Anthropic struck a deal with a Texas-based energy company for gas-fired engines meant to provide AI data centers with electricity.

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 48 points 1 day ago (6 children)

"Last month, environmental nonprofit Sierra Club estimated that upcoming AI data centers could release 2.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030, wiping out nearly 15 years worth of greenhouse gas reduction efforts."

That's... disappointing and impressive.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    If you click through the link it is that the us power sector is estimated to emit that much by 2030. Awful journalism by futurism to report that as "AI" will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    That's only half the quote

    The US power sector would emit 2.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030, after factoring in planned AI projects, which is 618 million tons more than 2025 levels, or about a 42% increase.

    So the estimated total increase is 618 million tons

    The bulk of the expected emissions by 2030 would come from sources that are not directly linked to the grid, often built by tech companies to avoid the long wait for a connection. These could exceed 460 million tons, Fisher said, roughly the same as the annual emissions of Mexico.

    So over 460 million tons of the 618 estimate is primarily datacenters, nearly 3x of the rest of the country, which is only using 158 tons more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago*

    Sure, data centres using off grid generation seems to be a large source of increase of emissions, but calling a part of 460 million tonnes (I assume that given that it says often built for tech companies means not all are) 2100 million tonnes is bad journalism. Inflating numbers when the true ones are bad enough just hurts your credibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago*

    The Bloomberg article (archive link) cites several studies that make different projections about the amount emissions will increase, but all agree that the cause is additional fossil-fuel-based power generation for AI data centers. There's consensus that the cause of severely increased US emissions is AI data centers. No one is suggesting it comes from anywhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 day ago

    They write with such a heavy anti AI bias, that i can't trust anything they puplish about the subject any longer. I am critical of AI myself, but i don't want journalism to uncritically engage with any subject.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Yes, let's kill the planet to create something nobody wants. Peak capitalism.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago

    They have only about 50M paying subscribers. Spotify has over 300M, same with Netflix. People use it because it's convenient (search is mostly broken now) and free. I would like to see how many people and companies would use it if they actually had to pay for the environmental damage it's causing. I think most people that do use it would happily go back to the time before AI. It's useful but it's definitely not the revolution we were promised.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    So just like Microsoft, adding copilot to everything including notepad and paint, does NOT mean people want it. Just because the website has a chat with a shitty bot section, doesn't mean people want it. It's all for artificial inflation of stocks.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 16 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    It’s hilarious that this is not necessary at all. There are many data centers that use fully renewable energy, recycle 99% of their water etc. They are a bit more expensive to build. Like making them fully “green” would be a tiny portion of the budget (which obviously mostly goes to ungodlily expensive memory and chips).

    Like if the US was a minimally serious country, it would have regulations prohibiting this kind of stuff cause the alternative is just a bit more expensive and is already super feasible and easy to do. There are whole companies that their entire business is building green renewable data centers.

    These US AI guys are just ghouls and I suspect they actually want to destroy the world? Idk.

    Like there is NO reason other than evilness to not pollute the soil and groundwater around them, to not recycle the water used for cooling, to not use wind turbines and solar panels and batteries…. Literally NO reason.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Are you aware of the interconnection queue bottleneck?

    The issue feeding this is not companies being unwilling to pay slightly more money for renewables. They’re throwing wads of cash around hand-over-fist; if that got results, they’d do it without hesitation.

    The bigger factor is that the federal government is making it take >3-5 years to process the permitting to wire up new renewable sources to the grid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    When it comes to "use fully renewable energy", keep in mind that as long as we aren't 100% renewable that energy demand is being made up elsewhere with fossil fuels.

    I'd still much rather have that than this, but even all the "normal" grid power that is being used on chatbots has got to come from somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    this is beginning of their crimes

  • source
  • 34 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 91 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    Burning single-use fossil fuels to power hyper advanced advertising machines is some real cyberpunk shit

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    They've already purchased an unbelievable amount of compute capacity from Grok/SpaceX who are notorious for running effectively the most environmentally unfriendly data centers on the planet. This really shouldn't surprise anyone.

    I would love to see a law pushed federally for all new and in progress data centers to be mandated to use renewable resources.

    Imo it won't even slow anything down, it'll largely just ramp up the transition to renwables.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Grok/xAI is also involved with CSAM production.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago

    Off topic, but are renwables like Ben wa balls?

    Ren wables, but she won't fall down?

    Renwa bless? (Papa bless, oh fuck oh shit thats an H3 joke. I take it back)

    I'll be here all week

    Sorry

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    shocking

    No, it's entirely predictable.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    A texan city is about to run out of water completely. Dunno which one, but i remember seeing someone pointing out they've been in emergency mode since 2022-2023 and that hasn't been solved at all since.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    It's such a stupid choice. Saving money in the shortest term - all the way between the CEOs office making the decision, to the PR person... And then we're all cooked.

    "Oh but we don't want to be a large bank lf solar panels, wind and batteries... That would be too expensive".

    The governments who allowed these companies to make the choice should be raked over the coals.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    See my other comment. It doesn't make sense to buy other companies energy infrastructure

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • God I hope the new Governor blocks this shit in January

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 1 day ago
    [–] 1 point 20 hours ago

    I really don't understand why the industry needs so many data centers. Why do they all keep needing to build them, and why can't they work out an arrangement for sharing?

  • source
  • [+] -20 points 1 day ago* (12 children)

    Anthropic don't own data centres, they rent their compute. Investing in energy infrastructure for other companies would be short sighted to say the least. One of those hate the game not the player situations

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Anthropic rent compute to make up for their own shortfalls in ownership. You can see on their careers site that they are hiring datacentre designers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Very interesting observation, as far as I can find they're not building anything significant yet?

    Looking at the company ownership, it seems most of the company is owned by a trust that's committed to doing the best thing for humanity (?) so hopefully we see some green future data centres

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I don't hold out much hope for them. I think they are the most interesting AI company, but I would bet they are also of the belief that the environment should be sacrificed for AI progress, as they also believe that AI will fix everything later

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago* (8 children)

    One of those hate the game not the player situations

    It's really not. Billionaires bribe governments, adjust the rules to serve themselves. The players are making up the game as they go along... And thus, deserve the blame for it being a shitty game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    Billionaires lobby governments. We can lobby governments too, but when do you see the people complaining crowd fund projects like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago

    People actually do crowdfund that kind of thing. You just do not hear about them as much because they do not have a PR budget. But there is a basic asymmetry here. One approval can be worth millions to a single company, so spending serious money lobbying for it is a good investment. For the neighbors, the harm, which includes noise, air pollution, and lower property values, is spread across hundreds of families. Everybody loses a little, even if the total harm is huge, so it is much harder to raise the same money. That is the classic collective action problem And residents are not lobbying for a handout. They are asking the government not to let a company profit by putting its costs on people who get none of the upside

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    "When billionaires do it, people get angry - but when the people do it, people don't complain! It's like this is a democracy or something!"

    Honestly, what are you doing? Like, why do you choose to defend billionaires with your time? Were you abused or something as a kid? Do you just like BDSM? Are you perhaps a fascist or against democracy?

    ...also, just the idea that "more money in government" is the answer. You're just full of bad ideas. Clearly a big fan of the Capitalist mindset.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I'm an election volunteer and I have written policy for some political parties which was then adopted by some of the major parties here.

    I have made a difference and effected some important change.

    What are you doing? Do you just like to insult people on the internet and stay chronically online?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    Really? Trying to make it personal? Bragging about political involvements?

    That's... not the winner you might think it is here. Clearly, you feel insulted, targetted and hurt. Well, let me help: this is just the internet dude. A few bad interactions, or bad comments you got downvoted on - doesn't define you. Your whole self or considered phrasing/opinions weren't in those comments. It's not the end of the world, you and I aren't in a "prove your political cred or die" situation.

    You shouldn't take it personally because this is not a personal space. I don't know you. It's anonymous. That's part of the nature of the internet/comments section.

    Like everyone always says: don't read the comments. Chill out mother fucker, don't throw good time/money after bad because there'll be more comments to make tomorrow with different allies and different enemies. That's just how things work here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    You literally just asked what I am doing politically? Take a break dude, go for a walk or something lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Oh, no, that's not how I meant it.... See how I've asked you what's you're doing with your time before, and why you're leaning the ways you do in your comments.

    I didn't mean "what are you doing IRL"... I meant, what are you doing with your comments, as in - what's their function... What are they supporting. Why do you stick on these bad lines/arguments despite their flaws?

    ....and it was a rehtorical question. Not to be taken litterally but to be taken as what are you doing with your efforts in these specific comments.

    An interrogative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 5 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 25 points 1 day ago

    $3.4 billion deal with a Texas-based energy company called OnePWR Solutions.

    the deal will provide gas-fired engines to provide AI data centers with off-grid electricity.

    the “largest known single purchase of power-generation equipment by an AI lab.”

  • source
  • [–] [S] 26 points 1 day ago

    Anthropic went from worrying about AI alignment to aligning itself with a $3.4 billion gas engine order. Apparently the existential risk they couldn’t tolerate was a data center waiting for a grid connection. The planet, meanwhile, can just keep buffering.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I can't wait until all those worthless AI companies go bankrupt

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago

    Climate actions were starting to take effect, so the reptilians had to come up with a new way to keep terraforming our planet. Because surely no human would be this evil towards it's own species?

  • source