Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- 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!by roughly
- 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.
by brandonagr2 - The consequences of environmentalists killing nuclear.by nba456_
- "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.
by ETH_start - This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.
- 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.
by Lerc - 1786171869 | Amazon behind private gas plant for new data centers | https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/amazon-behind-mass... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49219445
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