1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 4 months ago

Data centers misestimated lied about their carbon footprint. Also about their consumption of resources

  • source
  • 56 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 52 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Climate damage related to AI workloads could exceed $50 billion by 2030

    It's a sad state of affairs that even when talking of extinction level threat, it is still quantified in monetary terms. Unsurprising, considering it's written by Allianz.

    "Do you know how much money our investors will lose if the human race goes extinct???"

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    The current investors are hoping to be rich enough to have their own compound by the time the climate catastrophe gets that bad. By the time they lose money, it will be fairly meaningless. This is why I’ve always hated measuring climate damage in dollars - we can’t measure real world catastrophe against a societal construct

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    People have the memory of a gold fish when it comes to anything long term, so they just vote against their best interest again because they're incapable of connecting the dots.

    They understand money to some extent though, but even at that scale, not as much.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 91 points 4 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    They do an upgrade, ever server/switch/router etc ends up in the dumpster

    How many customers do this?

    At least here in the Bay Area, hard drives and SSDs get destroyed, but a lot of the other equipment goes to e-waste recyclers who end up refurbishing it and selling it on marketplaces like eBay.

    A lot of homelabbers get their equipment from eBay, and the source of that equipment is almost always second-hand data center equipment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    And I would be interested on how they are referbing the equipment and selling for a profit

    My understanding is that an e-waste recycling company is contracted to take all the old equipment. The original company can say they've recycled it, record it as such, and doesn't care what's done with the equipment after that - whether that be reselling it, recycling it, whatever. The e-waste company is the one that handles finding the useful stuff and refurbishing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The big issue is that there's no risk and hardly any cost to the landfill, while there's a bit of work and thinking required for reuse, with not much more benefit than that it's doing the right thing.

    And you don't get to become a capitalist overlord for doing the right thing.

    It's high time that tax codes and regulation make dumping e-waste and unsorted trash extremely expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago*

    Yeah, that's mostly a regulation/legal incentives situation, combined with lack of education on the side of the execs.

    It is possible to sell devices as "defective", even if they aren't defective. That way you don't have warranty or other legal obligations.

    Similar story with the "Scrap the whole device for data privacy reasons". That's not a thing. Scrapping the storage media, sure, totally. Scrapping the mainboard, case and power supply? That's crap.

    But the main issue is that there's no incentive for companies to reuse devices versus scrapping them. So they scrap the whole thing without regards to anything else, because it's a single decision that requires no further thought und it's cheap enough that it doesn't matter.

    If they'd have to pay for full recycling cost, so the cost for actually turning 100% of the device back into usable raw components, then they will instantly start giving those away for free.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    or they have devalued to zero so they cannot be sold for tax purposes.

    Well that's just stupid. In my country, if you sell property that's been depreciated to zero (or lower than its sale price in general), you're just supposed to record it as profit.

    Of course when you've depreciated something to zero and it's not something like a car where it's registered with the government, you could just give it away to employees or friends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    That seems like the perfect department slush fund. Free cookies every friday! Bigger christmas party!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Even if they are perfectly good

    Could that perhaps be an issue of stupid licensing? With, smart licensing, or whatever, if the license is non-transferable, then the hardware is basically an expensive paper weight.
    I've heard Cisco used to give out Meraki devices for free on some events, because without a license they were totally useless. Until someone figured out how to run OpenWRT on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago

    I would change the title to "Data centers emitting more CO2 than claimed"

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    And some people think AI could help solve climate change…

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    It has shown that there's enough money around we could just tax it and solve our problems collectively. Not sure which height of tax rate would be as devastating for the economy as a bursting AI bubble.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    It can! We just need to train a few more models. I'm sure we'll find one that comes up with the solution!

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    I think it was a black mirror episode, but might have been something else, where civilization as we know it is gone, but the fully automated mega factories are still running.

    AI: 2154 We've solved climate change for real!

    Global Human Population: 125,000

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    The people who thought data centers bad sides weren't that bad for the environment are the same people who thought Epstein Island was just a nice place for boats to stop for lunch.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 4 months ago
    [–] 13 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    I still do not understand why they don’t use heat exchange loops, like we figured out for nukes 75 years ago

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Because it's considerably cheaper to do it this way and they're being allowed to do so. Why would they spend money building giant cooling towers when they can just dump the hot water into the river and then drain main supply for fresh supply.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago*

    It’s as the case is with everything for these parasites: if it loses them too much money or makes them too little, they avoid it like the plague. It’s cheaper upfront to just run it through an open system.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    They usually do. They just do the same thing a lot of nuclear reactors do and also evaporatively cool one end of the heat exchange loop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    As far as I can see they don't ever do it that way, that's the problem, if it was a closed loop they wouldn't be pulling water from the mains and causing water pressure issues for everybody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    They cool the hot side of the loop with running water, like reactors do, rather than using air.

    So the loop is closed, but they're using running water to cool it off faster, rather than needing a bigger radiator on the hot side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That's not what they're doing though. That would be fine that's just a heat exchanger.

    What they are doing is pulling water from the mains to cool the system either directly or to cool an internal system via heat exchanger and then are dumping hot water back into the environment. They're not pumping the water to cooling ponds and letting it cool back down and then pulling the water back out of the cooling ponds to use again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I was thinking more along the lines of the big evaporative cooling towers you see with a lot of reactors, since they rely on vaporisation to cool off, most of that water can't be reused, short of getting picked up in the water cycle again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Than thought? No. Ill wager they knew.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    I thought for a second they're emitting CO2, it's their footprint or the grids energy sources

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    You're going to get scolded over the carbon impact of streaming tv.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    "Marking ones own homework" is a translation of a proverb in my own language which I found fitting here

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Oh, how very unexpected

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    ...or cared to admit til caught

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Obviously this is bad, but there is definitely some irony in the fact that if the government and all the evil lobbyists that are pushing these data centers would have significantly less issues if they'd actually invested in clean energy earlier like we were all already asking them to years ago.

    But instead all that BS about "clean coal" is coming back to bite them in the foot now that they actually want to use that "clean" energy

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    "286 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025" wow literally nothing.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Wanna bet they didn't ask people with realistic exlectations what they thought emissions would be?

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/climate_apocalypse@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post

    I've been saying for years that the numbers on climate change are always worse than anything you can see or predict

    I fucking told you so, dumbfucks. You can kill your masters, or I'm defecting to team apocalypse because I'm sick if the fucking gas lighting, and there's nobody worth saving.

  • source