BurgerBaron
MemesPepperidge Farms must've met my dad a few years back.
How many billionaires can the power grid handle?
I was actually kind of successful in responding to the "our power grid can't HANDLE EVs if everyone switched!" With "you're telling me the power companies don't want more business, and are unwilling to support it?"
They were not fully satisfied, but they didn't have a response.
Fuck that guy and fuck data centers, but this meme is misinformed.
The biggest problem with our current grid is power distribution, as in getting power from the production source to its destination (your house). We absolutely have production issues, but even if we resolve those, we still need to contend with the distribution bottleneck.
Most, if not all of these datacenter plans and include built in power production. Whether it is Google's geothermal, meta's nuclear, or whatver, the power production for the datacenters are meant to be relatively close to the actual.
EDIT: Let me be clear. Almost all of these dedicated power production facilities for datacenters WILL BE subsidized (or fully paid for) by local electric consumers and tax payers in the form of taxes, bonds, and electric bill fees. They are willing to do that for datacenters but not to upgrade our infrastructure (the grid) so that we can transition to EV's.
Thats part of the backlash though.
The people, would MUCH prefer the infrastructure get updated for EVs, not just a single pipe for Data Center kickbacks to council members.
Further proof that no amount of wealth can buy intelligence, taste, class, etc. Look at the interior of a lot of supercars for example.
It’s a tag team match with the oil companies, carmakers and the AI companies on one side and consumers on the other.
I'd put a bit of an asterisk beside the carmarkers. In most cases, they are only pro gas due to demand and cost. For the most part, they are perfectly willing to switch if they know the sales will be there.
I mean there's supply chain stuff, too. Isn't that why Toyota dragged it's feet so long? They were also pushing hydrogen over straight EV, weren't they?
Except they're not. Basically every automaker that sells in America has cut plans for EVs instead of lowering the price to a point people can afford it (and they'd still make profit)
For what it's worth many data centers include their own power generation. Would be a boon for modular nuclear reactors if they were ready and if the us wasn't so shy about nuclear. I wonder if other countries are having this issue? Like is there a big pushback to data centers in china, India, UAE, or Singapore? If not then what's the difference and how are they managing data center development?
Kevin's data center is going to run on natural gas generators in a valley which already suffers from horrible inversions every year. The Wasatch front valley has some of the worst air quality in the world during the winter.
Nuclear is too expensive for the capitalists building these. They'd rather pollute than pay more money for nuclear.
In this case I'm referring to the Wonder Valley AI data centre campus just to be clear since I wasn't in OP, it's proposed for northwestern Alberta, Canada. Near Grande Prairie. He's got multiple on the go.
Ohhh, I forgot that he had multiple.. what a scumbag.
Not arguing but just curious. I didn't think natural gas plants heavily affected air quality. I'm aware that fracking has its share of issues, notably ground water contamination. I always thought coal plants were the ones with emissions issues.
Natural gas still causes pollution, just less than coal.
I grew up with natural gas, and if you didn't turn on the hood it would get nasty inside. It also made our pots and pans turn black during long cooking sessions.
Here's more info: https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/gas-stoves-and-indoor-air-pollution-explained/
A 2024 study from Stanford and PSE Healthy Energy scientists estimates the annual societal cost of NO2 exposure from gas and propane stoves is $1 billion. Burning natural gas and propane has also been shown to generate benzene, a known human carcinogen. A 2023 study from Stanford and PSE Healthy Energy scientists found that a single gas cooktop burner on high could raise indoor levels of benzene above those in secondhand tobacco smoke.
And that's just from indoor stoves.
The primary component of natural gas is methane. Methane is a colorless, odorless, and highly combustible gas. It is also a powerful climate pollutant. In addition to methane, natural gas contains pollutants which are known to be toxic, linked to cancer, and can form secondary health-damaging pollutants that may impact air quality and human health.
That was part of the natural gas grift: because it's slightly better than coal, and it has natural in the name, it must be clean! It fooled a lot of people, unfortunately and understandably.
I mean yeah if you displace air (nitrogen and oxygen) with anything you're going to have a bad time, but I didn't think natural gas plants were straight up leaking valuable natural gas everywhere like a home stove or gas heater can. The black soot is interesting, must mean the natural gas source was tainted because as far as I know pure natural gas burns totally clean.
Gas burns cleaner than coal, but almost nothing burns 100% clean. Nor is any fuel source 100% pure.
Hold a lighter up to some tinfoil. See the soot?
Yea, they are reopening shut down gas and coal plants, so it’s even fucking worse
Man modular nuclear would be so good right now, in some cases we could even drop them into decommissioned gas and coal plants aka use the heat exchanger and turbines. Within reason it would be nice to see them fast tracked for this.
I think the small modular reactor concept is overdone. Small doesn't mean cheap, and cheap is what we want.
The small size isn't specifically what is intended to make SMRs cheap; it's the reproducibility. Not every location will be suitable for gigawatt scale reactors, but smaller reactors, made of components you can throw on a rail car, will bring cost down as production scales up. And there would likely be more reactors built, since there's more flexibility in application.
................................. Allow me to amend my statement to what was obvious. Small and reproducable doesn’t mean cheap electricity, and cheap electricity is what we want.
I would take carbon free electricity over cheaper electricity any day, but yes those with the money buying power generation want primarily the cheapest energy.
omg how are you guys misreading this so much.
Small and reproducable doesn’t mean cheap electricity when compared to typical large nuclear reactors, and cheap electricity is what we want.
Large nuclear reactors scare VC with large upside cost and delayed construction so they don't get built. Known and tested SMR's pretty much have that covered. I'll accept clean energy over cheaper.
You don't need VC. And you're back to what was already covered. I'm just gonna stop responding.
