Remix.run Logo
alex_duf 2 hours ago

What an absolute ecological disaster. If bubble there is, now would be a great time for it to pop.

an hour ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
Tade0 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As an (eastern) European this is to me a greater concern than the Russian invasion in terms of availability of gas for the winter, considering how so many of those places run on gas turbines.

Putin only has a certain amount of the resource on tap and sells it to someone eventually. Meanwhile data centers will eat up whatever you throw at them at any price, especially that in principle they don't need to be connected to the grid, so I imagine setting up their power supply must take months at the longest.

rapsey an hour ago | parent [-]

The US has incredible gas reserves. Much more that can be exported with ships.

Tade0 an hour ago | parent [-]

The issue is with the price - why bother shipping LNG half the planet when one can just sell it at a significant markup domestically?

When the price is right all kinds of contracts and agreements are usually thrown out the window - especially if the penalties are small enough to make it worth it.

rapsey 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

No they can not sell it with a markup domestically. LNG price is much higher.

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

By that logic almost any kind of economic development is an ecological disaster because it uses power.

everfrustrated an hour ago | parent [-]

Welcome to European thought

trhway 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Alternatively the crisis can be used to accelerate right development - quickly build up solar farms and transmission lines. Both of these can be done quickly if there were a political will. Yet, that will is missing.

So, we're talking 40GW. Lets see what China does:

https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-tre...

"In the first two months of 2026, China added:

32.5 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity, down 18% from last year. 11 GW of wind power capacity, up 19% from last year. 20 GW of thermal power capacity, up 414% from last year. 1.2 GW of hydro power capacity, down 36% from last year. 1.2 GW of nuclear power capacity. "

Edit: to the proponents of nuclear - i think nuclear is very damaging to society as it promotes corrupt crony-government capitalism instead of market forces.

cloudie78 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Right off the top of my head, to power a 500MW Datacenter we need:

2.2-2.5 GWdc solar capacity which at 600W/panel amounts to 14-17sq mi plus additional 8-12GWh of storage to deal with nighttime, two-three days of cloud cover is not going to work with these numbers.

Ballpark 5-7BN$

Nuclear otoh, 1GW continuous - gives constant power, badly managed first of a kind (or first one after decades) build will be at around 10-15BN and that’ll cover two 500MW data centres.

There’s also the second/third degree order effects nuclear power stations have of creating jobs and industrial manufacturing demand. To run a nuclear power station you need to employ 1000 people (engineers plus support staff) - that’s a small town’s worth of adults. So you’ll need a town with a school, hospitals, stores - those need staffing as well.

Unfortunately building nuclear is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning.

So gas turbines it is at around ~1BN$

psd1 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

> is not something that’s currently a feasible path as it requires patient capital and long term vision and planning

HN arguing in favour of a planned economy - see, we aren't free-market cultists!

clarionbell 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources.

In Europe, we approach energy generation as a political, or climate problem. We are building solar and wind power sources, not to make energy cheaper, or to make grid more resilient, but to fulfill an ideological goal.

The results are, not great, to be honest. The energy prices have increased substantially, and are now driving our chemical industry bankrupt.

Edit: I do not dispute the climate change. I am only highlighting impacts of current policy.

toast0 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

China is building all types of generation because they are rapidly growing their electric network (generation doubled from 2014 to 2024).

Europe's generation is roughly flat during the same period.

It doesn't make sense to build a lot of everything in a system without growth in generation. Replacing decommisioned generators would be enough. Growth in solar and wind generation (for ideological or economic reasons) means there's less reason to build new capacity of other types. There's complications there with firm vs intermittent capacity, but that's a different discussion.

US electrical generation was also flat from 2000 to 2020, but seems to be growing again since then, but not anywhere near China's growth rate.

energy123 an hour ago | parent [-]

They're not really building anything other than renewables. Nuclear is a rounding error and new coal is just replacing old coal.

toast0 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

Stats on wikipedia [1] stopped breaking out coal from other fossil fuel ('thermal') production in 2021.

But coal was 4.1 million GWh in 2014 and 5.0 million GWh in 2021; that's a lot of (relatively) new coal. Fossil fuel growth since 2023 is a lot less than earlier years, so maybe they have hit saturation for fossil fuel generation. I would expect high fossil fuel prices so far this year would drive usage lower, the stats for 2026 should be interesting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

psd1 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Energy prices globally spiked in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine (again). I conclude that energy is tied more closely to fossil than solar. Happy to stand with you and throw rocks at stupid solar policy, though.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
trhway an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>I like how balanced their energy mix is. It is very obvious that China is optimizing for capacity and availability. There isn't really a push for clean energy sources for political, or climate, reasons. They are deployed when it makes sense, backed up by robust coal and nuclear sources.

yes, they don't seem to fall for the "solar is unstable" trap and recognize new reality - the solar + wind smoothed by nuclear/gas is the new baseline

To the comment on the coal below : not really. You don't need that much as a smoothing capacity.

boelboel an hour ago | parent [-]

You mean + coal, they don't have a meaningful amount of nuclear (just under 5% of electricity mix and 2% of energy). 50% of electricity is coal.

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

If we build a terawatt of green energy capacity then turn around and immediately use it for datacenters rather than to replace fossil fuel generation, we haven’t gained anything. If anything we’ve lost out.

spacington 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah and the richest person on the planet with full vertical integration (with partner) Elon musk and Tesla aka solar roof and power wall wants to sell DC in space and hasn't fixed any use of gas turbine for Colossus 1&2.

Without enforcement it will happen continuously with snail pace

PunchyHamster 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

solar farms are worst kind of power source for constant loads like datacenters running AI training

adornKey an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Why? Unlike loads involving a real physical process there is absolutely no need for AI-training to be constant.

everfrustrated an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You are correct in the sense that they can stop work in a way many generic server use cases can't (which is seen in lowering power supply reliability requirements as the article mentions), but running expensive servers at 50% utilization would dramatically affect the revenue generated per capital invested - IE you couldn't afford to buy the servers.

ZeroGravitas 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

If it just costs more, similar to how it's possible to have a low water use datacenter, then in a perfect spherical cow economic universe then the lower cost option is better.

In the real world you'd need to add some cost to account for the externalities on water and GHG.

Do the numbers still work out for the gas powered plant? If not then you're just exploiting unaccounted for externalities.

pu_pe an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If you invest into chips that deprecate in value really fast, not utilizing them to their full capacity because of power constraints would be counter productive.

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

Solar power still can take a certain amount of load from any other source and saving money and CO2 while doing so.

And grid battery works and is cheap enough now.

alex_duf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm hoping the kind of gas turbines being installed on these datacenters are capable of quickly responding to a load change, meaning the primary source of energy could be solar during the day and complement when there isn't enough energy.

But I haven't looked into where these datacenter are being placed, I'm assuming that although solar is cheap now, the surface needed would make the purchase of nearby land probably not worth it. These new categories of datacenters are becoming very energy dense...

numpad0 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

but you can't trust especially hyperscalers with securely sealed HEUs in shipping containers

trhway 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you're just incorrect. You probably missed 2 points :

- battery storage

- and in the article

"However, AI labs and some hyperscalers have relaxed those requirements as there is now a lower uptime tolerance applied to both inference and training, not just training. Many of Meta’s self-built AI datacenters, for example, target just two nines of uptime and forgo backup generators entirely, as detailed in our Industrials Model."

actionfromafar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's why we are getting clean, beautiful coal the likes of which nobodys ever seen before!

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

This is a defeatist EU attitude that leads to the worse outcomes. Expensive power and a failing economy.

There is money now for a huge investment boom, which is what is happening in the US and China. With EU failing completely.

logicchains an hour ago | parent [-]

>There is money now for a huge investment boom

Not in western Europe, because they spent almost all their excess economic output over the past few decades on welfare/transfer payments.

psd1 a minute ago | parent | next [-]

Are you aware that public spending is a transfer from the public sector to the private, and that poor people spend approximately 100% of their income? Would you argue that stock buy-backs are a better use of public money?

At some point, probably in the 80s, the prophets of Mammon convinced policymakers that the liquidity of capital markets was the highest good, that no liquidity was enough, and that the financial class is inherently productive.

When we bailed out the banks in 2008, it amounted to a wealth transfer from the public purse to Jamie Dimon. That's your counterproductive welfare spending.

Texas had blackouts last year because free-market fundamentalism. Perhaps Texans should run their fridges on investment boom.

rapsey an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That was my point. We in the EU are destroying ourselves. The US is racing ahead and investing in all kinds of power generation technologies.

everfrustrated an hour ago | parent [-]

The difference is Europeans expect government to "fix" things. Americans expect companies to do that.

Eg, the disastrous energy policies all across Europe which have made price of energy insanely high with no hope of ever coming down (these high prices are all locked in with long term contracts).

America just builds lots of new power. Because of fewer market distorting policies the new power comes online at cheaper marginal rates so the price doesn't go up. And now Texas has some of the greener and cheapest energy in the West.

marcyb5st 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And especially terrible for the communities that have to live with gas turbines or other local power generators as neighbors. Noise and air pollution constantly [1].

But fuck them, they are poor people so we don't care about them /s .

Additionally, people against data centers are accused of being paid by China [2]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/13/elon-mus... [2] https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/kevin-oleary-trump-administra...

everfrustrated an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It wasn't long ago that every city had a coal power station right in the center of it. Things aren't nearly as bad as you suggest.

trhway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

you can't put an ADU, yet, you can put in 200MW generating capacity.