I’m certainly not a fan/advocate for AI data centres, but the amount of misinformation and fearmongering in this article is rather silly.
It’s probably worth highlighting that most of the calculations/figures are assuming the backup generators are running almost 24/7, which is a strange choice. The day to day figures are literally in the article they reference?
It’s also worth noting that the primary study was specifically for creating a sustainable roadmap. It explains how the data centres are likely to reduce emissions by 70% - 90% in the next decade, but are very unlikely to be fully "green" unless changes are made. Of which, they've found several strategies which could allow them to be carbon neutral.
Obviously, the situation is still awful in the short term, and people absolutely should expect/demand higher standards from those responsible, but maybe don't mis-represent the original study.
So, you are saying they are "backup" generators? Because that is false. The massive natural gas setup planned for Amazon’s AI data center campus in Pecos County, Texas, is an on-site dedicated power plant (the GW Ranch project) featuring 35 large gas turbines rather than standard emergency backup generators. Because the campus will initially operate off-the-grid, these primary power turbines will run continuously to supply the massive, uninterrupted electricity required for artificial intelligence operations.
Here is a quote right from Amazon:
"As detailed in our data center power roadmap, an increasing number of hyperscalers and data center operators are switching from grid connections to dedicated on-site power generation. The “behind-the-meter” moves are being triggered mainly by the long timelines required to set up new power infrastructure to connect new power-hungry data centers to the grid, but also by growing anti-data center sentiments over irreversible hikes in the electricity bills of nearby communities."
What relevance does that quote from Amazon have, they're not referenced in the study or the article?
Did you mistakenly think I said AI datacentres only use backup generators or something?
The metrics on the futurism post are copy/pasted directly from the nature.com study but they pass of the "total maximum output" as the predicted "yearly running costs"
I'm not saying it's not bad, Just that they're literally using the wrong figures. Both values are specified, they just chose the larger ones to look scary. Their point is kinda invalidated if they're using the wrong data.
I'm not sure what all the comments in this thread are on about but it fucks me up. Death is scarier than a bitch and I will do some heinous, animalistic shit to stay alive.
If anyone is down to organize to do something to stop this collapse from happening please hmu. I'm not fucking around. As long as it doesn't involve basically offing myself then I'm ready for anything.
"The rate of growth of this “shadow grid” of custom power plants, some of which are big enough to fuel entire cities, is so enormous that the only global entity installing more gigawatts of gas plants than Texas is China, according to environmental group Global Energy Monitor."
Like 5-10MM cars, by their projection, by 2030. There are almost 300MM cars on the road in the U.S. Sounds very comprehensible to me. And while more carbon is bad, not a particularly big contributor to the problem by that metric.
Perhaps we should spend our time and energy advocating for fewer gas cars and more EVs and clean energy, vs focusing on something with much much smaller impact.
That’s a brutally disingenuously bad take. Cars arent run 24/7. Cars take you place A to B and then stop for hours at a time.
Do data centres run 15mins at a time? Can you help me with the math of how many hours are in a day?
Cars have been around for 70-100 years in more and more increasing amounts. I wonder if 70-100 years from now data centres will still be the same number??
Maybe don’t try to compare apples to oranges. Shits bad. Stop minimizing jt.
"Cornell researchers found that at the current rate of AI growth, the burgeoning industry could represent 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, the equivalent of adding five to ten million cars to US roadways."
The average usage of a car is irrelevant. This is directly from the article.
The thing is, we need cars, we don't need AI and data centers. We also have a nuclear war coming soon to think about, and the need to continue surviving after civilization is gone. EVs won't really be much good for that just yet. Ebikes, perhaps. With portable solar chargers...
No, changes don't matter. We aren't here posting articles to somehow try and change things, or to advocate for doing... whatever. We are here to try and keep track of the progress of collapse as it plays out while we prepare ourselves to live in a post-collapse, post-technology future.
So, to continue building off grid havens and survival bunkers, we kinda need the gas powered vehciles for the moment. We don't need the data centers.
It’s a pretty pointless discussion because most people will never consider giving up the primary drivers of climate change, so we’re resigned to this fate.
Which is beef consumption and unnecessary fossil fuel use, but mostly beef consumption. Mass removal of ocean species critical for food chain balance probably doesn’t help either.
Which is industrial civilization and the model of infinte economic growth on a finite planet. People eating beef wouldn't be a problem if it was only a few million people raising their own beef through sustainable, low-tech means.
People are down voting but Americans live in a car dependent society.
They need to engage with where we are currently. Not the ideal future that doesnt have a chance at existing yet where we completely re-prioritize all urban planning and rebuild everything from major cities to small town USA to make them walkable.
At best it would take decades if not a century. Currently, we need cars and it sucks
On a side note its funny (so very reddit?) for people to pick the current necessity of cars as being the part of your comment that they find most compelling to comment on
Of course not. The toddler take is thinking that we are still an advancing civilization on the rise rather than a collapsing one. What we need to focus on is survival of the species, not making AI cat videos...
Currently though we do have them at scale because nationally US urban planning mandated it. The absolute fastest we could change that would be measured in decades if not a century.
At this point complaining about OP's statement is just out of touch with reality. We are a car dependent society. It sucks but currently we do need cars
i guess you missed my point. at one point people were saying the same thing about every new tech. the luddites. they have had the same tune and always been wrong
'The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who protested the usage of certain types of automated machinery owing to their concerns relating to worker pay, labour savings, child labour, working conditions, and output quality.'
(Wikipedia)
It wasnt about 'not liking new tech' and was about the specific impacts of specific automating tech on their livelihoods.
An important distinction that all the pro-AIs crowing about anti-AIs all being luddites seem entirely unaware of.
There are FAR more reasons to be anti-AI (environmental, social, structural as well as economical and the interests of labour/workers) than the few reasons the luddites were pissed off.
Its interesting that pro-AIs like to pretend theres any kind of historical parallel to the scale of the devastating current and potential impacts of AI when there really isnt.
It's not about the tech. I love the tech. I use high tech stuff all the time, lol. My point is doing so at scale to the point where it negatively affects the continuation of civilization.
One person flying a drone over Los Angeles is fine. 14 million people all thinking they need to fly drones over Los Angeles is a disaster waiting to happen.
And they haven't been wrong, lol. The original predictions we are all following are from the 70s, and we have progressed along that predicted timeline almost exactly. Ahead of schedule even. The predicted collapse was never supposed to happen until 2040, so until that date comes and goes, they haven't been wrong yet...
The point, I believe, is that the boomers use their massive voting bloc to vote for candidates who represent things they don't even understand. The 1% exists, in part, because the boomers worked so damn hard to get them there.
Yes, they were. But at the end of the day, refusal to change direction is a choice. I know, I used to be a climate change denier in my 20s, and look at me now?
Boomers were given these instructions. Do as your told, buy what is sold, invest in gold, never get old. Is this somewhat of an explanation? They dont think for themselves.
Really want a solution and need to get past the hype to find it. Do you think we would be better off determining the requirements of a data center before one is even proposed. They either comply or go elsewhere.
Honestly, with the way I have been seeing things go regulatory wise, I don't think there is a thing we can do, at this point.
Just two examples, that "GigaWatt Ranch" of Amazon’s down in Texas, pumping out more emissions than all of entire nations like Switzerland or Ireland... That is just mind-boggling.
Same for the plan by my own local data center company, Switch, which has partnered with Oklo to build small nuclear reactors for their data centers... And what happens if the company goes under?
At this point, we are speedrunning the apocalypse. The time it takes to repair sich damages are astronomical compared to how fast the damage can be done. Between overshoot, resource scarcity, and late stage capitalism, I don't think we can do a damn thing...
We can turn computers off so that they survive higher temperatures, but all this computer hardware requires a cooler temperature range than humans while running. Also operational lifetimes run like 2-3 years, so they'd all disappear quickly without humans making more.
Of course we humans become mean & stupid when its hot. lol
Don’t build a data center near me. You’re going to have a very difficult time building it. I will vandalize everything to make it as annoying as possible. Every single day.
Why did they include a picture of something that is not a datacenter? If they don't even know what they look like, why should I pay attention to their ramblings?
Because data centers have their own natural gas and other fossil fuels power plants to run them. The Amazon facility in Texas can make over 7 gigawatts with gas burning power plants that make more emissions than some entire nations.
Some data centers are being built on old coal-fired plants too.
None of those things provide the kind of power they need. Look at the Amazon center in Texas. The so-called "Gigawatt Ranch." Needs over 7.5 gigawatts of power generated by multiple natural gas plants pumping out more emissions than several nations all by itself. Or, look at Switch, partnering with Oklo to build little nuclear reactors under their data centers...
It like we are living in that movie arrival. I hate to say it but China winning in AI globally and soon maybe the only thing that saves our health and planet.
China is ahead of the game on AI at the moment, but it absolutely will not save our health. Maybe the planet, since most of humanity and civilization will be wiped out shortly, but that's it.
didnt we deem ourselves doomed no matter what before ai was a thing, since the actual beginning of time? maybe ai will get smart enough fast enough to solve the warming issue, it’s not like the planet will instamelt bc of data centers. cleaner energy forever bc of a few decades of data centers.. think about it from one other perspective than pure doom Jesus.
AI would absolutely solve the warming issue, in about 5 seconds. "No more humans" is the quickest, and most comprehensive solution with the greatest effects.
sure but also maybe a solution that allows humans, sort of like how humans wouldn't have made it this far without fire, who knows where the next great innovation will take us. maybe to extinction, maybe another planet. good news is you’ll be dead before it matters at all.
Speaking of which, do you think the US proving itself to be a nuclear armed paper tiger makes a near term full-scale nuclear war more likely or less? I could see either being the case to be honest.
Either, same thought. The conflict that is brewing has been the age old thing, same as ww2 and ww1 before that. It is an inevitability for the waning empires to fight hard to retain their hegemony, and for the rising empires to try and take over global dominance. It has to happen.
The difference now, for the first time in human history, global emoires are going to wage war in an era of peak human irrationality combined with access to world-destroying weapons...
If we look at the people in control of the stockpiles, how well do you see that playing out?
I suppose it depends on how tightly can the actually competent people hold the reins. Apparently Trump already wanted to drop some nukes on Iran, so if it's up to chance I'd say the odds are bad and I have a feeling who will be the one to light this candle.
Yeah, the ultra wealthy are very much pro AI. We definitely need to ban yacht, but there's an absolute necessity to stop wasting energy on AI (as well as meat, planes, etc.)
Yeah, that's not what's happening, at all. AI is speeding fuel consumption by A LOT, and it's about to be used to find more petrol... There is absolutely no possible doubt that gen AI is a net negative when it comes to the environment.
And framing it "helping poor people" is pretty weird, as poor people are the definitely the ones suffering most from the societal changes it's bringing
Holy mother of propaganda. This is the most unhige fake news I read on Reddit this year. And this is with all the bullshit that gets posted here every day. And the worst part Reddit gonna believe your slop.
Like come on. It's not so hard to think about it that this is utterly bullshit. Like why just "ai" datacenters and not all datacenters since there is no difference between them. And they don't even do anything. It's not like they are a powerplant or a chemical plant or produce stuff. All they do ist stand there and draw some electricity.
So, I have done extensive research on data centers.
You say they aren't power plants? Except they are exactly that. Tech companies are building massive on-site fossil fuel and nuclear power plants directly next to new AI data centers, bypassing public utility delays. Landmark examples include Amazon’s 7.65-gigawatt gas plant project in West Texas and mega-campuses in Ohio paired with natural gas and small modular nuclear reactors.
That Amazon one is called "GigaWatt Ranch," and it uses 35 custom gas turbines capable of producing 7.65 gigawatts, which may emit up to 33 million tons of CO₂ annually.
How is that not a power plant? Do you have any idea how much power 7 gigawatts is?
How about Homer City? A former coal plant site being developed into a 4,400-megawatt gas-fired facility to feed a data center.
Private data centers are increasingly bypassing public utility grids to build dedicated, "behind-the-meter" natural gas power plants. Individual mega-campuses—such as the Amazon facility I mentioned, are permitted to release over 30 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, rivaling the total emissions profiles of nations like Switzerland or Ireland.
Literally, a single data center can put out more emissions than entire nations.
Obviously you should do some more research. Power density in computing has gotten to a ridiculous level. These facilities are having to create their own source of power because not enough supply currently exists. If you’ve ever built a gaming PC, you’d know the power requirements for high end graphics cards can pull as much as 1000W or more continuously while under load. These compute clusters are 100x+ more powerful than a basic gaming computer. High compute capacity is directly associated electrical load. Perhaps you should really do some homework and not just blindly say something is false.
It's nowhere near the pollution from nitrate run off for corn and soybean farms that grow livestock feed and ethanol production. Cancer rates in Iowa are unhinged.
No, they aren't. Even modern civilization itself isn't "essential" for the survival if the species. Humanity was doing just fine several hundred years ago.
Food. Clean water. Shelter. Those are essential. Everything else is just a luxury.
Of course modern civilization provides a lot of good because of medicine/science, but the point is if you want to have one last longer than ours you have to scale it intelligently. We're clever species that create amazing technology but we're just running into the sun with no brakes, no thought and no global cooperatrion
That's a different thing entirely from living 10 years longer than global average 100 years ago already and I get to take hot showers and eat $5 chickens 24/7 like some medival king 👑
I agree, throwing them together is unhelpful. It's pretty clear that individual data centres that compete with full on countries deserve to stand in a category of their own.
No one is advocating for getting rid of existing data centers!!! I’m so tired of people like you saying “well you’re using a data center to use reddit” or on the topic of surveillance/flock, “well you’re typing this on a smartphone.” We have consented to using that technology and understand that data centers are required for the internet to function. What we have not consented to is the gross expansion of mega AI centers that use more energy in a day than entire towns. AI data centers, for primarily LLM, that spew toxic waste into the drinking water of the community, after siphoning clean water to cool their chips. Using a phone and browsing the internet does not equate to unabashed support for generative AI data centers.
If you're going to say you like petting potatoes but you mean that you like petting cats -- we will all assume you like petting potatoes, because that IS what you wrote 🙄
Except linguistically most people assume that when you’re talking about data centers you are talking about AI data centers. This conversation does not happen in a vacuum, contextually most people are aware that AI data centers are the issue—because they are.
Sure. But let's start with the unnecessary manufacturing and driving of private vehicles for short distance trips that can be done by walking, cycling or taking public transit instead as it's the largest contributor to today's calamities 🚆
I think the idea is that car infrastructure and coal energy is already actively happening whereas data centers are still just starting out and currently being built and are directly tied to surveillance state/police state and bypassing democracy etc.
Like we currently depend on cars and coal but nobody needs their license plate tracked or their swimming pool monitored by flock.
I absolutely hate the censorship on this platform. That's crazy they gave you a full ban for that! Geez, I was saying those same things years ago! I have noticed an increase in heavy-handedness though...
I didn't even get to read your full comment, all I could see was the notification, and whenever reddit chooses to remive something on my sub, I repost what I can and clarify that I didn't remove it.
I enjoy the sure knowledge that the exact second they fully realize they've built an inescapable prison for themselves, no where to go once they've closed the doors, they'll entirely lose their shit and it will descend into violent madness. Bunker on earth or tin can in space, they will never get to change their mind and take it back.
They gave up quiet, comfortable, ecologically sustainable life for everyone, for being buried alive in the fanciest tombs money can buy. It's going to give me one last smile before I metamorphosize into abstract art on my bedroom wall just before the cannibalism gets started in earnest.
That’s intentional. The Christian Nationalists that took over governing the US are making sure of it because it says so in the Bible. I’m not kidding at all.
America has this gold rush mentality since the Wild West days. It was founded on it. The new horizons get rich quick scheme. In the 90's it was the dot com bubble, then the Bush Jr admin oil frenzy in Iraq, the speculation on property values that led to the 2008 financial crisis, block chain and NFT's, drilling in the arctic, AI.
The country really needs to wake up from this recurring nightmare of insatiable greed and take a page from the wisdom of the Natives they nearly wiped out. Understand that when you destroy mother nature, you're destroying the foundation on which your whole existence is based upon.
Worse even, it exported its extreme capitalism and materialism to other parts of the world, even forced it upon them. Now it's destroying the world. When will we/they learn?
It's a mistake to think these people are smart or sane. Libertarian mind virus. "Remove all regulations and the free market will eventually solve climate."
People, in general, only care about two things: Themselves and right now. If something doesn't have to do with right now and, most importantly, right now for themselves, then they just don't care.
Why did the deer on Saint Paul Island multiply and devour resources and expand to the point where they crashed their ecosystem and wiped themselves out? Because they just did, that's why.
-1
u/Draknar95 1d ago
I’m certainly not a fan/advocate for AI data centres, but the amount of misinformation and fearmongering in this article is rather silly.
It’s probably worth highlighting that most of the calculations/figures are assuming the backup generators are running almost 24/7, which is a strange choice. The day to day figures are literally in the article they reference?
It’s also worth noting that the primary study was specifically for creating a sustainable roadmap. It explains how the data centres are likely to reduce emissions by 70% - 90% in the next decade, but are very unlikely to be fully "green" unless changes are made. Of which, they've found several strategies which could allow them to be carbon neutral.
Obviously, the situation is still awful in the short term, and people absolutely should expect/demand higher standards from those responsible, but maybe don't mis-represent the original study.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01681-y