There's a big difference between "we bought solar elsewhere but still burn fossil fuels for our datacenters" and "we never use fossil fuels to power our data centers".
The delivery curve is pretty clearly exponentially increasing, so yes, it would make intuitive sense that delivery is at an all time peak, because delivery is rapidly increasing.
It would be much more concerning if the all time peak was historical, and it was post peak. That would indicate something negative.
Being at an all time peak is a strongly good sign.
How many tons? I own a forest that was historically used for timber, but I am thinking about making biochar at the small single tons level, and burying it into the soil.
Reading both sides is itself a bit of a fallacy. Most problems don't fit neatly into two 'sides'. For example, take gun control -- typically associated with the liberal wing of the democratic party, and opposed by most of the republican party. The leftist wing of American politics, however, is often opposed to gun control. Organizations like the Socialist Rifle Association and John Brown Gun Club and Pink Pistols.
In the case of environmental review, there's also a multitude of different perspectives with different objectives. From indigenous groups whose land was (typically) stolen, to anti-oil activists, to pro-business democrats (like Biden/Clinton) who want to keep profits rolling at the expense of pristine wildlands, to the various concerns of the right. I know plenty of republican folks who are religiously compelled to take care of the earth and oppose oil drilling. I know plenty of republicans who believe that anthropogenic climate change is "impossible".
Quite frankly, it's not wrong to read a few viewpoints, or read only the viewpoints you agree with and just acknowledge there are other viewpoints. Just don't get lost in believing your viewpoint is the only reasoned one.
This is very interesting, and makes me wonder if it's analogous to the old joke that the highest bandwidth pipe you could get was a semi full of DVDs.
I've been curious if someone would eventually run the numbers on something like this to see if it makes economical sense to transmit power in bursts like this.
I worry we're replacing polluting ICE cars with just as many, polluting EVs. EVs pollute less than cars, but they produce a lot more tire dust and road wear, since those things scale exponentially with the weight of the vehicle.
Tire dust has been shown to damage salmon populations and disrupt endocrine systems.
Yes, improving infra for EVs is an incremental improvement, but we are decades too late for iterative improvements, we need to take more radical action.
Why is there a market rate for water? Shouldn't there be a cost for water without a market?
We shouldn't be selling water at whatever the market will bear, but whatever the cost is to produce clean water (or less). Whatever amount prevents waste but allows everyone access to clean, potable water should be the what is charged.
This is just nimbyism from a group of folks who typically don't have much going on in their back yard. The complaints are, "There are one time construction noises and dust", "This disrupts tortoises temporarily", "One guy thought it was a lake", "The utility companies are big bullies".
All of these are like, either 100% mitigable or temporary.
Of slightly greater concern are impacts to local bird populations, who apparently fling themselves at the mirrors. This should be studied and we should figure out how to prevent it.
And the only major concern here seems to be the destruction of indigenous sites. Which shouldn't happen. Like, fuck any company that wants to roll into an indigenous site and pave over it. We can find other spots.
There's a big difference between "we bought solar elsewhere but still burn fossil fuels for our datacenters" and "we never use fossil fuels to power our data centers".