In broad strokes I tend to agree. I think there is a fairly good path to moving most things to electricity and in turn moving most electricity generation to renewables.
The more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job.
By and large, renewables are marching towards a state where they will provide enough of the generation that what remains would be insignificant.
I would be interested to know where the gas is coming from for this particular data centre. There are a few cases that generation by gas is preferable to what is happening right now. One good example is if the gas is from sources that would otherwise be flared off. I have heard in the past that businesses have been reluctant to harness energy from gas rather than flaring it off because any user of the energy gets tagged with the CO2 emissions. If it just gets burnt off it makes no difference to the amount of total emissions, but it avoids the CO2 being attributed to their industry.
I have long advocated that EU should be in the forefront and start sunsetting fossil fueled power generation, by setting a date when no new construction is allowed and then letting the existing fleet naturally die. It would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we can't keep constructing new thermal power stations that continue to burn fuel whenever we have need to increase capacity and grid stability.
Sadly there aren't much support to do this. The largest coalition see thermal power stations as critical to manage grid stability and voted to have natural gas defined as "green", since they view it as necessary to enable renewable energy to be built. The other major coalition do want to decrease the need for thermal power plants by increasing base load through nuclear power, but they are not openly against thermal power plants as a way to reduce costs. EU lacks any movement that are willing to pay the cost of not burning fuel in order to generate electricity. Same for basically every other place on earth right now, despite EU and most countries being in agreement that climate change is real and fossil fuels should be stopped yesterday.
I remember a couple of years ago Amazon added a new leadership principle:
Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
We started in a garage, but we’re not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders create more than they consume and always leave things better than how they found them.
these actions are exactly the opposite of what they claim to try to strive towards.
I wish there was a source of energy that has 100-1000x energy density compare to other sources and it is controllable so capacity factory is close to 100. Ohh wait.
It seems strange for this article to word this as a new or unusual source of pollution, natural gas is the primary source of energy in the US, adding 10% to existing thermal fleet in ERCOT https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards is not a huge deal and its disingenuous to say this one plant will become a "top source of US pollution".
Solar generation buildout in ERCOT is also proceeding very quickly, the new Tesla megapack factory outside Houston and proposed new solar factory will help speed up the transition to sustainable energy.
The problem is that the people who want to build nuclear plants are precisely the people I don't trust to build nuclear plants.
Personally, I think we should look at a structure similar to the military for running the plants. No profit motive, enlistment terms, court martial, stigma associated with dishonourable discharge, veterans benefits, etc. The military is the only one I know of with a track record in nuclear energy that I would trust.
It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a
permit
>GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States
Immediately following that is the text
"It’s worth noting that companies rarely emit as much as their permits allow"
It's also worth noting that the headline turns "largest single source" of CO2 to "top source" of climate pollution. They say pollution in the text, but context would suggest they are talking about CO2. To say otherwise would be a much stronger claim which I don't think you can assume unless they clearly assert it.
I'm not sure if it is possible to quantify scale of climate impact between different types of pollution, but it seems like a stretch to unilaterally declare that the single top producer of CO2 is the top environmental impact. It may be, but they are making claims beyond what were made in their sources.
I was under the impression that there were a few chemicals that had an outsize effect on climate pollution.
Sure, climate change is bad and has the potential to disrupt and end the lives of many in the future. But other forms of air pollution like pm2.5 particulates in the air are already causing an estimated 5 million premature deaths per year as well as a slew of other health problems including lowering of IQ.
But just think, when the climate collapses and we can’t go outside anymore for large portions of the year, we’re gonna be Really happy we’ve got all this AI slop to keep us entertained!
"They produce harmful pollutants, which can accelerate climate change impacts and harm public health—contributing to conditions like asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, and strokes."
Per kWh, natural gas plants emit half as much CO2 as coal plants and almost zero sulfur and particulate pollution.
They emit little nitrous oxide and almost zero mercury/heavy-metals.
27 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 31.0 ms ] threadThe more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job.
By and large, renewables are marching towards a state where they will provide enough of the generation that what remains would be insignificant.
I would be interested to know where the gas is coming from for this particular data centre. There are a few cases that generation by gas is preferable to what is happening right now. One good example is if the gas is from sources that would otherwise be flared off. I have heard in the past that businesses have been reluctant to harness energy from gas rather than flaring it off because any user of the energy gets tagged with the CO2 emissions. If it just gets burnt off it makes no difference to the amount of total emissions, but it avoids the CO2 being attributed to their industry.
At the current rate it will stop in four to ten centuries.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HPXRjoqbcAATWUu?format=jpg
Sadly there aren't much support to do this. The largest coalition see thermal power stations as critical to manage grid stability and voted to have natural gas defined as "green", since they view it as necessary to enable renewable energy to be built. The other major coalition do want to decrease the need for thermal power plants by increasing base load through nuclear power, but they are not openly against thermal power plants as a way to reduce costs. EU lacks any movement that are willing to pay the cost of not burning fuel in order to generate electricity. Same for basically every other place on earth right now, despite EU and most countries being in agreement that climate change is real and fossil fuels should be stopped yesterday.
So China and India can use all the fossil fuels they want, and other counties too not just them.
But the West has to kowtow to Net Zero / ”Renewables” nonsense?
We’re not buying it anymore.
Everything has tradeoffs.
Destroying the economy and letting low income and poor people freeze in the dark or melt in the sun is passé.
Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
We started in a garage, but we’re not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders create more than they consume and always leave things better than how they found them.
these actions are exactly the opposite of what they claim to try to strive towards.
Solar generation buildout in ERCOT is also proceeding very quickly, the new Tesla megapack factory outside Houston and proposed new solar factory will help speed up the transition to sustainable energy.
Personally, I think we should look at a structure similar to the military for running the plants. No profit motive, enlistment terms, court martial, stigma associated with dishonourable discharge, veterans benefits, etc. The military is the only one I know of with a track record in nuclear energy that I would trust.
>GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States
Immediately following that is the text
"It’s worth noting that companies rarely emit as much as their permits allow"
It's also worth noting that the headline turns "largest single source" of CO2 to "top source" of climate pollution. They say pollution in the text, but context would suggest they are talking about CO2. To say otherwise would be a much stronger claim which I don't think you can assume unless they clearly assert it.
I'm not sure if it is possible to quantify scale of climate impact between different types of pollution, but it seems like a stretch to unilaterally declare that the single top producer of CO2 is the top environmental impact. It may be, but they are making claims beyond what were made in their sources.
I was under the impression that there were a few chemicals that had an outsize effect on climate pollution.
Sure, climate change is bad and has the potential to disrupt and end the lives of many in the future. But other forms of air pollution like pm2.5 particulates in the air are already causing an estimated 5 million premature deaths per year as well as a slew of other health problems including lowering of IQ.
Per kWh, natural gas plants emit half as much CO2 as coal plants and almost zero sulfur and particulate pollution.
They emit little nitrous oxide and almost zero mercury/heavy-metals.
1786183626 | New Amazon Data Center Is Set to Have the Most Polluting Power Plant in the U.S. | https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/08/climate/amazon-data-cente... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49220350
1786210072 | Amazon Is Creating the Biggest Pollution Source in the Country | https://newrepublic.com/post/214111/amazon-data-center-bigge... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49223845
1786350058 | Amazon plans gigantic gas power plant for new AI data center | https://www.heise.de/en/news/Amazon-plans-gigantic-gas-power... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49240853