Remix.run Logo
g8oz 10 hours ago

>>xAI entirely bypassed the grid and generated power onsite, using truck-mounted gas turbines and engines.

These generators polluted the nearby historically black neighborhoods in Memphis Tennessee with nitrogen oxides. Residents are afraid to open their windows, with the elderly, children and those suffering from conditions like COPD particularly affected. Lawsuits alleging environmental racism are pending.

xAI says cleaner generators will be installed but I think this episode shows that we cannot allow public interests to be compromised by private sector so easily just because they scream: Jobs! Investment!

https://time.com/7308925/elon-musk-memphis-ai-data-center/

ACCount37 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These "gas turbines" are located next door to the Allen Combined Cycle Plant, a grid scale natural gas power plant with 1.1GW capacity. It's there to power a nearby steel mill. That's the kind of neighborhood xAI has put its cluster in.

I'm incredibly skeptical of any claim that xAI's power use is putting a dent in the local environment, and "environmental racism" just reeks of the usual agenda pushing.

bob1029 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How tall are the stacks at the combined cycle plant compared to the ones at the xAI datacenter?

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/xai-datacen...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uPkQtSQzMZC3rPZB6

XorNot an hour ago | parent [-]

Seriously this: smoke stacks are a carefully engineered structure specially to ensure air emissions diffuse and don't roll along the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnYdt4T76mk

You absolutely cannot park a bunch of truck mounted generators next to an existing plant and go "yeah it won't make a difference".

toofy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i’m curious, are you skeptical xai would wiggle around regulations and pollute a city?

by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air? because that seems like an entirely reasonable agenda to me.

Lerc 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That seems like an odd framing.

For my part I am prepared to accept that XAI might attempt to flout regulations. If I knew more about their operating practices I might even expect it. Even in that case I would not expect it to be the case that you could assume that they had done in any individual case.

While this isn't criminal law, the principle that underlies innocent until proven guilty still applies. I don't think it's acceptable do condemn people because you are assuming that they are doing the kind of thing you expect them to do. I think it is still incumbent upon accusers to make their case and for that accusation to be robustly challenged. Not just by people who stand something to gain by one outcome over another, but by people who want to find out the truth.

I tend to challenge ideas that support my viewpoint more than oppose, I find it incredibly irritating to encounter a flawed argument concluding something I agree with. Somewhat annoyingly it seems to cause people to assume I believe the opposite to what I actually believe, because there seems to be a presumption that you should accept all arguments in favour of your viewpoint no matter how bad they are. Apparently I'm not the right sort of team player.

>by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air? because that seems like an entirely reasonable agenda to me.

I don't see how you could in good faith reach that conclusion from reading the comment above. It seems to me to be talking about the agenda of people expressing concern for others. That's the "Think of the children" kind of argument. Invoking disadvantaged groups in this manner very rarely expresses the agenda of the groups in question, it is usually made by people claiming that there own agenda is in the interests of the group indicated, frequently without input from that group. I don't know it that is an accurate claim to make in this instance or not, but it is certainly not characterising having the ability to breath as an agenda.

goku12 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here are some quotes from an article [1] that directly addresses your point:

> The turbines spew nitrogen oxides, also known as NOx, at an estimated rate of 1,200 to 2,000 tons a year — far more than the gas-fired power plant across the street or the oil refinery down the road.

> The turbines are only temporary and don’t require federal permits for their emissions of NOx and other hazardous air pollutants like formaldehyde, xAI’s environmental consultant, Shannon Lynn, said during a webinar hosted by the Memphis Chamber of Commerce. The argument appears to rely on a loophole in federal regulations that environmental groups and former EPA officials say shouldn’t apply to the situation.

> Mayo and Lynn didn’t respond to calls and texts from POLITICO’s E&E News requesting comment and have not said publicly how much longer the “temporary” turbines will remain onsite. Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

As you can see, xAI is being deliberately deceptive here and this has been known, but unaddressed for a while now. Remember that we are talking about a grave threat to the health and life of the entire population of a town. That too in a country where healthcare is deliberately unaffordable to ordinary folks. I don't know if you know how nasty formaldehyde and NOx smells.

How do you so casually trivialize and vilify such concerns as 'agenda pushing'? It's very sad that HN has too many apologists for these greedy serial violators and abusers. At the same time, the sheer lack of empathy towards the unprivileged is appalling! They're humans too!

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/elon-musk-xai-memph...

HNisCIS an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ah so because they're black people and they're already near _some_ pollution, we can just add _more_ pollution since they won't notice.

/s because some of you are fucking psychopaths

anon7000 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Polluting the environment in any form is a violation of property rights. It’s unfortunate our government hasn’t codified that reality.

My neighbor’s don’t have a right to pollute my property by shining a bright light on it or blowing smoke into it or dumping chemicals into my underground well. Even if it’s mostly legal, it’s still a violation of my underlying right to property

foobarqux 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That plant is subject to regulations. The xAI turbines have evaded regulations by claiming that they are portable.

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
thisgetsit 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> xAI says cleaner generators will be installed but I think this episode shows that we cannot allow public interests to be compromised by private sector so easily just because they scream: Jobs! Investment!

80ish% in the US live <100 miles from their hometown.

It would be wise to see "jobs!" Investment!" as little more than a mafioso like threat to agrarian-stay in one place-work to live types. "Sure is a nice Shire you got there. Better hope it doesn't suffer from lack of investment in jobs."

Threats of it all imploding are taken seriously by a lot of people.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/culture/generations/millennials-...

So what if it does? That's normal with the passage of time. As long as human biology exists humans will solve for those problems. Beyond that obligation is just socialized memes, ethno objects that come and go with the generations.

Everyone alive now worried about propagation of our culture sure does not seem concerned Latin fell out of common use. That they aren't spending their lives keeping old traditions alive should make it obvious old traditions don't mean that much to the living.

Politicians and rich need us servicing debt they so graciously took on to invest in jobs or we would be free to police them.

mucle6 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The phrasing 'historically black neighborhoods' feels like it pushes a specific agenda rather than just addressing the pollution.

It implies that if this were happening near a non black neighborhood, it wouldn’t be as egregious, which is a strange moral stance.

Also 'historically' is irrelevant. Pollution hurts the people living there now.

jasonwatkinspdx 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's because in the US historically black neighborhoods have a unique history of racism and disinvestment.

Here's an article about what happened literally where I'm sitting: https://kingneighborhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BLEE...

Stories like this played all all over the US. Read up on Robert Moses for example.

Not that you intended it, but your comment veers close to the sort of "why do black people always talk about racism" thought ending cliche or similar demands to be "colorblind" that ultimately are only functionally used to shut down conversations about extant and continuing racism.

zozbot234 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the flip side of that argument is that whenever you do see higher investment and better amenities in a historically marginalized neighborhood, that gets loudly deplored by faux-progressive activists as harmful "gentrification" and "changing the character" of the neighborhood. Y'all should pick one stance or the other; you can't have it both ways!

tialaramex 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So the thing about "Ya'll should ..." is that it's often mistaking "Group A and Group B hold conflicting beliefs but share a characteristic" with "Group C, all the people with this characteristic, all exhibit an incoherent belief structure".

For example suppose you apply this to the US Senate. So instead of Group A (Democrats and a those who caucus with them) and Group B (Republicans) we instead think there's a single Group C, Senators. Now their behaviour seems incoherent, this Group C seems to hold contradictory opinions and behaves irrationally, why can't they get their act together? The actual answer is that we misunderstood and they're not a single coherent group so that's why they don't act that way.

0xDEAFBEAD 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You might as well argue: "Part of my brain thought A at time Y. A different part of my brain had a different thought B, at a different time Z. Why the accusations of hypocrisy?"

The problem arises when an individual or group tries to represent themselves as more credible/consistent/coherent than they really are.

If you freely admit that you have multiple personality disorder, hypocrisy is to be expected from you as an individual. People know what they're in for.

If you respond to accusations of hypocrisy by saying: "Hm, that's a good point. I'll have to reflect and see if I can reach consistency here." Then people recognize you are making a good-faith effort.

I've observed that modern progressivism represents itself with a strong us/them boundary. The vociferousness of the rhetoric vastly outstrips the quality of the underlying reasoning/decision mechanism. And I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."

You are correct that individual progressives may, in principle, be credible if they have a coherent philosophy which is consistently applied (including to critique their own "team" when appropriate).

But empirically, modern progressivism is more of a "meme ideology" where precepts are invoked when convenient, against whatever outgroup is currently fashionable. Progressive rhetoric, and progressive reasoning, is so flexible and untethered that if you're sufficiently talented at wielding it, it can be used to reach virtually any conclusion. The selective application of principles at the group level has strong parallels to how hypocrisy works at the level of an individual.

A movement can be meaningfully described as hypocritical, even if its individual members are not.

Lerc an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."

For what it's worth I had someone who identifies as progressive say something to that effect to me just last night.

It happens.

shermantanktop 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."

Humans are bad at that, and the ones who say it often don’t actually mean it. Some people claim their openness to debate, but that’s not the same as being open to changing one’s mind.

jasonwatkinspdx 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're attributing views to me I do not hold.

And frankly, you characterization of those views makes clear you're not interested in actual answers.

The primary issue with gentrification in historically black neighborhoods is that owners face the dilemma of having to leave their community to capture the increased property values.

For example, I live near the oldest black church in the PNW. Many of the older congregation members live in the area, and have low mobility. If we don't build a mix of housing that addresses their needs in downsizing, they end up having to effectively exile themselves from the community they've lived within for decades. They can't simply "move somewhere lower cost" without dramatic changes to their entire social world, just at an age where keeping those social ties takes a lot of effort.

zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually agree that building smaller/denser housing would be great and address the needs of many existing residents, but those same faux-progressive activists will decry that in the strongest terms, and insist that any increases in density will only further even worse gentrification and change the historical "flavor" of the neighborhood in extremely detrimental ways. Again, progressive activists cannot have it both ways; they should pick one or the other.

actionfromafar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You totally crushed that strawman.

Or something. Yes, hypocrites are everywhere, but what are we debating here exactly?

jLaForest 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a misreading of the term in the same way saying that the phrase 'black lives matter' imply white lives don't matter

The point is that this type of environmental pollution only is allowed to happen in poor areas that are disproportionately black because of decades of systemic racism like red lining.

If that concept makes you uncomfortable, that's a good thing, it should. But you should resist the urge to deny the existence of ideas that are inconvenient

YaeGh8Vo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What's uncomfortable is not the racism claim, but that the argument is merely a conjecture. It's lazy and dishonest. More importantly, this line of argument tends to shut down intelligent conversation, which this forum is about.

lawn 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It implies that if this were happening near a non black neighborhood, it wouldn’t be as egregious, which is a strange moral stance.

I read it the other way: that it simply wouldn't happen in a white neighborhood.

mucle6 9 hours ago | parent [-]

That makes sense. For some reason though I still sense a hint of desire for retribution in the original comment

marci 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It makes more sense to word it like this when you take into consideration historical trends, like drowned towns for lakes or dams, highway system along redline, thriving neighbourhoods erased to create parks… often preceded by violence and little to no compensation.

SantalBlush 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is an uncharitable interpretation.

mucle6 9 hours ago | parent [-]

My interpretation is it would be less likely to happen near a wealthy neighborhood compared to a poor neighborhood. Why talk about race if its not about race?

dullcrisp 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Who said they were poor?

ryoshu 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Tulsa used to have a rich Black neighborhood.

toofy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

it’s amazing to me how few people know what happened there.

jasonwatkinspdx 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because it is about race.

Please read the article I linked in another reply to you.

My neighborhood was prosperous when it was systematically stolen from the black people who built it. They literally razed a thriving business district. And then the land sat empty for decades, only in the end to be sold to property developers.

They used eminent domain to steal people's homes and businesses in a way that was blatantly criminal, but the victims had no recourse given the courts and entire rest of the political structure was complicit in the actions.

And variations of this story played out everywhere across America.

So yes, the fact that a neighborhood is historically black is relevant, because it shows the events of today are part of a continued arc of injustice.

enraged_camel 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The correlation is extremely strong, especially in places like Memphis. And nobody said this particular neighborhood is poor.

immibis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's because it's part of a more general pattern where bad things like this are preferentially done to black people. It's the same with highway locations. For some reason, when choosing where to demolish to build a highway, they prefer to demolish neighbourhoods with mostly black people.

guhidalg 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The phrase implies that powerful companies know that historically black neighborhoods don’t have the resources to mount a legal defense against abnormal pollution from data center generators, so the smart choice is to put all the pollution near historically black neighborhoods.

The agenda, as it is every day, is how to externalize costs so that megacompanies don’t have to spend more money to keep our environment clean.

mucle6 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re conflating race with poverty.

It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.

Also, the OP explicitly states that lawsuits are pending. Clearly, the community was able to mount a legal defense

Arn_Thor 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.

Statistically poverty is correlated with race. For reasons to do with (quite recent) history.

mucle6 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Statistics are not a license to assume.

Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.

Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.

dsr_ 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Historically black" is a euphemism -- that's a term that makes people feel better about something awful -- which refers to the fact that for the majority of the last three hundred years people have been systematically, governmentally, socially and personally discriminated against because of the color of their skin, and that racism led to massive inequity reflected in wealth, income, education and standards of living.

The facts of history show this. It is not a subtle statistical effect.

People who argue the way that you have been are either woefully ignorant of this matter or are playing games trying to justify the status quo, or are just racist trolls. This isn't a FAQ on HN because it's a FAQ in real life.

mucle6 6 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

danans 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.

Who said anything about a specific person? They are talking about a neighborhood, in a urban area in a region known for the endemic poverty in black-majority areas due to the long shadow of slavery and Jim Crow.

As a wise character once said, "poverty is a condition, not a crime".

> > Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.

There are a few historically black communities in the US that are middle-class and prosperous, and Black Americans have made huge advances, but to this day, concentrations of Black American community prosperity tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

renewiltord 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Statistically crime is also related with race. Are we ready to make similar assumptions then?

sidereal1 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Crime is related with poverty which is related with race.

ares623 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No, not like that. /s

hirsin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You've got an extra actor in the mix that makes for a different argument and actually supports the idea that it's racist, I think.

Namely - I think most agree that it's racist to mindlessly assume race and poverty are correlated. The argument here is that the AI companies made that assumption - in other words, they're being called racists.

I don't think it's racist to speculate that a corporation, that made choices that specifically impact black neighborhoods, is racist.

cl0ckt0wer 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We can sue to shut down pollution generators? Finally, I can get rid of that annoying airport...

kakapo5672 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Adding to their sins, many of those airports are in "historically black neighborhoods", you know!

badc0ffee 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm a bit skeptical about this. I know diesel generators make these kind of pollutants, but I haven't heard the same about natural gas.

My city has a big NG facility downtown that pipes heated water to a bunch of buildings, and it is surrounded by condos. I've never heard anything about it impacting the air (other than CO2 which is a global and not local issue).

Every building here (except for those connected to district heating systems), large and small, has a natural gas boiler or furnace. We have also several NG plants generating electricity within city limits. Again, localized pollution is not what concerns people about these things. Coal plants, on the other hand, tended to be way outside the city when they were still in operation.

jordanb 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Burning gas always creates stuff you don't want to be breathing. These small portable turbines were allowed to run dirtier than a full-size NG plant because the premise was that they are small and temporary. But then xAI put 40 of them in a parking lot and fired them all up at the same time, which is quite illegal but xAI also controls the government of both Tennessee and the USA, so residents are fucked.

You hear AI folks including Trump's AI Tsar David Sachs frequently promoting what happened in Tennessee as the future of AI power generation. They're calling it "behind the meter" power generation. Understand that this is what it is: generating gigawatts of power with dozens or hundreds of "small" gas turbines all stacked in one place. Instant, on-demand toxic triangle coming to a data center project near you.

osigurdson 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They certainly can emit NOx. The common technology used today to reduce this is called Dry Low Emissions (DLE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_low_emission). Emissions can be very low if done correctly.

skywhopper 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Gas furnaces and stoves are known polluters of indoor air: https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/gas-stoves-and-indoor-air-p...

Large gas plants are probably relatively clean overall, but the temporary, portable gas generators used by eg the xAI datacenter are not as tightly regulated and aren’t inspected or controlled in the same way. Given the particular corporate agent involved, I’d be surprised if any care at all were being taken to minimize air pollution caused by these portable generators.

badc0ffee 10 hours ago | parent [-]

That is true of gas stoves, but gas furnaces don't exhaust into the house.

kube-system 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Lower efficiency gas furnaces don’t have a completely sealed exhaust and rely on a draft for pollutant evacuation. This usually works good enough when properly installed and maintained but can be a source of indoor air pollution. Although typically minimal.

And there are also decorative and/or supplemental gas heating devices which exhaust into the home.

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
butlike 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Global issues start locally. See: tragedy of the commons

cindyllm 10 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

trhway 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I'm a bit skeptical about this. I know diesel generators make these kind of pollutants, but I haven't heard the same about natural gas.

it is about gas turbine high temperature and pressure, not about natural gas. That is why diesel engine does it too, while it isn't such an issue for regular gas engine, nor for "simple" LNG burners/heaters.

What xAI does here sounds horrendous. 270MW of gas turbines dumping the exhaust straight into the neighborhood. It is like 1000 diesel trucks running their engine full power 24x7 near your house.

ACCount37 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Check the map. There's an operational industrial scale natural gas power plant next door to xAI facility. And it was there for what, a decade already? Before it, there was a coal power plant there too.

Basically, it looks like the whole "xAI poisoning black neighborhoods" thing is the usual FUD by the usual agenda pushers.

badc0ffee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I just looked, and you're right. It's in an industrial area several km from homes, and near existing NG facilities, including one where they flare gas.

https://www.facebook.com/abacustrategic/posts/pfbid02rrUwoWM...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/fYwcSi8vfPBnsYeK7

I don't doubt that it is a source of pollution, but I agree that this is overblown in the same was as the claims that datacentres are using up all the fresh water.

foobarqux 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That plant is subject to regulation and the xAI turbines evade regulations by claiming they are "portable".

renewiltord 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

casey2 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

TFA said it's all legal and explicit federal policy. You don't have to like it, but some people are going to have to make minor sacrifices if the majority want AI services. Look on the bright side, when these people all have personal robot doctors caring for them well into their 100s they will be grateful they didn't listen to the NIMBYs

pastel8739 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> some people are going to have to make minor sacrifices if the majority want AI services

_Does_ the majority want AI services? I feel like the question “if you could stop AI, would you?” is far too controversial for this to be the case.

roze_sha 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would you be willing to volunteer and make that sacrifice for the majority?

strange_quark 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I honestly cannot tell if this is satire. Literally a Lord Farquaad level take. Some of you may get asthma and lung cancer, but that’s a sacrifice we’re willing to make to ensure we can deliver MechaHitler to the masses.

mhb 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why is the skin tone of the residents of the affected community relevant?

ladidahh 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the US, we have a living history of discriminatory policies based on race

https://www.thesidewalksymposium.com/blog/the-enduring-shado... , here is a quick overview of redlining in Memphis

mhb 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. I've heard about it. So this wouldn't be a problem if it affected a different group of people?

butlike 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Probably not because if it affected white neighborhoods, it either wouldn't be enacted, shut down after complaints, or receive enough bad press as to be shut down.

mhb 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a lot of assumptions. If they wanted that to be the point of the article they could have done it a lot more explicitly.

ladidahh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It would be the exact same problem, and equally bad.

mhb 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree. Which is why I think that detail is not relevant and just a distraction.

skywhopper 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because the people who decided where to locate it and the people in government who could do something to stop it make decisions about how much they care based on those folks’ skin color. If those generators were placed near a rich white neighborhood, the government response would be wildly different.

Mississippi in particular is well known at the state government level to actively choose not to enforce environmental regulations in areas where its Black citizens live.

redwall_hp 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And TFA addresses this. South Memphis was a community largely composed of freed slaves, where manufacturers set up shop, the military dumped waste (now a superfund site), and people have continued to mark the area for polluting industries for generations.

jordanb 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be fair they would definitely do this to rural and/or poor white people too.

8 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
kube-system 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe. East Palestine OH got a decent amount of political attention.