Data Centres [oc] - r/ireland

668

If only there was a way to produce energy without massive emissions like nuclear or wind maybe.

617

u/AbsolutelyDireWolf Jun 05 '25

How do I lodge a planning objection against this comment?

44

u/TheTealBandit Jun 05 '25

No need to actually, planning objections are an opt-out system in this country

59

u/HannCanCann Jun 05 '25

Gave me a genuine chuckle!!

26

u/Super-Cynical Jun 05 '25

Slight tangent but Denmark have apparently come up with a floating design for wind farms, which could facilitate placing them further from shore, which would be a useful consideration in reducing objections here.

14

u/HannCanCann Jun 05 '25

Username does not checks out. /s

4

u/frankthetankthedog Jun 06 '25

Worked on this in a previous role
The Nordic countries are very progressive however have eased their appetite for it as of late.
Issue arising is the technology is very much in its infancy but if it progresses where we think, Ireland specifically is sitting on an oil field of resources

3

u/Subject_Pilot682 Jun 06 '25

Irish Ferries have lodged a planning objection

3

u/InstructionGold3339 Jun 05 '25

I wouldn't be holding my breath for that to work. Atlantic storms tend to render solutions that work elsewhere unfeasible in an Irish context.

1

u/No-Outside6067 Jun 06 '25

Smart, do they build them on top of tidal generators?

1

u/Yrvaa Jun 05 '25

Meh, ruins my view of the sea. I object.

1

u/Weird-Weakness-3191 Jun 05 '25

😂😂😂

0

u/duaneap Jun 05 '25

I’ll sell you a postcard for like 50p you just need to tipex out Tony Blair’s name and you’re good to go.

17

u/thorn_sphincter Jun 05 '25

In the r/ireland sub for ten years I've been saying we need nuclear. The amount of hate I've gotten.
My favourite line is, "it'll take ten years to build." Here we are, ten+ years later. After an energy crisis in Europe and a national dependence on importing fossil fuels. And an off-shore wind turbine plan that has stipulated wind alone isn't enough.
See you in ten years when we're still in this position.

1

u/sandwichtable Jun 06 '25

Ok, about 2 o'clock? I've a tiler round in the morning.

1

u/thorn_sphincter Jun 07 '25

Thanks Ronnie

0

u/Cockur Jun 06 '25

I don’t see any government in this country successfully overseeing a transition to safe, reliable nuclear energy. It would undoubtedly be an absolute shit show

1

u/thorn_sphincter Jun 07 '25

If we started an information campaign about its safety 20 years ago...

1

u/thorn_sphincter Jun 12 '25

This would be overseen by Europe, and international nuclear energy laws. It would be built to a standard and inspected regularly. It would be built by foreign contractors, not Paddy.
It would go over budget, that's a given. But there's no reason to think it'd be dangerous or unsafe.

24

u/ItIsAboutABicycle Jun 05 '25

But, but, but wind energy will detract from the natural beauty of the environment which is already at risk due to climate change caused by over-reliance on non-renewable energy, so of course we can't build renewable things. Yes.

-1

u/Living_Ad_5260 Jun 05 '25

It's more that they don't work when the wind doesn't blow. Which happens (rarely) so there is a limit of wind generation after which it is a Bad Idea.

5

u/Lizardledgend Jun 05 '25

That's why energy links with other countries are sonimportant, particularly with the likes of France and their nuclear grid.

2

u/Living_Ad_5260 Jun 05 '25

I love that inconvenient facts get downvoted. I'll bet the same folks downvoted thermodynamics in the their physics courses, right?

1

u/JerHigs Jun 05 '25

The thing is, those who work in the enery sector already know that. Nobody has denied it, and more importantly, nobody had said we should only have wind.
Each form of electricity generation has its pros and cons, which is why we have multiple sources of generation.
For example, it tends to be windiest at night, which is when our electricity system has less demand on it. Instead of throwing our hands up and declaring wind a failure, we should be looking for solutions to this issue.
For example, electricity storage - charge batteries at night when the wind is there - power the grid from those batteries during the day when the demand is there.
Or switching demand - what demand heavy activities can be moved from being carried out during the day to happening at night? Charging EVs, for example.
Or reducing demand - retrofitting buildings to make them better insulated or putting solar panels on the roof.
You obviously need other forms of generation, such as solar, hydro, biomass, or biogas - all of which are renewable and all of which can be used when the wind isn't blowing.
We've never relied on one single source of electricity generation, why would we start now?

6

u/OverHaze Jun 05 '25

Couldn't we power the entire country with only two reactors?

3

u/RecycledPanOil Jun 05 '25

It'd be more likely 4-6 reactors. Going off France which has a reactor per 1.2 million people, while exporting power as well.

35

u/MaverickPT Jun 05 '25

We don't like people who make sense. Please remove yourself from the premises

28

u/Iricliphan Jun 05 '25

I'll never understand why activists are so against nuclear power. They'll cite Chernobyl and Fukushima, but with so many fail safes in many different countries that use nuclear power, it's for sure the better option.

31

u/nerdling007 Jun 05 '25

I'll never understand why activists are so against nuclear power.

Fossil fuel industry's proganda worked wonders. Nuclear was the only true threat to that industry's hold on energy supply.

5

u/c0mpliant Jun 05 '25

I'm pro-nuclear, but I don't believe there has to be a major conspiracy to give nuclear power a bad image.
A large amount of it comes down to the nuclear industry absolutely shooting itself in the foot early on. First of all claiming things like "electricity too cheap to meter", they were lying straight out the gate. Then governments using the nuclear power industry as a secret cover for nuclear weapons development conflated the two in a way that is still misunderstood by many. Then in regard to designs for nuclear plants were initially unsafe in that they assumed that core meltdowns were unlikely and weren't designed with either passive safety features or didn't have the redundancy built into it. Then there was the complete lack of understanding about radiation by the public during those early days, they're told it's dangerous but without any real understanding about how much over what period is dangerous. Even today, my parents still don't understand that going to Chernobyl for a day now isn't going to cause you to die within 5 years. All that without talking about the meltdowns in Fukushima, the partial meltdown in Three Mile Island and the explosion and meltdown in Chernobyl, the latter of which probably contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union as much as Afghanistan.

7

u/Alastor001 Jun 05 '25

Indeed. People make big deal out of aircraft accidents for example, because a lot of people are affected, but they happen very rarely. It's the same thing. Sure, a nuclear plant accident can be catastrophic but what is the chance to that happening? Insignificant compared to your local petrol station exploding.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

This is actually an example of prosecutor's fallacy.
It's essentially a misuse of conditional probabilities. If there is say, a 1% probability of a nuclear power plant accident in France will occur, one might assume this probability would also apply to Ireland. However, that would be incorrect given that 1% figure needs to be considered in relation to the population (in this case, the other countries with nuclear power plants) as other mitigating factors might be at play.
When you're conditioning a probability, you're measuring the likelihood of an event occurring, when another event has already taken place. It's determined by relating the joint probability of both events to the probability of the given event.

1

u/Alastor001 Jun 06 '25

That's interesting

4

u/sky_bugy Jun 05 '25

At this point in time we have 411active nuclear power plants. And total number is 815. I think the odds are good that nothig will happend.

2

u/Bosco_is_a_prick Jun 05 '25

The biggest problem with nuclear is that it's too expensive.

1

u/Guitarman0512 Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

It's more a matter of cost. And still being dependent on unstable countries for nuclear fuel.

1

u/RecycledPanOil Jun 05 '25

We have nuclear materials deposits all over Ireland. Massive deposits in Donegal.

1

u/ScaramouchScaramouch Jun 05 '25

Coal burning gives off more radiation and causes more cancer, nuclear is a far cleaner type of power. But I'm not sure it's right for Ireland. Setting up a nuclear regulatory system costs a shitload of money and requires an immense amount of expertise. Nuclear is ideal for larger countries but economies of scale make it far less attractive in Ireland

1

u/IamaJarJar Jun 06 '25

Even taking deaths into account, coal burning kills far more people a year than nuclear EVER did in its lifetime
It's one of the safest & cleanest fuel we can use! The only reason Chernobyl & Fukushima even happened was because of severe mismanagement, there's typically a shit ton of preventative measures to ensure a accident like that never occurrs

8

u/Salaas Jun 05 '25

What always makes me chuckle is when I see the sign saying Cork is nuclear free, when infact there's alot of nuclear stuff about.

8

u/Kloppite16 Jun 05 '25

doesnt that interconnector to France land in Cork? If so there will be electricity powered by nuclear flowing through it in to Ireland very soon

5

u/Salaas Jun 05 '25

Correct and another reason to laugh at that sign. Alot of the factories would have some nuclear material for some of the machines along with UCC research nuclear reactor.

3

u/Tescobum44 Jun 05 '25

Ireland is also very rich in Radon due to naturally decomposing uranium in the ground

23

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

100% nuclear energy is the way forward! Safe and efficient! Creates very little waste! There’s a great podcast about it I must try find it and post the link! A lot of countries looking into it and some countries even heading back to it

18

u/lovely-cans Jun 05 '25

I've worked in the energy sector and nuclear still has alot of embedded carbon emissions due to the other factors related to the mining, the processing, the waste desposal of LLW and IWL. The constant inspection and maintance is extremely expensive compared to other plants and often requires very expensive steels and materials that Ireland just doesn't have easy access to and the expertise in like mainland Europe does. On average they have a downtime of 10% which is quite alot.
Once gen IV nuclear plants are available then that should increase the safety and reduce human error. But nuclear isn't a golden bullet and there is alot more environmental methods that Ireland should be aiming towards because with nuclear we will still be depending on other counties and we won't be self sufficient. Hydro, wind and solar (yes even in Ireland) are alot cheaper and mean we wouldn't have to depend on trade to have power independence. I think there is a place for nuclear in the grid in alot of countries in the EU but not Ireland.

14

u/nerdling007 Jun 05 '25

has alot of embedded carbon emissions due to the other factors related to the mining, the processing, the waste desposal

That's true for fossil fuels plants and renewable energy, but those embedded emissions are only brought up whenever change to renewable or nuclear is talked about, while fossil fuels are given a pass. It isn't much of a stop for doing nuclear here.
I've watched the nuclear professor's youtube videos on the economics comparison between nuclear and fossil fuels, nuclear beats fossil out even with the seemignly larger scale construction costs and emissions for the bigger reactors.
I'd take nuclear fuel imports over the significantly larger imports of coal and gas needed to fuel our fossil fuel plants.

3

u/lovely-cans Jun 05 '25

It's brought up because the change over does have embodied costs. There's no agreed measure of when the embodied carbon of something "starts" and parameters can be changed to suit one's agenda. If Ireland decided to go nuclear to be fair in this the cost of the decommisoning of the existing infrastructure would have to be considered in my opinion.
I 100% agree that we should be using nuclear over fossil fuels and the embedded carbon is much higher for fossil fuels but reddit has this kinda infallible view on nuclear in the same way that they don't think weed is harmful. The only thing that I would say that is very handy about gas is it's ability to be flexible and dealing with surges which, except hydro and battery stored energy, isn't really cost effective for nuclear and not possible with wind and solar.
Some plants in Ireland are being converted to burn woodchips rather than turf which is still technically green energy which is kinda bullshit but does make sense, because trees, and it is much better than burning coal or turf and also means there isn't the massive increase in embedded carbon in creating a brand new nuclear powerplant. These boilers just need the first pass of certain tubes replaced with inconel or some harder steel and they're ready to go. If the woodchips are sourced locally rather than import them from Canada (which is what countries will do to get their greenenergy quota up but then undo any benefit with the ships burning 100% pure crude).
And unfortunately that's the boring nature of why these decisions are made and why the government won't invest in nuclear. Some smaller EU counties were able to create joint projects for nuclear and sell off excess energy to their neighbours and Ireland just doesn't have that same luxury. I don't know if the link to France is fully there yet but I don't Ireland ever being in the position to be selling to nuclear power France.

9

u/Alastor001 Jun 05 '25

It's not golden bullet but it is pretty much gold standard.
All other methods of creating energy are... Either dirty or unreliable.

7

u/lovely-cans Jun 05 '25

All methods are dirty but Ireland has alot of potential for wind and hydro. At the moment Ireland is importing 100% of resources for power with unlimited renewable energy at our doorstep and moving to nuclear is just another material that's imported to make steam and turbines move when we have ways without superheating water. Ireland as a country has such low self confidence it doesn't dare try it's own thing and just tries to mimic other EU countries when we're rich and educated enough to pave our own way.

2

u/coffeebadgerbadger Jun 05 '25

Has sea hydro ever worked to scale?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

China have a huge wave energy project on the go at the moment

1

u/Knuda Jun 05 '25

These are engineering and political problems. Not inherent problems.

-7

u/Equivalent_Range6291 Jun 05 '25

Yea & Ireland is full of Nuclear Power plant raw materials not.

8

u/Gorblonzo Jun 05 '25

Why don't you apply this logic to every single building, machine or vehicle that exists in Ireland.
Or do we have to wait for you to figure out the concept of international trade?

6

u/NaturalAlfalfa Jun 05 '25

Yes...unlike our huge coal and oil reserves? That's really not an argument

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Yes yes because we’re a totally self sufficient country as it is! We don’t import any components whatsoever 🫣🥴

3

u/dano1066 Jun 05 '25

If we use the wind to generate power, there will be none left for me to dry my clothes on the line

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

32

u/BenderRodriguez14 Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

This is the same shit as people who were claiming abortion or SSM would be the end of times, and who you basically haven't heard a peep from on the matter since. It's fear of change for the sake of fear of change, followed by an utter indifference once proven wrong, to help avoiding confronting that fact and potentially learning anything from the experience.
I think objections should almost be ignored by default at this point.

16

u/The-Squirrelk Jun 05 '25

No the issue isn't a fear of change. It's more vile than that. These people already have theirs. They have a nice home, a car or two. A big fat retirement and a family. They have it MADE. Literally everything they could reasonably want.
But what that means is that when they see things like wind turbines or new housing developments or anything else they KNOW deep down that these things won't really help them, they already have what they need. So they default to thinking.
"Well, if it isn't for me, or people like me... why are we doing it? It must be for those people I don't like. Or it's pointless. I don't like it now and we shouldn't allow it because I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE IT."

4

u/Technophile63 Jun 05 '25

I try to see them as fellow humans, and admit that I too am less than fond of having to pay for things I don't want and don't think I need. Who is, after all? It seems likely to me that a bit of self-reflection will turn up that you yourself are unhappy about public funding being used for something or other.
It's fine to disagree with them, however it's not necessary to see them as evil to do so. Sometimes it's mutual misunderstanding. Sometimes someone has been stoking their fears or misunderstandings, in order to get clicks for advertising revenue, political power or something else (Murdoch).

-11

u/Living_Ad_5260 Jun 05 '25

That's a valid opinion.
My (valid) opinion as an urban resident is that planning objections for something more than 100m high is not unreasonable.
On the contrary, it is the _most_ reasonable thing to object, if only for the death toll in birds let alone the eyesore.
I would ensure that there is funding for removal included for these things with a 20-30 year design life.

16

u/JarOfNibbles Jun 05 '25

A wind turbine kills 4-18 birds per year. A cat does that in a month, and that's not comparing deaths caused by pollution and GHG emissions from fossil fuels, power lines and any other source. It's not valid to object to them because of the birds.
Sure, 100m buildings are a valid objection, if they're like, near your home, not across two hills, out at sea or in another county entirely.

12

u/stevewithcats Jun 05 '25

It might be to do with a dislike of change, particularly among older people . My mother who is a rational person and logical in her appraisal of new developments. Has recently become angered and obsessive about traffic calming measures and how they ruin towns and villages .
Out of nowhere, just like that

10

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

2

u/fez993 Jun 05 '25

I thought that was a company name for a second and was going to object that no companies should have blanket exemptions.
Strategic infrastructure shouldn't either really though, there always needs to be some avenue to object before a shovel is picked up.

1

u/Technophile63 Jun 05 '25

There should be SOME avenue for objections to be raised, seriously considered, and addressed. Otherwise, in my experience, the objectors will often escalate and cause big problems. And, every so often, actual significant factors may have been missed during planning.
Imagine, if you will, being on the other side of an issue -- and no one will listen to you. This is an emotional and political aspect, and perhaps an educational opportunity.
I am NOT saying that planning should accommodate every whack conspiracy theory. More that: if some small changes, explanation or science demonstration will calm the situation down, especially if a project has been misunderstood or misrepresented, it may pay off to put some energy into that. Being respectful of their position and addressing their concerns through discussion, acknowledgement, and so on.

5

u/xnbv Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

We've no hope with people like this.

But we do have hope. We are making progress. This is a little nihilistic. Wind energy has been massively successful in Ireland, and it looks like that trend is to continue. AFAIK, we rank second in production in Europe. Focusing on the few negatives while disregarding the enormous advancements we have made in a relatively short period is cynical. There will always be bumps in the road.

2

u/PointedHydra837 Jun 05 '25

I never knew how WINDY Ireland was until I visited last year. It’d be stupid to not take advantage of it!

1

u/Halycon365 Jun 05 '25

Liscarrol?

1

u/Cybros74 Jun 07 '25

I've seen anti solar signs with depressed looking deer on them and dreary clouds.
Never mind we've already butchered the environment for most animals, acting like being green is destructive to the beauty of nature is another level of nutty.

-4

u/Equivalent_Range6291 Jun 05 '25

Can you explain what you mean? ..

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

→ More replies (1)

-46

u/No-Jackfruit-2028 Jun 05 '25

There's literal scientific research that states all the problems of putting wind farms in close proximity to people. But you won't read it or accept it cause it doesn't natch what you said. I'm gon a buil a 500ft Turnine in your back yard. And when you can't sleep, your getting headaches and sick from the noise and vibrations, I don't want to hear it

16

u/Faquarl Jun 05 '25

Can you put one in the front garden too? I prefer stereo

→ More replies (11)

→ More replies (51)

99

u/RollerPoid Jun 05 '25

If this was real life, one of the guys would be on Amazon buying wheelie bin liners, and the other would be on Facebook posting about it

230

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Why is the focus being put on data centres and not the fact that we should have a decarbonized grid by now? They contribute a grand total of 0 kg of carbon if our electricity generation was carbonless to begin with.

146

u/ITZC0ATL Jun 05 '25

The focus on data centres is completely misguided. If they are using shitty energy, it's because we are generating shitty electricity.
It's cheaper to power the centres here somewhere mild/temperate than other parts of the world so overall it would be better for the environment, if we can keep transitioning to clean power. Even requiring them to generate X percentage of their own power in a green way to incentivise them to stick solar panels on the roof or whatever could be a good idea.
Plus data centres bring jobs, it's really not a bad area for us to have develop in Ireland.

40

u/Equivalent_Range6291 Jun 05 '25

Data centres are famous for producing very few jobs.
Its not like we need canteen`s to feed the machines ..
You`ll not find many workers canteens necessary in a data centre.

12

u/PoliticsModsDoFacism Jun 05 '25

The site I work at employs hundreds. Feeds them too. Traveled to several that do as well. The meta one there also does.

22

u/tescovaluechicken Jun 05 '25

Having all that data stored in Ireland is a big advantage for the tech industry here. Moving them to a different country wouldn't improve anything unless that country has a huge amount of spare renewable energy.

20

u/ITZC0ATL Jun 05 '25

They're not highly staffed buildings, but the jobs they bring tend to be quite skilled. And we do need more skilled jobs in Ireland to help pay for how damn expensive it is. Providing canteen worker jobs to people living near data centres unfortunately is probably not going to help them get on the property ladder or put away nice savings for retirement. Skilled technical jobs might.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Then why did Microsoft literally just build a canteen at their grange castle data centre complex lol.
This trope has to die.
There's tons of industries without bazillions of jobs, but they're all a part of "this".
There's thousands of jobs in datacentres in Ireland, not to mention the sales involved in their maintenance and upkeep.
I bet there's plenty of industries in Ireland that fewer people earn a living from than those at datacentres

1

u/isupposethiswillwork Jun 06 '25

Data centres are famous for producing very few jobs.

Its not like we need canteen`s to feed the machines ..

You`ll not find many workers canteens necessary in a data centre.

The same could be said of power plants, water treatment plants and other infrastructure. But the building of these, like datacentres supports 100s of thousands of jobs,

0

u/Dirtygeebag Jun 06 '25

False.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '25

1 billion investment doesn't bring jobs? Rly?

3

u/grodgeandgo Jun 06 '25

The AWS data Centre in Tallaght as a district heat game that provides waste heat to a large heat exchanger that is then piped to various high energy users such as the local university soon to be the hospital the county library and a few new apartment developments.
There are two new data centres planned for Naas, both of these will have district heat schemes, under the district heat scheme in early consideration for Maynooth.

1

u/ImANoob08 Jun 05 '25

Some data centers in Ireland use prime power generation by burning gas through turbines to generate electricity.
So its not as simple as "if they are using shitty energy, its because we are generating shitty electricity" the electricity grid also needs a serious upgrade to allow for the electrification of the country.

0

u/Alastor001 Jun 05 '25

But we need houses more than data centers. And houses need electricity also. If resource is limited...

-1

u/Inevitable-Menu2998 Jun 05 '25

Houses accounted for 28% of the energy usage while data centres accounted for 21% in 2023 (source)
Doubling capacity for a data center is ultimately a trivial undertaking. Doubling the number of houses is impossible.

0

u/expectationlost Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

my shit doesn't produce electricity.

4

u/L0kitheliar Jun 05 '25

Your shit is the product of energy fuel

5

u/Incendio88 Jun 05 '25

...it kind of does. Lots of farmers use animal shit as form of fertilizer. And human shit (night soil) was a used up the industrial revolution. It started to phase out because of public sanitation improvements and chemical fertilizers becoming relatively cheaper to produce.

16

u/SinceriusRex Jun 05 '25

because the demand they add to our Grid is ridiculous. It's a higher percentage of grid demand than anywhere else in the world. And now they're competing with the rest of us for electricity. That high a percentage of the grid going to data centres would be an issue anywhere, but if we decarbonised our entire grid first it would be a first step

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

3

u/SinceriusRex Jun 05 '25

which claim sorry? That we have a higher proportion of data centre demand than other countries? Car factories and steel furnaces are rarely run on electricity. And tend to exist in energy systems set up for industry. The Irish grid needs a lot of investment.

15

u/ItsTyrrellsAlt Jun 05 '25

They contribute a grand total of 0 kg of carbon if our electricity generation was carbonless to begin with

Datacentres have significantly and disproportionately outstripped the installation of renewable energy though. Ireland would be much, much closer to a decarbonised grid if 25-30% of the generated electricity wasn't going to them.

17

u/struggling_farmer Jun 05 '25

Ireland would be much, much closer to a decarbonised grid if 25-30% of the generated electricity wasn't going to them.

Not sure that statement stand ups to scrutiny.. data centres have long term power agreements with providers of wind & solar farms which helps de risk and fund the investment of building the wind or solar farm..
it not correct to assume we would have our current level of green generation if we did not have data centres.

10

u/ItsTyrrellsAlt Jun 05 '25

Not sure that statement stand ups to scrutiny.

Datacentres have increased in power use by something like 450-500% in the last ten years. This is essentially constant electrical load.
Wind power (the only renewable energy we have in significant quantity) increased by about 100-120% in that time. This is not constant electrical supply.
In the mean time, there is also an increase in domestic demand for heat pumps and cars. The net result is that we aren't able to turn off the fossil generators, and are in fact building more to supply the datacentres as so called "peaker plants".

7

u/struggling_farmer Jun 05 '25

I understand that but you cant assume that if we had no data centres that would still have the same level of green wind farms.
Their power agreements are underwriting the business case for developments to proceed and the site weren't going to stay idle either so likely to be some consumption, albeit lower, than the data centres.
not sure why you have Peaker Plants in " "? they exist, they have been on the grid for decades. their use is quick start up plant to overcome shortfalls between generation & consumption.. Turlough Hill Power Station is a peaker plant and been around since the 70's
historically they were required because it was slow to ramp up our solid fuel generators. They are need now because the we have increased reliance on wind & solar which are more volatile generators and we dont have sufficient storage capacity.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '25

11

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

Exactly, the drawing is so stupid, perfect example of poor education. Electricity consumption vs categorising rubbish? wtf are you on about mr artist 🤣
They’re using the exact same electricity in their house.
The best thing about this picture is the individuals in the picture are benefitting from their location.
Using low-grade residual heat from data centres as a primary source for heat pumps enables ESCOs to deliver hot water to their networks without the need for centralised boiler plant 💀 massively reducing C02 emissions lmao

4

u/NUKE---THE---WHALES Jun 05 '25

People will go to great lengths and do incredible mental acrobatics just so they can shirk any and all personal responsibility
Because why shouldn't I be allowed to burn my trash when there are tankers spilling oil into the ocean...

10

u/Amckinstry Jun 05 '25

Because the datacentres are in competition with housing etc for clean energy. If Amazon had not added an extra datacentre, the wind farm over my house would be powering homes.
There is a limit to how fast (and how much) clean energy can be added, and they're demanding to exceed it and for Ireland to pay the cost.

8

u/JAKEN86 Jun 05 '25

Some of that limit is self-inflicted, e.g., Equinor, pulled out of the large off-shore wind project off Kerry/Clare because planning regulations are so cumbersome here.

-2

u/ItsTyrrellsAlt Jun 05 '25

Doubt it. Plenty of major offshore projects are being crushed out, even in countries like Denmark which are the leaders. The reality is offshore is expensive and reliant on subsidies.

2

u/JAKEN86 Jun 05 '25

Well that’s the reason Equinor cited for pulling out anyway (and they should have understanding of the cost, given their research into floating offshore wind and pilots in Scotland).
Wind Energy Ireland have also warned about planning hurdles : https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/equinor-withdrawal-puts-focus-on-offshore-planning-delays-1.4719469

4

u/RobotIcHead Jun 05 '25

Why there is a limit though? Most of the limitations are down to legal side of the planning process and regulations from the government. Maybe the government should change them it is not like the politicians from all the parties could not see this problem arising.

3

u/Amckinstry Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

Mostly wind turbine sites. There are very few good ones left on land, most of the increase in wind is increasing the size of turbines on existing sites.
The current regulations put the onus on the DC operator to secure a clean energy source; they also favour community groups in getting grid connections for new wind farms over commercial projects. These are the regulations the DC operators want to remove.
The real problem is how slow we've been in getting ocean wind going. The government has been too slow to act here given how important it is. Its not stroke-of-a-pen stuff, its hiring planners and engineers into the agencies (MARA) and civil service to do the work. And ramping up training of such expertise. And getting the Dept of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) active in building out the harbours, etc to support ocean wind.

1

u/Rulmeq Jun 05 '25

Because we love an easy answer. Oh, look stuff we can blame, instead of actually investing in our infrastructure.

1

u/Immortal_Tuttle Jun 05 '25

Easy, big target.
It's easier than just solve our grid and energy issues. We have the means, we have budget, we just don't have anyone with balls to do so. Same story with dying towns, WFH and solving housing issue.

1

u/bubbleweed Jun 05 '25

We don’t have a decarbonised grid, you can say ‘should’ all day. Data centers are immensely energy hungry, and we keep building them at a rate where they are accounting for ever higher percentage use of the grid. The cartoon is apt.

1

u/Dirtygeebag Jun 06 '25

Carbon less energy is a fallacy. There is dirty energy and cleaner energy. But we are a long ways away from carbon less energy production.

1

u/MrFennecTheFox Jun 06 '25

Okay they don’t produce carbon… but they swallow huge amounts of our badly produced energy, while we are still producing energy badly. I completely agree with your sentiment that we need to be decarbonising the grid… but because of the load on the grid, reserve power stations are on constant standby to run, to prevent us from having blackouts. If there was less constant load, more of the total percentage of use would be covered by our currently produced ‘greener’ energy.
What I can’t understand is, that we keep allowing the building of these power guzzlers, while we prevent the building of ‘greener’ energy production. We should be prioritising the horse before the cart, because currently the cart is being pulled by a gas and oil powered monstrosity.

1

u/Takseen Jun 05 '25

>Why is the focus being put on data centres and not the fact that we should have a decarbonized grid by now?
Does anyone currently have a decarbonized grid? That seems hugely cutting edge given the available power storage tech.

4

u/cavedave Jun 05 '25

According to this wiki page 10 countries have 100% renewable using grids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Which is far more that I would have thought.
Paraguay, Iceland, Costa Rica, Norway are theo only ones that seem to have a high quality of life.
According to this france is 88% of global average co2 compared to 134% for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita which i would think Nuclear electricity is a fair chunk of the difference. but it could be heating and transport a bit as well.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (11)

24

u/androgenius Jun 05 '25

Some people really just can't cope with recycling huh?

All the crazy shit governments have done to their people over the years and the one that they really can't handle, the one they use to get people into a frenzy to vote against their own best interests and so let governments do even worse shit to them is different bins.

I really don't get it.

14

u/RockinOneThreeTwo Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

People don't want to do the right thing, but feel pressured to do so, so when they can find any flimsy excuse to say "SEE, THEY ARE DOING [BAD THING] THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING EITHER!!!". It's the same logic children use in primary school when they get called out for doing something against the rules, "they started it first!!".
People generally understand that just because someone else does something wrong, doesn't mean you should stop doing the right thing, but there a lot of shit, selfish and immature people who are looking for any excuse to make zero effort.

1

u/flex_tape_salesman Jun 06 '25

It's bitterness and misguided but I don't think it's unwarranted either. For years before data centres came into focus governments and corporations were saying the problem was the average Joe's lifestyle. Then it really came into focus how horrid so many corporations are towards the environment.

3

u/dkeenaghan Jun 06 '25

The average Joe is the one using the services that the data centres are needed for. Companies don’t use energy for fun. Energy costs money and if they are spending money it’s because they are profiting from it due to demand from the average Joe.
If the population is rewarding companies like Pennys and Temu who produce products in an unsustainable way then they will continue to operate as they do.

34

u/A-Hind-D Jun 05 '25 edited Jun 05 '25

Weird focus on data centres.

They don’t directly pollute, they require considerable energy which comes from a mix of energy sources including polluting types.

Similar to the greenwashing campaign of the Luas being “green”. It doesn’t have emissions but the grid it relies on, does.

A bigger and better example is aircrafts that directly pollute and have a considerably worse impact on the environment. We’re far away from battery powered planes as well. It’s not there yet

Data centres should be required to cover % of their energy needs via green energy. Many around the world do have solar panels but they never cover their full requirements. A lot can be said about the advancements in more energy efficient tech stacks but there’s no magic wand to this and varies greatly from the silicon and the code.

AI is also a massive power use compared to a typical web search. So it’s contributing greatly to the energy requirements of data centres.

Banning data centres without decarbonisation of the grid and regulation on data centre infrastructure isn’t going to change anything alone, so the point is moot.

5

u/Even_Region Jun 05 '25

The companies building the data centres are actively experimenting with solar projects, currently solar can only provide a single digit percentage of energy needed. Hopefully this can be increased. If we banned AWS and vantage data centres, the same amount of data would be demanded and probably supplied through smaller less efficient systems which would demand more energy. I agree with the general consensus here that our government should invest more in wind and solar energy and maybe even nuclear.

2

u/grodgeandgo Jun 06 '25

A high amount of the energy input to alders centre can be captured as waste heat via a district heat scheme too.

3

u/Alastor001 Jun 05 '25

And AI is often used for useless tasks so why not limit it's use to reduce power demand?

4

u/A-Hind-D Jun 05 '25

Would be one hell of a bill to write up and get support for

3

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

30% of our electricity consumption by 2030 is a legitimate reason to focus on them + the hoovering up of any renewables coming on stream and diverting away from urgent decarbonisation need across more essential sectors eg housing etc.

1

u/Meath77 Jun 05 '25

It's a problem when we can't build homes around Dublin due to electric capacity problems but we have data centres everywhere. One data centre was using more electricity than the town of kilkenny
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2025/05/05/new-homes-delayed-due-to-electricity-access-say-builders/

-2

u/wascallywabbit666 Jun 05 '25

Weird focus on data centres.

Agreed. We could just as easily focus on tumble dryers

2

u/A-Hind-D Jun 05 '25

Don’t let big tumble hear ya

1

u/Gullible-Mouse-6854 Jun 05 '25

my wife would go to war with you if you touch the dryer

47

u/Nearby-Priority4934 Jun 05 '25

Data centers are necessary in the modern world. The electricity they use is getting cleaner and we should push to keep making it cleaner and get to the point where they are zero emission . And sure, it’d be nice if we could ban some extremely wasteful practices such as cryptocurrency, but we’re never going to shut down the entire internet so data centers will continue to exist.

Recycling is something we should all be doing regardless rather than dumping plastic everywhere. These two completely independent things are not contradictory.

11

u/AnyRepresentative432 Jun 05 '25

Ex data centre engineer here. It's not that clean at all. 90% of it is from the grid, which is wildly inefficient. The remainder is from gas, which is about 40% efficient in electricity production in absolutely perfect conditions. Saying it's getting cleaner is a wild statement.

15

u/National_Play_6851 Jun 05 '25

So you don't think the grid is getting cleaner? That's a pretty wild statement.
For reference, a direct quote from SEAI:
"Ireland’s national energy-related emissions in 2023 were at their lowest level in over 30 years. Energy-related emissions in 2023 were 31.4 MtCO₂eq, down 8.3% on 2022 levels, and lower even than those observed during the height of COVID impacts in 2020."

→ More replies (11)

1

u/Equivalent_Range6291 Jun 05 '25

Did you know Chernobyl was built with plastic ..

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

The point on recycling is that it's a diversion frok industry regulation, and is a greenwashing stunt in itself because most of our waste gets incinerated or goes to landfill. My question for you is how much of data processed by data centres is obsolete, redundant, dark? It seems to be the majority.

1

u/filthy_harold Jun 05 '25

Crypto only exists as long as it's value is greater than the cost to produce it. There are smart grid solutions that could involve the production of crypto when production exceeds demand and storage capabilities. A fossil fuel generator can be turned down when grid demand is low but things like solar and wind are capable of producing more than what the load draws. Generally, you'd want to save this excess production by using large batteries or other mechanical means when production is lower than demand but those have a limit. You may be in a situation where you can still produce more than what is needed and can be stored so this excess can be diverted to crypto production and then sold off. You can essentially generate it for free (excluding long term costs of equipment).

0

u/Alastor001 Jun 05 '25

Data centers are necessary...
Depends which ones?
Medical database? Yes.
An AI to generate memes? Unlikely.

-2

u/TheStoicNihilist Jun 05 '25

Like food security, data security is crucial. We need our data located within our jurisdiction and protected by our own laws.

-2

u/midir Jun 05 '25

Data centers are necessary in the modern world.

The modern world itself is not necessary.

15

u/Kenoooop Jun 05 '25

Oh Fuck off

Yes, data centres consume significant power — especially with the rise of AI workloads — but they don’t generate emissions themselves. That responsibility lies primarily with how electricity is produced, not how it’s consumed.

Electricity companies, not tech companies, determine how clean the energy mix is. So if your grid is still running on fossil fuels, that’s on energy policy and providers — not on the end users.

Modern data centres are increasingly hyper-efficient and often rely on renewables or carbon offsets. Some of the largest tech companies are actually leading the transition to clean energy by signing massive Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.

In many regions, data centres recycle waste heat to warm schools, housing estates, or public infrastructure. They optimize power use, and in some countries, they’re even integrated into national energy grids to absorb surplus renewable energy that would otherwise go to waste.

So instead of an illustration that shows data centres lighting coal furnaces, a more accurate one would show energy utilities and regulators as the true gatekeepers of emissions.

Focus should be on grid decarbonization and energy efficiency — not clickbait cartoons that blame the symptoms, not the system

2

u/ImANoob08 Jun 05 '25

Several DC's in the country use on site prime power generation so some of them absolutely do generate emissions themselves.

1

u/Kenoooop Jun 06 '25

Yup looks like you are correct, hadn't realised some have moved to on site. From reading up on some of these sites it seems like gas and also solar (depending on the site).
Still seems like the overwhelming percentage is on Mains power, can only find three examples of the on premise, also looks like with the on premise comes a few initiatives

Corporate Power Purchase Agreements (CPPAs):

On-Site Renewable Energy and Storage:

Waste Heat Recovery:

Use of Biofuels:

Think this is also good as it will drive innovation into more advances in consumption, cooling, recovery etc as is currently happening.
My main annoyance with the post is that it's a cheep clickbait, headline grabbing, ill informed view point that many people have and it just help perpetuate ideologies skewed from fact.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

What percentage of the current 80+ data centres utilise 100% CPPAs?

0

u/davidj108 Jun 05 '25

Please name one school or housing estate in Ireland heated by waste heat from a Datacenter?
I’m really interested? Just one?

2

u/Kenoooop Jun 05 '25

https://www.seai.ie/case-studies/tallaght-district-heating

2

u/ImANoob08 Jun 05 '25

Who's fault do you think that is, the data centers?
The big issue here is that the country hasn't provide the data centers with a viable option to use their waste heat.

3

u/armchairdetective Jun 05 '25

Maybe the people who agree with this message should stop using ChatGPT?

3

u/cyaniod Jun 05 '25

They should all be forced to cover those big flat roofs and carparks in solar panels and provide themselves with large battery storage and make a percentage of that battery dispatch able to the grid for grid flexibility. If they're gonna be suckin up masses of electric then they better find a way to chip in and be a useful decentralised asset to the grid.

3

u/gem_hoarder Jun 06 '25

I haven’t lived in Ireland since 2011 or so but I remember this was a hotly debated issue back then as well.

Datacenters have a few standard measures for effectiveness:

WUE (water usage effectiveness)
PUE (power usage effectiveness)
CUE (carbon usage effectiveness)

I think it may be a good idea to call your TDs and push for regulation on the range for these figures.

From what I saw, they also account for a large percentage of the power in the grid. With how large these datacenters are it may push the corporations to build renewable energy plants for their datacenters.

I know Ireland’s always been friendly towards corporations, so it may be out of character, but I think there is enough incentive for them to comply without much fuss.

Edit: maybe even regulation on the total amount or size of the datacenter (even very efficient datacenters will consume a lot of resources if you build them big enough)

10

u/Kingbotterson Jun 05 '25

A tired trope OP. Try a bit harder.

10

u/Faquarl Jun 05 '25

The irony of complaining about data centres on the internet

4

u/Yoske96 Jun 05 '25

This would actually be relevant if it was a bunch of cows shitting in fields

4

u/_LightEmittingDiode_ Jun 05 '25

Show me how ignorant you are on a subject without saying anything… And these misrepresentations of topics get upvotes on this subreddit, smh, this place is rife on misplaced outrage.

4

u/xios Jun 05 '25

The Irony being that this image and conversation is being hosted by datacentres...

2

u/whiskydyc Jun 05 '25

Just look at what Elon Musk’s Xai gets away with.

2

u/JackhusChanhus Jun 05 '25

Greenhouse gases =/= airborne pollutants =/= excessive/ unrecycled rubbish.

This is like asking someone why they quit smoking when they still love pints and takeaway... Never mind that datacentres could easily be a massive driver for our renewables sector if we could only get the finger out on planning etc.

2

u/cyaniod Jun 05 '25

Also nevermind that most of that plastic can't be recycled properly anyway.

3

u/Backrow6 Jun 05 '25

The cement plants need your plastics for fuel.

4

u/MrRijkaard Jun 05 '25

I mean if you really wanted to make a point about individual actions having little effect compared to large orgs you should have cows there instead of DC's.

58

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

5

u/AdvancedSandwiches Jun 05 '25

That, but also you have to draw the guy at the bottom 8 billion times, one for each person on earth.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '25

→ More replies (7)

Environment Data Centres [oc]

You are about to leave Redlib