Skip to content

xAI Data Center Emits Plumes of Pollution, New Video Shows

Technology
37 30 0
  • When building a data center why wouldn't you secure the required electricity and water before committing to a site?

    Typically.

    This is Musk's AI project though, he's not going to wait to secure power or permits or environmental impact studies or anything like that...

    Did Jenson deliver the G100s? Grab some generators and get pumping.

  • I thought they where using commercial off the shelf generators?

    They are using portable generators only intended for short term usage in an emergency. One of the tradeoffs of being portable is that the generators are unable to combust the natural gas "cleanly"(under sufficient temperature and with enough oxygen, resulting in this ideal reaction: CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2), leading to incomplete reactions releasing many pollutants, most of which are at least suspected of causing cancer. This is acceptable in an emergency but not if some narcist runs them in a population center without proper permission to feed his horribly inefficient model in an attempt to keep up with other AI labs.

  • A massive data center at xAI’s controversial site in Memphis, Tennessee is emitting huge plumes of pollution, according to footage recorded by an environmental watchdog group.

    "Nonono! It's, uuh... it's like fairy dust, but from the AI!"

  • A massive data center at xAI’s controversial site in Memphis, Tennessee is emitting huge plumes of pollution, according to footage recorded by an environmental watchdog group.

    This article and what they are doing feels fishy, for a few reasons.

    • Data centers usually have steam plumes, but only with older cooling systems, newer designs dont vent off nearly as much water vapor and even newer designs have liquid-to-chip, and im not sure how those vent the heat, but its definitly not venting their treated coolant+water. (Because that would be dumb and expensive, but that seems to be the flavor of the day, so lets roll with that)

    • If the building was not designed by a monkey, then this is likely just a generator test. I want to put the emphasis on "TEST" because a data center only runs its very inefficent generators when utility power fails. (They will generate exaust, but usually its diesle generators or something with cheap fuel). Fancy gas turbines sounds very "extra" because the reason that deisle generators are used is that they can turn on and hold the load of the building quickly (and the building should have a battery bank to hold that for exactly what ever that time is)

    To me, one of two things is wrong, either the camera is just imaging thermals and thats a normal steam plume and they are being sensationalist. OR (and more likely answer). Musk is building some bespoke data center in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere without the local infrastructure to support it and is doing all sorts of expensive additions to make it do what it would be able to if it was clustered with other data centers that share utilitites.

  • Direct quote from the article:

    Having difficulty securing enough grid power to fuel the energy-hungry data center, xAI brought in 35 portable gas turbines, and assembled them without environmental permits or pollution controls.

    Looks like it's not just cooling that they're doing there. The link in the quote leads to an article describing the data centre's new turbines, specifically referring to them as methane gas turbines.

    I skimmed that article briefly and I don't think it points out the mechanism by which these turbines work - if it does, I must've missed it. I did however see a line that said the turbines also release formaldehyde during operation.

    Methane in this case seems to me to either be a byproduct of power generation or unused fuel somehow leaking from the system. I have no clue how gas turbines work, so I'm talking out of my ass here. In any case this seems to be the source of the methane emissions.

    Methane is what the majority of natural gas is made up of, and if your generator isn't made to be very efficient (like a real power station is), you'll lose some of your fuel unburnt into the atmosphere.

    Kinda like unburnt wood smoke vapour, which could have been burned in a higher quality wood burner, but just goes up the chimney in an open fire.

  • This article and what they are doing feels fishy, for a few reasons.

    • Data centers usually have steam plumes, but only with older cooling systems, newer designs dont vent off nearly as much water vapor and even newer designs have liquid-to-chip, and im not sure how those vent the heat, but its definitly not venting their treated coolant+water. (Because that would be dumb and expensive, but that seems to be the flavor of the day, so lets roll with that)

    • If the building was not designed by a monkey, then this is likely just a generator test. I want to put the emphasis on "TEST" because a data center only runs its very inefficent generators when utility power fails. (They will generate exaust, but usually its diesle generators or something with cheap fuel). Fancy gas turbines sounds very "extra" because the reason that deisle generators are used is that they can turn on and hold the load of the building quickly (and the building should have a battery bank to hold that for exactly what ever that time is)

    To me, one of two things is wrong, either the camera is just imaging thermals and thats a normal steam plume and they are being sensationalist. OR (and more likely answer). Musk is building some bespoke data center in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere without the local infrastructure to support it and is doing all sorts of expensive additions to make it do what it would be able to if it was clustered with other data centers that share utilitites.

    We dont have to guess, it is literally powered by these generators because the local infrastructure cannot support it.

  • This article and what they are doing feels fishy, for a few reasons.

    • Data centers usually have steam plumes, but only with older cooling systems, newer designs dont vent off nearly as much water vapor and even newer designs have liquid-to-chip, and im not sure how those vent the heat, but its definitly not venting their treated coolant+water. (Because that would be dumb and expensive, but that seems to be the flavor of the day, so lets roll with that)

    • If the building was not designed by a monkey, then this is likely just a generator test. I want to put the emphasis on "TEST" because a data center only runs its very inefficent generators when utility power fails. (They will generate exaust, but usually its diesle generators or something with cheap fuel). Fancy gas turbines sounds very "extra" because the reason that deisle generators are used is that they can turn on and hold the load of the building quickly (and the building should have a battery bank to hold that for exactly what ever that time is)

    To me, one of two things is wrong, either the camera is just imaging thermals and thats a normal steam plume and they are being sensationalist. OR (and more likely answer). Musk is building some bespoke data center in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere without the local infrastructure to support it and is doing all sorts of expensive additions to make it do what it would be able to if it was clustered with other data centers that share utilitites.

    You'e considering Memphis the middle of nowhere?

  • This article and what they are doing feels fishy, for a few reasons.

    • Data centers usually have steam plumes, but only with older cooling systems, newer designs dont vent off nearly as much water vapor and even newer designs have liquid-to-chip, and im not sure how those vent the heat, but its definitly not venting their treated coolant+water. (Because that would be dumb and expensive, but that seems to be the flavor of the day, so lets roll with that)

    • If the building was not designed by a monkey, then this is likely just a generator test. I want to put the emphasis on "TEST" because a data center only runs its very inefficent generators when utility power fails. (They will generate exaust, but usually its diesle generators or something with cheap fuel). Fancy gas turbines sounds very "extra" because the reason that deisle generators are used is that they can turn on and hold the load of the building quickly (and the building should have a battery bank to hold that for exactly what ever that time is)

    To me, one of two things is wrong, either the camera is just imaging thermals and thats a normal steam plume and they are being sensationalist. OR (and more likely answer). Musk is building some bespoke data center in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere without the local infrastructure to support it and is doing all sorts of expensive additions to make it do what it would be able to if it was clustered with other data centers that share utilitites.

    The article is not fishy, you are just uninformed. They are powering the datacenter with turbines fueled by natural gas. You are right about the datacenter though, it's beyond fishy, into crime territory. To top it all off, they have approval to run only a handful of turbines (after not even seeking approval in the first place, i.e. running them illegally), but they are running a ton of them.

  • Polluting the sky in order to pollute the internet 👌

    Its apparent that the health of the internet has a direct impact on the health of society.

  • A massive data center at xAI’s controversial site in Memphis, Tennessee is emitting huge plumes of pollution, according to footage recorded by an environmental watchdog group.

    The linked video is a bit unclear to me. The don't explain the modes well. Mostly it seems to just show heat. According to the description it's a Teledyne FLIR G620, which should be able to detect Methane and other VOCs. But it's not clear to me how we are supposed to distinguish hot rising CO2 and H2O from any potentially leaking Methane, in those pictures.

    Video in question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4prazMVylRs

  • You'e considering Memphis the middle of nowhere?

    Compared to the data center sprawl in other areas, yes. As others have pointed out, this appears to be a gross over-utilizarion of the local utilities and is just burning shit to make the building work where noone is paying attention to it.

  • Compared to the data center sprawl in other areas, yes. As others have pointed out, this appears to be a gross over-utilizarion of the local utilities and is just burning shit to make the building work where noone is paying attention to it.

    They aren't over-utilizing it though. They're supplementing with portable generators. Even if you've never been to Memphis, you can still look up the info to realize your argument is hyperbolic.

  • The article is not fishy, you are just uninformed. They are powering the datacenter with turbines fueled by natural gas. You are right about the datacenter though, it's beyond fishy, into crime territory. To top it all off, they have approval to run only a handful of turbines (after not even seeking approval in the first place, i.e. running them illegally), but they are running a ton of them.

    You misconstru uninformed for skeptical, an eco-themed news site will have a bias against anything related to data centers, supreme leader musk, or burning hydrocarbons. So apologies if I took the article with a grain of salt.

  • Direct quote from the article:

    Having difficulty securing enough grid power to fuel the energy-hungry data center, xAI brought in 35 portable gas turbines, and assembled them without environmental permits or pollution controls.

    Looks like it's not just cooling that they're doing there. The link in the quote leads to an article describing the data centre's new turbines, specifically referring to them as methane gas turbines.

    I skimmed that article briefly and I don't think it points out the mechanism by which these turbines work - if it does, I must've missed it. I did however see a line that said the turbines also release formaldehyde during operation.

    Methane in this case seems to me to either be a byproduct of power generation or unused fuel somehow leaking from the system. I have no clue how gas turbines work, so I'm talking out of my ass here. In any case this seems to be the source of the methane emissions.

    It's amazing to me that cloud computing is so profitable that they can run inefficient gas generators to power it.

    People don't think about the internet being fossil fuel powered.

  • You misconstru uninformed for skeptical, an eco-themed news site will have a bias against anything related to data centers, supreme leader musk, or burning hydrocarbons. So apologies if I took the article with a grain of salt.

    uninformed for skeptical

    Perhaps one begets the other.

  • The picture is a heat signature. Obviously heat is released. But why would it release pollution as methane? They are just cooling computers.

    As someone who's around Memphis often, we are having major pollution issues from these generators. There have been several days we have had terrible smog issues lately. Nobody here wants these generators around. They were installed despite fierce opposition from the locals. It's absolutely horrible.

  • A massive data center at xAI’s controversial site in Memphis, Tennessee is emitting huge plumes of pollution, according to footage recorded by an environmental watchdog group.

    Is this the woke-free AI they want?

  • A massive data center at xAI’s controversial site in Memphis, Tennessee is emitting huge plumes of pollution, according to footage recorded by an environmental watchdog group.

    I saw the headlineand thought, bet this is the one where I live... Correct

  • Its apparent that the health of the internet has a direct impact on the health of society.

    Now that's rad. Been consuming leftist niche internet for a while, never read such connection. You're a poet. Thanks!

  • They are using portable generators only intended for short term usage in an emergency. One of the tradeoffs of being portable is that the generators are unable to combust the natural gas "cleanly"(under sufficient temperature and with enough oxygen, resulting in this ideal reaction: CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2), leading to incomplete reactions releasing many pollutants, most of which are at least suspected of causing cancer. This is acceptable in an emergency but not if some narcist runs them in a population center without proper permission to feed his horribly inefficient model in an attempt to keep up with other AI labs.

    As someone studying mechanical engineer I'm well aware of the process. I'm also well aware that all commercial generators must abide by environmental regulations.

  • 119 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    A fairer comparison would be Eliza vs ChatGPT.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 833 Stimmen
    96 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    J
    Because there is profit in child exploitation.
  • Ispace of Japan’s Moon Lander Resilience Has Crashed

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    38 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    M
    $ ls space?
  • 50 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    A
    it's an insecurity.
  • 278 Stimmen
    100 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    F
    It's not just skills, it's also capital investment.
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet