| ▲ | baron816 3 days ago |
| > We need to build and maintain vast AI infrastructure and the energy to power it. To do that, we will continue to reject radical climate dogma > This initial phase acknowledges the need to safeguard existing assets and ensures an uninterrupted and affordable supply of power. The United States must prevent the premature decommissioning of critical power generation resources Yeah, they're going to do all they can to block cheap renewables and give handouts to fossil fuel companies. |
|
| ▲ | burkaman 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| For example, today they defunded a critical transmission line in order to block renewable power from getting to people who need it: https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-terminates... |
| |
| ▲ | giantg2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I wonder what the actual cutoffs are. The article is scarce on details but does seem to point to one political side or the other acting politically - either fast tracking approval for a fiscally irresponsible project, or pulling funding because they disagree with renewables. | | |
| ▲ | burkaman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The "fast tracking" accusation is not credible without evidence. This loan took years to go through the LPO process, here's an example filing from 2022: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/16/2022-27.... | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | "The "fast tracking" accusation is not credible without evidence." It was approved in a flury of approvals between the election and inauguration. So that's not direct evidence. However, do you have direct evidence that the revocation was just based on it being renewable? Sure, there's circumstantial evidence of it. If there's circumstantial evidence for both positions, we need some hard evidence to support either one. | | |
| ▲ | burkaman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > It was approved in a flury of approvals between the election and inauguration. Do you have evidence of this? Maybe a list of all LPO approvals so we can look for increased frequency after the election? It would also help to know the average LPO timeline, so we could look at when the grain belt express applied and see if it was approved unusually quickly. > However, do you have direct evidence that the revocation was just based on it being renewable? Not exclusively, but there is evidence that opposition to green energy was one of the major factors. See Josh Hawley's statements, where he repeatedly highlights the "green" aspects and likes to call it a "green scam": https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-wins-cancelation-of-gra..., https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1943408766629650779. The current Secretary of Energy is also strongly opposed to expansion of renewable energy, see this recent speech: https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-chris-wrigh.... | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "Not exclusively" You could run the numbers to show if it's financially responsible or not instead of again using circumstantial evidence. We can also look at the other approved LPO grants, like the one for sustainable aviation fuel. Here's an article about how they changed their methods to push more through due to their political concerns. https://cen.acs.org/energy/US-cleantech-loan-program-sprints... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | giantg2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're restarting some nuke plants too. This seems like a decent idea given the power demands of data centers. |
| |
| ▲ | oxryly1 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Which ones? AFAIK the nuke plants that shut down are very cost ineffective. | | | |
| ▲ | cowpig 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Within the scope of US energy, restarting old nuclear plants has a negligible impact. Less than 1% net gain. Building new ones will take 10+ years, and the climate crisis is a today problem. Also, at the rate technology is changing, building new nuclear plants seems silly. | | |
| ▲ | giantg2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "Building new ones will take 10+ years, and the climate crisis is a today problem. Also, at the rate technology is changing, building new nuclear plants seems silly." You're right, technology is changing quickly. There are plenty of new reactor options, including small modular types which would be faster to build. This doesn't seem silly. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Workaccount2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Someone needs to start naming the largest solar and wind farms after Trump. "We are proposing the largest solar farm in the world, in order to capture the sheer magnitude and capability of the most powerful solar plant to date, we propose calling it the Grand Trump Energy Generation Field" The dudes ego would prevent him from blocking it. |
| |
| ▲ | burkaman 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Wouldn't work because the announcement of the name is what makes him happy, he doesn't care about following through to make the thing actually succeed. Nearly every business with his name on it has failed. | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | At first I thought your plan is brilliant. But then I realized he will try sue for unlicensed use of the brand OR defamation OR both. |
|
|
| ▲ | wredcoll 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When I think "vast new sources of energy for ai", my mind immediately goes to Coal Power! |
| |
|
| ▲ | neverrroot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | debugnik 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Then we have Spain, that after the blackout, suddenly burns a lot more gas (41% more). The Spain blackout wasn't a problem inherent to renewables, our grid simply lacks the storage and voltage control needed for the mix we intend. So, to keep the grid stable until we solve it, we'll need a more realistic mix for our current grid, burning more gas, yes. Engineers apparently knew this was needed for years, but our industries are experts at kicking cans down the road. The blackout could have been preventable with the right investments. | | |
| ▲ | neverrroot 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | debugnik 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Speculating? The state and grid operator publicly announced the new mix and the measures until we can sustain the intended one. It's ok if you don't trust official reports, but they exist. | | |
| ▲ | neverrroot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Knowing a bit about Spain and the officials over there, I’m skeptical that their plans will materialize anytime soon. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cyberax 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The Spain blackout wasn't a problem inherent to renewables, our grid simply lacks the storage and voltage control needed for the mix we intend. Which is a problem inherent for renewables. Because they can't scale without a significant amount of storage, which is expensive. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China and India are going to be subject to direct sanctions because of their energy dependencies. If the Western world shared their frugality, we'd be bankrolling both sides of Ukraine's war. | | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What’s your point? | | | |
| ▲ | energy123 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This mish mash of cherry picked examples and outright distortions does not belong on HN. | | |
| ▲ | neverrroot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | energy123 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Cherry picking facts is lying by omission. If you're going to say that renewables causes higher electricity prices, you need to explain the locations that have both high renewable penetration and low electricity prices, like Iowa and Texas. You further need to explain the reasons why those locations you listed have high electricity prices out of all possible factors, rather than just observing an alleged correlation and then making a questionable inference that we're supposed to go along with. What you're doing is not analysis, it is using rhetoric to persuade. | | |
| ▲ | neverrroot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Tell me the success stories of solar/wind renewables in Europe. Don’t cherry pick either. Btw, do you think going ad hominem changes anything? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | andsoitis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Yeah, they're going to do all they can to block cheap renewables and give handouts to fossil fuel companies. Many AI people in positions of influence have argued that AI will all but solve the climate crisis. Viewed from that angle, it would make sense that you wouldn’t care about how dirty the sources of energy is on the way to AGI because once there, the climate crisis will be magically solved. Somehow. |
| |
| ▲ | Henchman21 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Some people really need to re-watch The Matrix | |
| ▲ | dwaltrip 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They aren't neutral on energy sources or simply agnostic to environmental impact. They are anti-renewable, because renewable = woke. Tribal politics at its best. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > They Who is the “they” in your sentence? | | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dwaltrip 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The current administration, maga folks, the freshly anti-woke techies. Etc Top level comment was referencing the energy policies mentioned in the linked site, which of course left out renewables entirely. |
|
|
|
