I was hoping to find out whether this is a viable business model for new startups, but they only ruled that it took too long for Musk to bring the lawsuit.

Before emissions controls, they'd try to disperse soot and ash over wide area to minimize the impact to individuals, but natural gas burns a lot cleaner than coal, and doesn't really produce soot or ash, so it's not really a concern.

The only thing that article says about it is that the local government did a study and concluded that it wasn't an environmental hazard.

Think about it this way: why would a gas turbine mounted on a trailer emit more pollution than a fixed facility? It's burning the same fuel, with the same emissions controls.

Ok, but we should still be able to add that to the grid. In reality, it is much easier and cheaper to build a 1GW power plant than it is to build a 1GW datacenter.

2GW is basically nothing. The entire grid is something like 1,200GW so you'd need to add a fraction of a percent to cover a very large data center. The fact that people claim this is beyond our capability is preposterous.

It uses exactly the amount of power I think it does, because I can read the specs and they say how much power these things use, which is not very much.

See, this is the kind of retarded bullshit you idiots say, and then you expect me to take you seriously.

Mobile generators don't produce any more pollution than regular power plants. It is common for businesses to install mobile generators so that they can operate them right away (I believe the law allows them to operate for 1 year) before they get permanent air permits for them. By the way, Xai does have stationary permits for them now, so even that deeply flawed information is out of date.

It is hilarious to see morons like you vacillate between claiming these companies are irresponsible for using the grid without paying for new generation, and complaining when they do add the grid capacity to cover their use. It couldn't be more obvious that it has triggered a knee-jerk anti-development instinct in your lizard brain and that you have not capacity whatsoever to consider these developments rationally.

All this anti-datacenter nonsense is entirely unfounded in reality, so you are just another one of the stupid voters I am talking about.

It sounds like a good way to tank the economy forever, but ok.

Actually, the concerns are not real either. These don't really use all that much power, and they don't use any water or pollute the environment at all to speak of. Adding capacity to the grid to power these data centers should be entirely trivial. It's not because of other dumb rules that other dumb voters have supported in the past. Any attempt to solve the problem by limiting new development is completely nonsensical.

If this passes it calls the whole concept of democracy into question.

This is hardly the first time someone has noticed that letting people park in high-demand areas for free is problematic. Waymo can easily pay for a few minutes of parking here and there. The real problem is all the normal cars that remain parked on the street all day long.

Europeans will absolutely get what they deserve here.

I think it's safe to say that the European style of democracy, where for some reason every single decision is closely scrutinized and can be vetoed by just about anyone, and every industry is regulated to the point were any change is essentially impossible, and new industries are killed before they can even get off the ground, has turned out to be a bad idea, and the US should immediately turn away from these kinds of policies before we follow suit and become irrelevant.

SEO killed search. If anything, AI has made it slightly useful again.