“In order to protect uptime of our glorious data centers, neighborhoods will begin experiencing rolling brownouts to reduce demand.”
- Texas soon probably.
So why is it the duty of our country to gather all electricity possible for the richest people to waste on burning out GPUs so they can lose money on free chatbots?
For the same reason housing should be a speculative investment, and healthcare services available only to the highest bidder.
First 0 nuclear reactors will be built anywhere in US before 2035.
Texas is actually a renewables leader because, believe it or not, it has the least corrupt grid/utility sector, and renewables are the best market solution.
Even with 24/7 datacenter needs, near site solar + 4 hour batteries is quicker to build than fossil fuel plants and long transmission, and it also allows an eventual small grid connection to both provide overnight resilience from low transmission utilization fossil fuel as peakers anywhere in the state as well as export clean energy on sunnier days.
Market solutions, despite hostile governments, can reduce fossil fuel electricity even with massive demand surge. One of the more important market effects is that reliance of mass fossil fuel electricity expansion and expensive long high capacity transmission, would ensure a high captive cost at high fuel costs because of mass use, in addtion to extorting all regular electricity consumers. Solar locks in costs forever, including potentially reducing normal consumer electricity costs.
“The least corrupt/utility sector” I must be thinking of the wrong Texas, which one are you referring too?
Compared to California, where everything is done to increase customer rates, or most other states where long wait lines to connect power occur, you can measure effective corruption by how much energy additions are made, including home solar. You can be critical of their exposure to power system failures, but that doesn’t make the system corrupt.
Your measure of corruption is what now? How many new things are built regardless of their need or what impacts they may have?
Very…unique standpoint.
Just that the lack of cheap energy built/connected is a function of all of the obstacles put in the way of those projects. They get done in Texas more than other places that “put out a better virtue vibe”, but behind the scenes put up obstacles.
Its interesting how you can only talk positively about Texas by comparing it to others.
Can you answer this question without comparing Texas to any other state or entity: How is charging hundreds of dollars per kWh during storms in the best interests of the “regular electricity consumers”?
I recognize that failing, but afaiu, it applied to a limited number of customers who “gambled on variable rates”. The political leadership there also shit talks renewables, putting false blame on them for grid failures, but the actual operational environment still permits a lot of renewable expansion: The basis for calling their system the least corrupt.
So their renewable expansion is so good that it out ways the fact Texas never joined the east or west interconnect?
That is the biggest corruption, and it is the whole reason their grid is so unreliable. But iteruptions in sevice can be good for the people making money from the sales if these goods. It’s like racketeering.
The one state that refuses to connect to the interstate power grid and has Uber-like surge pricing on electricity? Yeah, I’m sure this won’t result in regular people footing the bill for more billionaire profits.
Texas is a joke, but not a good one.
Texas pays 11 dollars per kilowatt hour. Far lower than left wing states and has a manufacturing base. The market grid bids down prices for the right to sell electricity. That is one major reason companies move to Texas. Louisiana and Oklahoma, and states may be cheaper, but they don’t have a manufacturing base.
Every Texan I know has a generator to deal with the unreliability of the grid, and there’s never been an article about someone in Iowa getting a surprise $100k electric bill…and the average wage in Texas is substantially lower than in “left wing” states like California or Washington…so not sure you’re making an apples-to-apples comparison, but time will be the judge, we can all check-in in a year and see how this plays out. Does Lemmy have a remind me! bot?
California pays 19 dollars per kilowatt hour. Texas grid is better. Not only does Texas consume the most electricity, they do it at lower prices, comparable to poor states like New Mexico. Bidenomics subsidizes green energy at loss in the Texas grid.
No dummy, you’re missing a decimal point. California only pays 19 CENTS per kwh.
And if conservative Texas is so great how come they pay 20% more per kwh for electricity than deep blue Washington State?
Everything’s bigger in Texas, especially the idiots & excuses.
Washington has hydroelectric sources. 67 percent of its power is from hydro sources. Wind and solar are a tiny portion of its energy mix. Even nuclear power exceeds its wind and solar energy sources. Texas has proven it can scale energy sources the fastest. Texas has the most renewable energy in the US. It has the most solar and wind energy of any state. Washington isn’t a top manufacturing state. It can’t handle the demand load and Texas has the highest energy demand because it is a top manufacturing state. When you are dealing with energy intensive manufacturing, costs add up, go ask the Germans. The Texas grid is just better.
Data centers need to bring their own power.
To a significant extent, they do, contracting for construction of generation and transmission (very often renewable), at least at the largest scale.
But, it’s (mostly) all on the grid.
With demand like that, it’s not like there isn’t significant negotiation with the local power company, especially because they’re frequently built a significant distance from existing large power infrastructure.
Heck, all the big 3 cloud providers signed deals for nuclear generation in the last few months. https://spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear-powered-data-center
Here’s just one more article about these sorts of investments: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/google-has-a-20b-plan-to-build-data-centers-and-clean-power-together
In a well regulated way that includes oversight, yes.
One of the windiest, sunniest, emptiest places on earth and they want to waste water building reactors instead of renewables.
Hell, the geology means you can store energy in the ground using pressurized air.
What? I’ve grown up around people in the nuclear industry, and nothing I’ve ever learned about the function “wastes” water.
Some rambling on how I understand water to be used by reactors
You’ve got some amount of water in the “dirty loop” exposed to the fissile material, and in the spent fuel storage tanks. Contaminated water is stuck for that use, but that isn’t “spending” the water. The water stays contained in those systems. They don’t magically delete water volume and need to be refilled.
Outside of that you have your clean loop, which is bog standard “use heat to make steam, steam move turbine, moving turbine make electiricity, steam cools back to water”. Again, there’s no part of that which somehow makes the water not exist, or not be usable for other purposes.
Not saying you’re wrong. Renewables are absolutely preferable, and Texas is prime real estate to maximize their effectiveness. I’m just hung up on the “waste water building reactors” part.
Guessing it was some sort of research about the building process maybe, that I’ve just missed?
Building them doesn’t waste water, running them does. In a place with a lot of water they make sense but any industrial water usage in a place with limited water supplies - when there are lower usage alternatives - seems wasteful
They literally outlined the whole process… What stage in
Outside of that you have your clean loop, which is bog standard “use heat to make steam, steam move turbine, moving turbine make electiricity, steam cools back to water”. Again, there’s no part of that which somehow makes the water not exist, or not be usable for other purposes.
Wastes water?
If you send the water through a bunch of pipes it needs treated before it can be put back into the environment. This is true of any industrial process. This takes it out of circulation for a while, and in an arid state like Texas that’s a waste.
And reactors need a lot of water, which is why they’re built next to the ocean or a lake or something.
Why put water back in the environment at all if it’s needed to make steam again?
Because they use water for more than making steam. Much more water is used to cool the steam condensers and is often just dumped into the surrounding environment to cool off. Turkey Point in Florida has miles of canals that cool this water down.
If you don’t believe me, then listen to the IAEA who created a water management program for just this reason:
Countries in water scarce regions, and considering the introduction of nuclear power, may show concern on the requirement for securing water resources to operate nuclear power plants and search for strategies for efficient water management. Experience has shown that nuclear power plants are susceptible to prolonged drought conditions, forcing them to shut down reactors or reduce the output to a minimal level.
