States - too many bodies hold veto powers and use any such infrastructure as an extortion opportunity.
* The spike in gas-powered generation for data centres is essentially a US phenomenon. Globally, the vast majority of new electricity supply is coming from renewables.
* in a sane world, Amazon and new large-scale data centre providers would face punitive carbon charges to incentivise them to switch to mostly renewables as soon as possible.
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.
Don't these things get more efficient as they scale up? One big plant is probably better than 30 small ones.
Permitted maximum of 10 grams(2 nickels) of CO2 per hour for every person in the US. 33 million tons * 2000 ton/pound * 454 g/pound / 365 days in a year / 24 hours in a day / 342.6M people in us = 9.984 grams
It sounds... pretty good? It's not going to put pressure to the existing grid. Nor it will use freshwater. Near to the data centers themselves so the waste from power transmission is minimalized.
Carbon tax would shift the economics in favor of renewables.
Someone’s gotta stop this who idk - that’s the problem
Finally, a structure worthy of its namesake.
These jet engine gas turbines create air pollution in the forms of formaldehyde and NOx and noise pollution.
> 7.65 gigawatt gas power plant
This is another level of insanity, right there.
> That’s in sharp contrast to Amazon’s commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2040...
Liars
"Shareholder Value Pledge Arena"
This completely ignores carbon capture and offsets. Amazon remains committed to net zero.
I like this for the clarity. No more wishy-washy Is Amazon Evil?
It's just Amazon ~ Fuck Yeah We're Evil
Alternatives exist but they aren't free...
https://www.aga.org/decarbonizing-through-carbon-capture/
https://www.energyindepth.org/study-finds-carbon-capture-and...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265682...
TIL mentioning a viable technology that would reduce emissions here but delay a forced transition to renewables is an instant downvote.
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-...