- CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish15 days
I dislike the framing of „natural“ gas. They‘re using fossil fuels.
- PattyMcB@lemmy.worldEnglish15 days
The fossil fuel (just like crude oil) was formed via natural processes, so it’s accurate.
I get what you’re saying though. It makes it sound happy and safe to use.
15 daysIn case you’re unaware, that’s literally why they took to calling it that.
Technically correct, easiest to market back when people were first starting to have doubts about setting stuff we found underground on fire.
Using the word “natural” was very much a deliberate choice.
- Jason2357@lemmy.caEnglish14 days
The term was useful back when we used coal gas. It stopped being useful 100 years ago.
I love being in Canada and they routinely use terms like “clean natural gas”. Like wut?
It’s only clean when you compare it to the fossil fuel alternatives it replaces like coal.
- obvs@lemmy.worldEnglish15 days
Oh Jesus Christ.
This guy is just-- Not one word this guy (You know who!) says is true.
Nothing he’s ever said is true.
- njordomir@lemmy.worldEnglish15 days
We’ll turn this into the worlds biggest racquetball facility before Elon ever makes it to mars.
- 15 days
Can we not legitimize these projects that will never fucking happen by reporting on them. I know the tech news places need clicks but this is not based in reality. My space tech proposal is that we all fart into jars and send the full jars to space-x for tax credits, where pure methane gas will produced. The rockets will have a pressurized 60KM long line attached to provide natural gas as a booster fuel, then detached to be caught an aircraft carrier. This will save big $$$.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish14 days
Sorry, I only hold safemoons and assorted memecoins named after Musk and Trump
- 15 days
Back up proposal- we only send lactose intolerant astronauts, and somehow get dairy cows on the moon fulltime.
- 14 days
You would get more methane from the cows than humans. More cows?
- Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish15 days
How is more economical to pay for a build for a fossil fuel than to sell to yourself for a renewable.
New levels of stupid.
- Einskjaldi@lemmy.worldEnglish14 days
Specifically it’s to make it happen faster, these have less lead time.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish14 days
Uh solar panels cost a bunch of money to make and they take a ton of space, which means buying extra land
- reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish14 days
Solar panels are cheap these days and end up paying for themselves in cost savings. Especially when you own the factory that makes them.
- T156@lemmy.worldEnglish14 days
It’s also good advertising. “We’ve powered this data centre with our solar panels, think of what it could power for you”.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish13 days
I don’t think you have any idea how much the power consumption is unfortunately. The roof would cover maybe 1-10% of the power consumption of a modern data center. A single rack’s power consumption is basically the same as a neighborhood. An entire data center is more like a small country.
To be clear I’m not trying to say it’s OK they’re using gas plants, I’m just saying why the solar power Musk promised was never going to be feasible.
Edit: My bad, this is a fab, I thought it was yet another XAI datacenter. Might be more feasible, but still - for energy intensive purposes, which this is likely to be, on-site solar can offset part of the energy requirement, but generally not all of it.
- 13 days
The FAB is going to need 10GW of power when done.
The US biggest solar array is 900MW and uses between 4600 and 5000 acres.
To do that with solar, you’d need to over provision by 3-4x plus batteries to run for bad weather for days. The scale of this is bonkers.
This is what nuclear is good for.
- partofthevoice@lemmy.zipEnglish13 days
Weird shit happens when you do that… you put a new one up, suddenly the last one stops getting power. Take it back down, the problem is solved. Weird shit.
- Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish14 days
They make them? They would likely have the lowest price per kwh achieveable in history given their size and current costs.
The absolute size of their premises is also ridiculous.
There is no way this is not a bad decision or else there is a political apect.
- 14 days
The Republican party is a religion with two and only two commandments: Racism and fossil fuels.
- _stranger_@lemmy.worldEnglish14 days
They literally own a company that makes them, can’t get cheaper than that.
They’re doing this as a stunt for some stupid reason.
- qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish14 days
I know the character and the game, but I don’t get what this is supposed to convey as a comment.
I… wut? Even ignoring the environmental impact, that’s terrible marketing.
“Will you be using your solar panels to power this?”
“What? No. Those things wouldn’t work. I mean… they’re great. You should buy them. But they wouldn’t work for something that’s important. Well… fuck. They do work when it’s important and they are awesome and everyone else should buy them. But when it matters we count on power sources that destroy the environment, because… of reasons.”It has to be really difficult to run a company that creates solar panels but also be a dedicated Republican who wants to poison the environment and keep that coal, oil and natural gas burning as much as possible.
- 14 days
Of course they’re not using them: have you seen what Telsa charges for their solar tiles? Tesla can’t afford that.
