Interesting article, made more so by the personal connection.
There is a policy that will help avoid fossil fuel power expansion for data centers as well as all other cases: a steadily rising carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports.
We can make it equitable (highly progressive, in fact) by rebating the money collected from the fossil fuel industry to all households on an equal basis each month.
As long as climate pollution is free, we'll continue to get too much of it. We need to price carbon to harmonize US climate policy with the rest of the world.
2. Insulate and seal up your house. Create proper ventilation.
3. Opt out of using an oil or gas furnace.
4. Opt out of using a gas hot water heater.
5. Opt out of using a gas range.
6. Reduce beef consumption and focus on grass-fed beef.
7. Properly recycle your old clothing and plastics.
Bonus:
-Support Climate-Friendly Politicians.
-Support Family Planning.
-Support Educating Girls.
-Support Tropical Forests and Tree-Planting.
-Support non-profits like 350.org, Rainforest Action Network, etc.
Creative Commons Copyright: Ten Direction Design 2021. Copy freely and include this source.
#1 Go for an all-electric vehicle next time you buy. And/or use public transportation, bicycle and walk.
#2 Good place to start is an energy audit by a certified auditor (BPI or other certification). Also saves money and is more comfortable. Then opt in for solar panels (PV).
#3 Go for an electric Heat Pump system. Remember that Heat Pumps provide air-conditioning as well as heat.
#4 Go for an electric Heat Pump Hot Water Heater.
#5 Go for an all-electric range. Induction ranges are all-electric and prized by top chefs. Eliminates gas indoor air pollution.
#6 Go for beef from smaller and more local farmers.
#7 Go for a paid service to recycle properly, like Ridwell in the US Northwest
Mostly taken from “Drawdown” by Paul Hawken et al. Top 100 ways to reverse climate change.
I wonder how these trillion-dollar companies reconcile their net-zero commitments with coal, diesel and methane powered data centers? Rhetorical question. Net-zero = green washing.
Top-notch investigative journalism. Well done, Arielle!
Yes, some court decisions but also - it was constant activist work. The investors did the math, saw the likely delays cause by court action and activists and decided the ROI wasn’t worth it. We tried the same for Mountain Valley pipeline and would have succeeded too, but Congress had to step in and say build it despite all the laws, etc. we tried to challenge that law, but had no luck. I’m betting given the delays and all the time the pipeline sat and rusted - it blows up somewhere and then perhaps investors will decide it just wasn’t worth it after all.
Oh there will be a leak, the company get fined, write off the fine as CDB. take a tax deduction.
I checked on the Keystone Pipeline, I remember with the Dakota Sioux protested, and the governor and local sheriff were bribed paid to arrest the protesters.
And I see where Biden has OK'd the pipeline, It is a sorry state of affairs but reality, that we have the best government money can buy. If a President or a party holds fast to principles that conflict with the profit motive and negatively impact share holder value, then we wind up with a full blown fascist dictatorship, which sadly, looks increasingly like a possibility.
One thing that struck me when seeing these huge power plants is the potential for covering those vast roofs with solar panels - there is a two-fold advantage: by keeping the sun off the roof, they reduce the demand for air conditioning, plus of course there is a great deal of energy produced by those panels. Same thing is true for the parking lots surrounding these buildings: cover them with solar panels to provide covered parking and added electricity generation.
As helpful as they may be, however, solar panels alone won't produce enough power so this is a great example of why simply transitioning to renewable energy won't fill the gaps left from shutting down fossil-fueled power plants. We desperately need other means of producing energy - and as problematic as it has been in the past, I believe we have no alternative than to focus our energies on nuclear power. Bill Gates' TerraPower is building a new reactor in Wyoming that promises to be far safer and cheaper than the current models by using molten sodium instead of water to transfer energy from the nuclear reaction to the power turbines. Of course there are a number of technical and political issues with this new technology, but again - we have to do something.
However we fill those gaps left by shutting down fossil-fueled power generation facilities, let's keep in mind that these data centers aren't going away. If Virginia clamps down on the environmental costs, the companies will simply build their data centers elsewhere - states are falling over each other competing for the jobs they bring. Plus, let's remember there is an enormous upward curve in the worldwide demand for power, so "shutting down the fossils," although absolutely essential, is only half the battle. We need new and creative means for providing the power needed to satisfy this burgeoning worldwide demand for electricity.
Nuclear has its own set of problems: time to deploy, embodied carbon, and radioactive waste. They've started construction in Wyoming with fuel source, processing, transportation and disposal still undefined or in research stages. It's a boondoggle based on blind faith with the help of a guy with deep pockets and a god complex.
Perhaps I should have said, "... as problematic as it IS ..." when referring to nuclear power.
I have no qualms with any of your observations about nuclear energy, but we are still left with the question of how best to fill the gap left when we shut down the fossils. Currently in my home state (Michigan), fossil fuel produces about 55% of electricity, while renewables produce less than half that. The former is decreasing and the latter is increasing, but what are we to do in the meantime?
It's not enough to say there are problems with a form of energy production - we must choose between several uncomfortable options.
Thank you for your kind reply. I'll add that wind and solar (utility-scale and especially distributed) combined with efficiency measures and storage (batteries, gravity, pumped hydro, thermal, V2G) are the cheapest and fastest options to deploy. Investor-owned utilities actively undermine efficiency measures, decentralized generation/storage that pose a risk to their monopoly. Regulatory reform can accelerate renewables deployment and quickly fill the gap.
Super interesting! My partner works in tech and I make him explain the infrastructure because it's hard to keep up with the constant changes.
As someone who enjoys writing, research, and experimenting I've started a blog to share science backed tips for individual consumers to lower their household waste. Hoping that's an activist role that I'm well suited for!
The article's title is "AI may hold a key to the preservation of the Amazon rainforest". Of course it does not mention that AI computing absolutely ruins the environment.
I got it from the current windows 11 log in screen ( they regularly change photos and can send you to webpages relating to where the photo was taken or what it is about)! It looks like a clear propaganda attempt from Microsoft right as they are forcefully pushing Copilot in a Windows update last week.
Great article Arielle. Thank you. However, the sentence about 11 Gigawatts and 900 homes is off by three orders of magnitude (approx. 1000), and also misrepresents what power means. Try one million homes (at national average of about 20 kWh per day) and strike "for a year." By the way, power for data centers, as well as crypto-currency and artificial intelligence (don't we have enough of that already?), is a much bigger issue than for any one state, although VA is off the charts.
As long as data centers are going to be built, instead of having diesel generators as backup, why not install generators that run on natural gas (in event of a power outage - why backup generators are even needed) and are supplied via natural gas pipelines. Tapping landfills, for example, to extract methane for such use, seems plausible. Whether it is, may be an entirely different story.
Yes, we need to have due diligence in these and other major projects to ensure the goal for lower emissions is achieved. Not more emissions, as in fossil fuel to power the project, where solar and or wind power would be a better fit.
I have a technology which can modulate existing Boilers and AC to the precise BTU load of a space. This saves much energy 10-20% and delivers proper comfort to inhabitants. Application for living space is a huge area where fuel is wasted with dumb control. www.exqheat.com
For anyone in New England who wants to get involved in climate work, check out No Coal No Gas! We recently helped win a closure date for the last coal plant in New England and are now shifting to target all of the fossil fuel peaker plants in New England. We're trying to advocate for more demand response as a way to avoid peaks as well as solar & battery storage. The campaign uses a huge diversity of tactics so there's room for everyone and there's a lot of virtual work so anyone living in or even from the region can easily and meaningfully engage.
Great piece! What a hero Ms. Bolthouse is!
Excellent article, thank you so much!
Interesting article, made more so by the personal connection.
There is a policy that will help avoid fossil fuel power expansion for data centers as well as all other cases: a steadily rising carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports.
We can make it equitable (highly progressive, in fact) by rebating the money collected from the fossil fuel industry to all households on an equal basis each month.
As long as climate pollution is free, we'll continue to get too much of it. We need to price carbon to harmonize US climate policy with the rest of the world.
It's time to close the growing US carbon price gap: https://bit.ly/carbon-price-gap-pdf
We should not let big industries and politicians off the hook. But if you want to do something in your own house, here is my Top Seven Decisions List.
Key Point: Stop burning fossil fuels to limit global warming.
Orientation: Simplicity. Electrification. Environmental Justice.
1. Opt out of using a gas-burning car.
2. Insulate and seal up your house. Create proper ventilation.
3. Opt out of using an oil or gas furnace.
4. Opt out of using a gas hot water heater.
5. Opt out of using a gas range.
6. Reduce beef consumption and focus on grass-fed beef.
7. Properly recycle your old clothing and plastics.
Bonus:
-Support Climate-Friendly Politicians.
-Support Family Planning.
-Support Educating Girls.
-Support Tropical Forests and Tree-Planting.
-Support non-profits like 350.org, Rainforest Action Network, etc.
Creative Commons Copyright: Ten Direction Design 2021. Copy freely and include this source.
#1 Go for an all-electric vehicle next time you buy. And/or use public transportation, bicycle and walk.
#2 Good place to start is an energy audit by a certified auditor (BPI or other certification). Also saves money and is more comfortable. Then opt in for solar panels (PV).
#3 Go for an electric Heat Pump system. Remember that Heat Pumps provide air-conditioning as well as heat.
#4 Go for an electric Heat Pump Hot Water Heater.
#5 Go for an all-electric range. Induction ranges are all-electric and prized by top chefs. Eliminates gas indoor air pollution.
#6 Go for beef from smaller and more local farmers.
#7 Go for a paid service to recycle properly, like Ridwell in the US Northwest
Mostly taken from “Drawdown” by Paul Hawken et al. Top 100 ways to reverse climate change.
Thank you, local, grassroots activists.
I wonder how these trillion-dollar companies reconcile their net-zero commitments with coal, diesel and methane powered data centers? Rhetorical question. Net-zero = green washing.
Top-notch investigative journalism. Well done, Arielle!
And don’t forget that grassroots climate activists defeated the Atlantic Coast Pipeline so never count us out.
That was in court was it not. And lots of luck on appeal with the present High Holy Catholic Court.
Yes, some court decisions but also - it was constant activist work. The investors did the math, saw the likely delays cause by court action and activists and decided the ROI wasn’t worth it. We tried the same for Mountain Valley pipeline and would have succeeded too, but Congress had to step in and say build it despite all the laws, etc. we tried to challenge that law, but had no luck. I’m betting given the delays and all the time the pipeline sat and rusted - it blows up somewhere and then perhaps investors will decide it just wasn’t worth it after all.
Oh there will be a leak, the company get fined, write off the fine as CDB. take a tax deduction.
I checked on the Keystone Pipeline, I remember with the Dakota Sioux protested, and the governor and local sheriff were bribed paid to arrest the protesters.
And I see where Biden has OK'd the pipeline, It is a sorry state of affairs but reality, that we have the best government money can buy. If a President or a party holds fast to principles that conflict with the profit motive and negatively impact share holder value, then we wind up with a full blown fascist dictatorship, which sadly, looks increasingly like a possibility.
One thing that struck me when seeing these huge power plants is the potential for covering those vast roofs with solar panels - there is a two-fold advantage: by keeping the sun off the roof, they reduce the demand for air conditioning, plus of course there is a great deal of energy produced by those panels. Same thing is true for the parking lots surrounding these buildings: cover them with solar panels to provide covered parking and added electricity generation.
As helpful as they may be, however, solar panels alone won't produce enough power so this is a great example of why simply transitioning to renewable energy won't fill the gaps left from shutting down fossil-fueled power plants. We desperately need other means of producing energy - and as problematic as it has been in the past, I believe we have no alternative than to focus our energies on nuclear power. Bill Gates' TerraPower is building a new reactor in Wyoming that promises to be far safer and cheaper than the current models by using molten sodium instead of water to transfer energy from the nuclear reaction to the power turbines. Of course there are a number of technical and political issues with this new technology, but again - we have to do something.
However we fill those gaps left by shutting down fossil-fueled power generation facilities, let's keep in mind that these data centers aren't going away. If Virginia clamps down on the environmental costs, the companies will simply build their data centers elsewhere - states are falling over each other competing for the jobs they bring. Plus, let's remember there is an enormous upward curve in the worldwide demand for power, so "shutting down the fossils," although absolutely essential, is only half the battle. We need new and creative means for providing the power needed to satisfy this burgeoning worldwide demand for electricity.
Nuclear has its own set of problems: time to deploy, embodied carbon, and radioactive waste. They've started construction in Wyoming with fuel source, processing, transportation and disposal still undefined or in research stages. It's a boondoggle based on blind faith with the help of a guy with deep pockets and a god complex.
Perhaps I should have said, "... as problematic as it IS ..." when referring to nuclear power.
I have no qualms with any of your observations about nuclear energy, but we are still left with the question of how best to fill the gap left when we shut down the fossils. Currently in my home state (Michigan), fossil fuel produces about 55% of electricity, while renewables produce less than half that. The former is decreasing and the latter is increasing, but what are we to do in the meantime?
It's not enough to say there are problems with a form of energy production - we must choose between several uncomfortable options.
Thank you for your kind reply. I'll add that wind and solar (utility-scale and especially distributed) combined with efficiency measures and storage (batteries, gravity, pumped hydro, thermal, V2G) are the cheapest and fastest options to deploy. Investor-owned utilities actively undermine efficiency measures, decentralized generation/storage that pose a risk to their monopoly. Regulatory reform can accelerate renewables deployment and quickly fill the gap.
OOPS!! In the first line, I meant "data centers," NOT "power plants!" So sorry!!
Super interesting! My partner works in tech and I make him explain the infrastructure because it's hard to keep up with the constant changes.
As someone who enjoys writing, research, and experimenting I've started a blog to share science backed tips for individual consumers to lower their household waste. Hoping that's an activist role that I'm well suited for!
Hi Emily and Arielle, I wanted to share this recent green washing example: https://news.microsoft.com/source/latam/features/ai/amazon-ai-rainforest-deforestation/?lang=en&form=M402JX&OCID=lock-con2
The article's title is "AI may hold a key to the preservation of the Amazon rainforest". Of course it does not mention that AI computing absolutely ruins the environment.
I got it from the current windows 11 log in screen ( they regularly change photos and can send you to webpages relating to where the photo was taken or what it is about)! It looks like a clear propaganda attempt from Microsoft right as they are forcefully pushing Copilot in a Windows update last week.
Great article Arielle. Thank you. However, the sentence about 11 Gigawatts and 900 homes is off by three orders of magnitude (approx. 1000), and also misrepresents what power means. Try one million homes (at national average of about 20 kWh per day) and strike "for a year." By the way, power for data centers, as well as crypto-currency and artificial intelligence (don't we have enough of that already?), is a much bigger issue than for any one state, although VA is off the charts.
As long as data centers are going to be built, instead of having diesel generators as backup, why not install generators that run on natural gas (in event of a power outage - why backup generators are even needed) and are supplied via natural gas pipelines. Tapping landfills, for example, to extract methane for such use, seems plausible. Whether it is, may be an entirely different story.
Here is a recent tiny win, though voluntary: https://www.kuow.org/stories/troublemakers-win-the-day-but-questions-remain-after-amazon-drops-pipeline-plans But more work to be done!
Yes, we need to have due diligence in these and other major projects to ensure the goal for lower emissions is achieved. Not more emissions, as in fossil fuel to power the project, where solar and or wind power would be a better fit.
I have a technology which can modulate existing Boilers and AC to the precise BTU load of a space. This saves much energy 10-20% and delivers proper comfort to inhabitants. Application for living space is a huge area where fuel is wasted with dumb control. www.exqheat.com
For anyone in New England who wants to get involved in climate work, check out No Coal No Gas! We recently helped win a closure date for the last coal plant in New England and are now shifting to target all of the fossil fuel peaker plants in New England. We're trying to advocate for more demand response as a way to avoid peaks as well as solar & battery storage. The campaign uses a huge diversity of tactics so there's room for everyone and there's a lot of virtual work so anyone living in or even from the region can easily and meaningfully engage.
I meant feasible, not plausible. Sorry.