You’re talking about one of the most hated person on hearth with one of the worst reputation. The literal Nazi salute guy. I don’t think he cares much about positive PR like that
At least these sites (its more than Amazon) are being built near the energy source they will consume. Straight out of the ground into a turbine and then into the electron spinners.
Also there's not a lot of anything where these sites are located (Near El Paso). The 4-5 Road Runners who live around there will probably appreciate the change.
A better question is why a company is allowed to effectively lie using fraudulent false advertising in its marketing and brand image about being environmentally conscious and become the largest polluter in the country?
Is Amazon too broke to buy the necessary land to build out wind/solar/battery? I thought a company that name sponsored “Climate Pledge Arena” could afford to pay a little bit extra to care about the climate.
A wind/solar/battery solution is not even really much more expensive than gas power and it’s far less dependent on fluctuating fuel prices.
If I understand correctly, for speed of deployment they're building a less-efficient simple-cycle plant (instead of the typical combined-cycle). Even though it's larger, the efficiency is worse than a typical natural gas plant.
Natural gas is basically a waste product that gets flared off in many oil-producing parts of Texas. If this private power plant can use that gas for something productive then I guess at least we're no worse off. But it's not clear that is what is happening.
Which is nonsense. There's plenty of pollution that's been diluted as much as it possibly can be and is still problematic. CO2 is an obvious example. Or consider leaded gasoline or mercury. You have to be careful not to eat too much fish or you'll have trouble with the mercury in it. That's been diluted by the entire ocean and that didn't solve it.
A bigger unit is generally more efficient, but this is a single plant with a bunch of units, and I don't know that the individual units are any bigger than they would be elsewhere.
Trees are wonderful for a number of reasons, and the need for them for local climate, which includes shading and their contribution to local humidity, is important as well.
They are not, though, a significant sequestration for CO₂.
A helpful way to think about this is to consider coal. To produce coal the energy input comes from time, pressure, etc over tens to thousands of millions of years.
The significance of trees is for the local climate, or global if you are considering one of handful of rainforests.
Yes, by burning fuels we release carbon from the thing being burned, it gets mixed with oxygen, and released into the atmosphere as co2.
As the suns energy warms the earth, the earth radiates heat back out and away from the surface and normally back out into space. co2 also acts like a blanket for that radiant heat, and traps it inside.
More co2 in the atmosphere traps more energy around the planet like an insulated wrap.
To reduce this, we have to extract the carbon out of the atmosphere and store it.
https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/07/spacexs-terafab-will-rely-...
Especially if he buys from his own company.
i guess even at this stage “gas is easier” is still winning…
256 comments, 8 hours ago
Also there's not a lot of anything where these sites are located (Near El Paso). The 4-5 Road Runners who live around there will probably appreciate the change.
West Texas is basically Mad Max 2.
Is Amazon too broke to buy the necessary land to build out wind/solar/battery? I thought a company that name sponsored “Climate Pledge Arena” could afford to pay a little bit extra to care about the climate.
A wind/solar/battery solution is not even really much more expensive than gas power and it’s far less dependent on fluctuating fuel prices.
It's more capital intensive, and interest rates are 8%, because our elected officials are completely incompetent.
Amazon can afford to power their data centers with clean energy.
It’s not called “Climate Pledge But Only If It’s Less Capital Intensive Arena”
I thought there was a gas turbine shortage?
it's quite possible to have more product made, thus more pollution (or less materials consumed, thus less)
but concentration definitely will rise
co2 is problematic because of concentration - the sheer volume.
leaded gas and mercury are a problem because of bio-concentration.
dilution still helps!
This is another level of insanity, right there.
They are not, though, a significant sequestration for CO₂.
A helpful way to think about this is to consider coal. To produce coal the energy input comes from time, pressure, etc over tens to thousands of millions of years.
The significance of trees is for the local climate, or global if you are considering one of handful of rainforests.
As the suns energy warms the earth, the earth radiates heat back out and away from the surface and normally back out into space. co2 also acts like a blanket for that radiant heat, and traps it inside.
More co2 in the atmosphere traps more energy around the planet like an insulated wrap.
To reduce this, we have to extract the carbon out of the atmosphere and store it.