12/31/2025 at 7:50:54 PM
>>xAI entirely bypassed the grid and generated power onsite, using truck-mounted gas turbines and engines.These generators polluted the nearby historically black neighborhoods in Memphis Tennessee with nitrogen oxides. Residents are afraid to open their windows, with the elderly, children and those suffering from conditions like COPD particularly affected. Lawsuits alleging environmental racism are pending.
xAI says cleaner generators will be installed but I think this episode shows that we cannot allow public interests to be compromised by private sector so easily just because they scream: Jobs! Investment!
by g8oz
12/31/2025 at 9:10:27 PM
> xAI says cleaner generators will be installed but I think this episode shows that we cannot allow public interests to be compromised by private sector so easily just because they scream: Jobs! Investment!80ish% in the US live <100 miles from their hometown.
It would be wise to see "jobs!" Investment!" as little more than a mafioso like threat to agrarian-stay in one place-work to live types. "Sure is a nice Shire you got there. Better hope it doesn't suffer from lack of investment in jobs."
Threats of it all imploding are taken seriously by a lot of people.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/culture/generations/millennials-...
So what if it does? That's normal with the passage of time. As long as human biology exists humans will solve for those problems. Beyond that obligation is just socialized memes, ethno objects that come and go with the generations.
Everyone alive now worried about propagation of our culture sure does not seem concerned Latin fell out of common use. That they aren't spending their lives keeping old traditions alive should make it obvious old traditions don't mean that much to the living.
Politicians and rich need us servicing debt they so graciously took on to invest in jobs or we would be free to police them.
by thisgetsit
1/1/2026 at 5:18:02 PM
The alternative to multiple jurisdictions racing to the bottom is strong centralized control to prevent anyone from racing to the bottom. That will be an even worse pill than datacenter pollution to swallow for Americans. Only the big cities are big enough to resist the race.by rangestransform
12/31/2025 at 8:43:47 PM
The phrasing 'historically black neighborhoods' feels like it pushes a specific agenda rather than just addressing the pollution.It implies that if this were happening near a non black neighborhood, it wouldn’t be as egregious, which is a strange moral stance.
Also 'historically' is irrelevant. Pollution hurts the people living there now.
by mucle6
12/31/2025 at 11:43:36 PM
It's because in the US historically black neighborhoods have a unique history of racism and disinvestment.Here's an article about what happened literally where I'm sitting: https://kingneighborhood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BLEE...
Stories like this played all all over the US. Read up on Robert Moses for example.
Not that you intended it, but your comment veers close to the sort of "why do black people always talk about racism" thought ending cliche or similar demands to be "colorblind" that ultimately are only functionally used to shut down conversations about extant and continuing racism.
by jasonwatkinspdx
1/1/2026 at 1:24:29 AM
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the flip side of that argument is that whenever you do see higher investment and better amenities in a historically marginalized neighborhood, that gets loudly deplored by faux-progressive activists as harmful "gentrification" and "changing the character" of the neighborhood. Y'all should pick one stance or the other; you can't have it both ways!by zozbot234
1/1/2026 at 1:44:04 AM
So the thing about "Ya'll should ..." is that it's often mistaking "Group A and Group B hold conflicting beliefs but share a characteristic" with "Group C, all the people with this characteristic, all exhibit an incoherent belief structure".For example suppose you apply this to the US Senate. So instead of Group A (Democrats and a those who caucus with them) and Group B (Republicans) we instead think there's a single Group C, Senators. Now their behaviour seems incoherent, this Group C seems to hold contradictory opinions and behaves irrationally, why can't they get their act together? The actual answer is that we misunderstood and they're not a single coherent group so that's why they don't act that way.
by tialaramex
1/1/2026 at 3:54:38 AM
You might as well argue: "Part of my brain thought A at time Y. A different part of my brain had a different thought B, at a different time Z. Why the accusations of hypocrisy?"The problem arises when an individual or group tries to represent themselves as more credible/consistent/coherent than they really are.
If you freely admit that you have multiple personality disorder, hypocrisy is to be expected from you as an individual. People know what they're in for.
If you respond to accusations of hypocrisy by saying: "Hm, that's a good point. I'll have to reflect and see if I can reach consistency here." Then people recognize you are making a good-faith effort.
I've observed that modern progressivism represents itself with a strong us/them boundary. The vociferousness of the rhetoric vastly outstrips the quality of the underlying reasoning/decision mechanism. And I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."
You are correct that individual progressives may, in principle, be credible if they have a coherent philosophy which is consistently applied (including to critique their own "team" when appropriate).
But empirically, modern progressivism is more of a "meme ideology" where precepts are invoked when convenient, against whatever outgroup is currently fashionable. Progressive rhetoric, and progressive reasoning, is so flexible and untethered that if you're sufficiently talented at wielding it, it can be used to reach virtually any conclusion. The selective application of principles at the group level has strong parallels to how hypocrisy works at the level of an individual.
A movement can be meaningfully described as hypocritical, even if its individual members are not.
by 0xDEAFBEAD
1/1/2026 at 4:21:10 AM
> I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."Humans are bad at that, and the ones who say it often don’t actually mean it. Some people claim their openness to debate, but that’s not the same as being open to changing one’s mind.
by shermantanktop
1/1/2026 at 4:52:16 AM
>I've never seen a progressive say: "You make a good point, we'll have to debate on that."For what it's worth I had someone who identifies as progressive say something to that effect to me just last night.
It happens.
by Lerc
1/1/2026 at 5:28:09 PM
You're making a sweeping bad faith representation of progressives yourself.It can simply be the case that your accusations of hypocrisy are wrong, because your entire characterization of the discussion/position is wrong.
I'm not going to say "you made a good point" because you flatly have not.
by jasonwatkinspdx
1/1/2026 at 1:57:03 AM
You're attributing views to me I do not hold.And frankly, you characterization of those views makes clear you're not interested in actual answers.
The primary issue with gentrification in historically black neighborhoods is that owners face the dilemma of having to leave their community to capture the increased property values.
For example, I live near the oldest black church in the PNW. Many of the older congregation members live in the area, and have low mobility. If we don't build a mix of housing that addresses their needs in downsizing, they end up having to effectively exile themselves from the community they've lived within for decades. They can't simply "move somewhere lower cost" without dramatic changes to their entire social world, just at an age where keeping those social ties takes a lot of effort.
by jasonwatkinspdx
1/1/2026 at 2:06:36 AM
I actually agree that building smaller/denser housing would be great and address the needs of many existing residents, but those same faux-progressive activists will decry that in the strongest terms, and insist that any increases in density will only further even worse gentrification and change the historical "flavor" of the neighborhood in extremely detrimental ways. Again, progressive activists cannot have it both ways; they should pick one or the other.by zozbot234
1/1/2026 at 3:22:07 AM
You totally crushed that strawman.Or something. Yes, hypocrites are everywhere, but what are we debating here exactly?
by actionfromafar
1/1/2026 at 12:48:45 AM
That's a misreading of the term in the same way saying that the phrase 'black lives matter' imply white lives don't matterThe point is that this type of environmental pollution only is allowed to happen in poor areas that are disproportionately black because of decades of systemic racism like red lining.
If that concept makes you uncomfortable, that's a good thing, it should. But you should resist the urge to deny the existence of ideas that are inconvenient
by jLaForest
1/1/2026 at 1:18:58 AM
What's uncomfortable is not the racism claim, but that the argument is merely a conjecture. It's lazy and dishonest. More importantly, this line of argument tends to shut down intelligent conversation, which this forum is about.by YaeGh8Vo
12/31/2025 at 8:48:54 PM
> It implies that if this were happening near a non black neighborhood, it wouldn’t be as egregious, which is a strange moral stance.I read it the other way: that it simply wouldn't happen in a white neighborhood.
by lawn
12/31/2025 at 8:52:45 PM
That makes sense. For some reason though I still sense a hint of desire for retribution in the original commentby mucle6
12/31/2025 at 9:19:53 PM
It makes more sense to word it like this when you take into consideration historical trends, like drowned towns for lakes or dams, highway system along redline, thriving neighbourhoods erased to create parks… often preceded by violence and little to no compensation.by marci
12/31/2025 at 9:00:06 PM
I think this is an uncharitable interpretation.by SantalBlush
12/31/2025 at 9:23:05 PM
My interpretation is it would be less likely to happen near a wealthy neighborhood compared to a poor neighborhood. Why talk about race if its not about race?by mucle6
12/31/2025 at 11:51:45 PM
Because it is about race.Please read the article I linked in another reply to you.
My neighborhood was prosperous when it was systematically stolen from the black people who built it. They literally razed a thriving business district. And then the land sat empty for decades, only in the end to be sold to property developers.
They used eminent domain to steal people's homes and businesses in a way that was blatantly criminal, but the victims had no recourse given the courts and entire rest of the political structure was complicit in the actions.
And variations of this story played out everywhere across America.
So yes, the fact that a neighborhood is historically black is relevant, because it shows the events of today are part of a continued arc of injustice.
by jasonwatkinspdx
12/31/2025 at 10:58:57 PM
Who said they were poor?by dullcrisp
12/31/2025 at 11:40:30 PM
Tulsa used to have a rich Black neighborhood.by ryoshu
1/1/2026 at 2:05:29 AM
it’s amazing to me how few people know what happened there.by toofy
12/31/2025 at 10:58:59 PM
The correlation is extremely strong, especially in places like Memphis. And nobody said this particular neighborhood is poor.by enraged_camel
1/1/2026 at 1:58:43 PM
Isn’t the Memphis city admin mainly composed of blacks?by deburo
12/31/2025 at 8:52:58 PM
The phrase implies that powerful companies know that historically black neighborhoods don’t have the resources to mount a legal defense against abnormal pollution from data center generators, so the smart choice is to put all the pollution near historically black neighborhoods.The agenda, as it is every day, is how to externalize costs so that megacompanies don’t have to spend more money to keep our environment clean.
by guhidalg
12/31/2025 at 9:05:55 PM
You’re conflating race with poverty.It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.
Also, the OP explicitly states that lawsuits are pending. Clearly, the community was able to mount a legal defense
by mucle6
12/31/2025 at 9:24:13 PM
> It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.Statistically poverty is correlated with race. For reasons to do with (quite recent) history.
by Arn_Thor
12/31/2025 at 9:34:53 PM
Statistics are not a license to assume.Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.
Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.
by mucle6
12/31/2025 at 11:29:57 PM
"Historically black" is a euphemism -- that's a term that makes people feel better about something awful -- which refers to the fact that for the majority of the last three hundred years people have been systematically, governmentally, socially and personally discriminated against because of the color of their skin, and that racism led to massive inequity reflected in wealth, income, education and standards of living.The facts of history show this. It is not a subtle statistical effect.
People who argue the way that you have been are either woefully ignorant of this matter or are playing games trying to justify the status quo, or are just racist trolls. This isn't a FAQ on HN because it's a FAQ in real life.
by dsr_
12/31/2025 at 11:57:06 PM
[flagged]by mucle6
12/31/2025 at 11:33:50 PM
> Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.Who said anything about a specific person? They are talking about a neighborhood, in a urban area in a region known for the endemic poverty in black-majority areas due to the long shadow of slavery and Jim Crow.
As a wise character once said, "poverty is a condition, not a crime".
> > Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.
There are a few historically black communities in the US that are middle-class and prosperous, and Black Americans have made huge advances, but to this day, concentrations of Black American community prosperity tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
by danans
1/1/2026 at 6:24:46 PM
The question is how you check, qualify and--last but not least--apply the statistical findings. Are we trying to lift disadvantaged communities by providing extra resources and help people get on a better footing in life, or harassing individuals on the street because they have a certain skin color? I'm very eager to support the former and protest the latter.by Arn_Thor
12/31/2025 at 9:39:48 PM
[flagged]by renewiltord
1/1/2026 at 5:50:57 PM
I don't know, what are we doing with these assumptions? Are we trying to lift disadvantaged communities by providing extra resources and help people get on a better footing in life, or harassing individuals on the street because they have a certain skin color? I'm very eager to support the former and protest the latter.by Arn_Thor
12/31/2025 at 10:13:22 PM
Crime is related with poverty which is related with race.by sidereal1
1/1/2026 at 6:24:25 PM
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differe...It's not that simple.
by AustinDev
12/31/2025 at 10:58:17 PM
No, not like that. /sby ares623
12/31/2025 at 11:26:19 PM
You've got an extra actor in the mix that makes for a different argument and actually supports the idea that it's racist, I think.Namely - I think most agree that it's racist to mindlessly assume race and poverty are correlated. The argument here is that the AI companies made that assumption - in other words, they're being called racists.
I don't think it's racist to speculate that a corporation, that made choices that specifically impact black neighborhoods, is racist.
by hirsin
1/1/2026 at 1:15:40 AM
It's because it's part of a more general pattern where bad things like this are preferentially done to black people. It's the same with highway locations. For some reason, when choosing where to demolish to build a highway, they prefer to demolish neighbourhoods with mostly black people.by immibis
1/1/2026 at 10:06:48 PM
Is that weighted by land cost?by Xss3
1/1/2026 at 11:48:44 PM
When they bothered compensating, it was far from market value, so no.by marci
12/31/2025 at 11:02:14 PM
These "gas turbines" are located next door to the Allen Combined Cycle Plant, a grid scale natural gas power plant with 1.1GW capacity. It's there to power a nearby steel mill. That's the kind of neighborhood xAI has put its cluster in.I'm incredibly skeptical of any claim that xAI's power use is putting a dent in the local environment, and "environmental racism" just reeks of the usual agenda pushing.
by ACCount37
12/31/2025 at 11:36:17 PM
How tall are the stacks at the combined cycle plant compared to the ones at the xAI datacenter?https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/xai-datacen...
by bob1029
1/1/2026 at 5:12:31 AM
Seriously this: smoke stacks are a carefully engineered structure specially to ensure air emissions diffuse and don't roll along the ground.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnYdt4T76mk
You absolutely cannot park a bunch of truck mounted generators next to an existing plant and go "yeah it won't make a difference".
by XorNot
1/1/2026 at 7:29:59 AM
Once, when I was a child, I remember the carefully engineered smoke stacks in Sudbury Ontario spilling out acrid smoke sideways, and then straight down into the town.Back then, Sudbury looked like Mars.
by rossjudson
1/1/2026 at 11:12:16 AM
So you're saying when not done properly, emissions have very direct negative impact on the surrounding community. Did I get that right?by black_puppydog
1/1/2026 at 10:05:28 PM
No theyre saying that since that day everyone has given up and nothing matters anymore. We all collectively decided that it is OKAY and didnt change a single thing since.by Xss3
1/1/2026 at 2:00:07 AM
i’m curious, are you skeptical xai would wiggle around regulations and pollute a city?by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air? because that seems like an entirely reasonable agenda to me.
by toofy
1/1/2026 at 4:31:27 AM
That seems like an odd framing.For my part I am prepared to accept that XAI might attempt to flout regulations. If I knew more about their operating practices I might even expect it. Even in that case I would not expect it to be the case that you could assume that they had done in any individual case.
While this isn't criminal law, the principle that underlies innocent until proven guilty still applies. I don't think it's acceptable do condemn people because you are assuming that they are doing the kind of thing you expect them to do. I think it is still incumbent upon accusers to make their case and for that accusation to be robustly challenged. Not just by people who stand something to gain by one outcome over another, but by people who want to find out the truth.
I tend to challenge ideas that support my viewpoint more than oppose, I find it incredibly irritating to encounter a flawed argument concluding something I agree with. Somewhat annoyingly it seems to cause people to assume I believe the opposite to what I actually believe, because there seems to be a presumption that you should accept all arguments in favour of your viewpoint no matter how bad they are. Apparently I'm not the right sort of team player.
>by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air? because that seems like an entirely reasonable agenda to me.
I don't see how you could in good faith reach that conclusion from reading the comment above. It seems to me to be talking about the agenda of people expressing concern for others. That's the "Think of the children" kind of argument. Invoking disadvantaged groups in this manner very rarely expresses the agenda of the groups in question, it is usually made by people claiming that there own agenda is in the interests of the group indicated, frequently without input from that group. I don't know it that is an accurate claim to make in this instance or not, but it is certainly not characterising having the ability to breath as an agenda.
by Lerc
1/1/2026 at 8:35:01 AM
You weaponized your argument, and perhaps showed your political leaning, by invoking "agenda pushing".That immediately caused us to think "What's your agenda".
Another commenter wrote a rebuke - we're waiting for your response.
by scrollop
1/1/2026 at 2:44:18 PM
I did not invoke agenda pushing. I referred to the use of the term in the conversation above.If anything my agenda here is to suggest to people that they should not imagine the opinions that exist in other people's minds and to respond to what they say and do.
If you must know my political leaning, It would be a non-relativistic form of far left. By non-relativistic I mean based upon a principle that is fixed cannot change. That principle is compassion. To some this makes me right wing because I reject demonisation of the wealthy, I defend radicalised people from abuse, I criticize the use of violent imagery like the guillotine by people who consider themselves Left wing. In simple political compass terms I am a left liberal. I don't feel that captures the sentiment exactly.
George Orwell once reflected on the term fascist, since due to his writing he was often called upon as an arbitor to categorize instances. Essentially concluding that the term had largely lost meaning due to people applying it to whatever they didn't like. He is often quoted with the same complaint that people have to this day. However most quotes do not place it fully in context. He wrote: "...almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come". I think there is a critical point here. My left wing principle of compassion goes against the principles of many self identifying left wing people of bullying those who's opinions they disagree with. That's not a progressive stance, it is taking the ground newly won by progressives as the new normal. In time they will come to fight the progressives as they remain stationary and the progressives, ...well, progress
by Lerc
1/1/2026 at 4:21:15 PM
“I reject demonisation of the wealthy” is quite an odd thing for someone identifying as “far left” to say. But then you go on to identify as a “left liberal” - canonically not considered far left - so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.Whether it’s worth demonizing anyone or not, we can condemn actions that hurt innocent people and we can maintain skepticism of the ultra-wealthy and their motives without “bullying”. It does sound like your principle of compassion extends a little too much towards capital and not enough towards labor.
by all_factz
1/1/2026 at 5:11:07 PM
Therein lies the rub, when people are surprised to see a left wing person criticising the idea of othering, you have to wonder what principles they have left to call left wing.>we can condemn actions that hurt innocent people and we can maintain skepticism of the ultra-wealthy and their motives without “bullying”.
Indeed and I do condemn actions. What I don't do is conddemn people.
I am for robust regulation, free expression, free movement, worker rights, Limiting wealth inequality, free fundimental services of health educatiion. I want more police but with fewer powers. I support harm minimalization over punishing drug users, I favour rehabilitation in prison over training recidivists, I am against hate in all its forms. My most extreme views would be that advertising is inherently harmful to society, and teaching any religion as true to someone under the age of consent is child abuse.
All of these come from the principle that I think all people have feelings,worthless and rights, they deserve the best we can provide for them. If they disagree with you the first step is trying to understand their point of view.
To me, imposing your will on others, dismissing people for thinking the wrong thing, shunning them for saying the wrong thing or associating with 5he wrong people, these are all properties that stand at the other end of the spectrum to me. I don't particularly care what label you put on the ideology over there, but whatever it is, those are the attributes that have caused some of the darkest moments in h7man history.
by Lerc
1/1/2026 at 5:31:50 PM
Sure, I agree. Kneejerk condemnation and othering is bad.But there’s a need to balance even-handedness with a healthy skepticism of those in power. Otherwise you risk becoming an apologist. No one is saying not to do your homework or not to think critically, but we’re also saying not to come in guns blazing in defense of moneyed interests. That’s what the person who brought up the hidden agenda stuff seemed to be doing - making assumptions that favor capital without even taking the time to read the article that addressed those assumptions. That’s not even-handed, it’s biased against labor.
by all_factz
1/1/2026 at 9:44:21 PM
Consider the original post I responded to. It asked two questions.>are you skeptical xai would wiggle around regulations and pollute a city?
But they were responding to I'm incredibly skeptical of any claim that xAI's power use is putting a dent in the local environment which makes no claim as to whether they might obey or disobey regulations, the words "putting a dent" in the local envionnent*
The data from the article does not sufficiently address this, it uses satellite data and a short time frame. Without specifying the resolution of their data (which could be kilometer sized pixels) their claims about locality is in doubt. In short term measures, trends are harder to spot, a rise over months could just mean it is less windy in the nollowing season. Without a ground level meadurement of the air quality and a evaluation of the total local emission from all sources, you cannot hope to measure the health impact of a single cause.
None of that says that they are not polluting. What it says is that this is not evidence of it. Someone expressed skepticism based on the proportional emission of one of many of their ability to move the dial, and was challenged based upon the likelihood of what they might do. Claiming skeptasism that a thief could rob Fort Knox, is not a claim that the thief is honest
>by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air?
I simply cannot believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of what they said.
That's the thing that motivated me to post on this thread. That the first post I responded to here was attacking the player, not the ball.
I continue to post replies here out of my own sense of duty to fully explain my position to promote understanding, I'm not trying to win anything here, I only want people to see a honestly held perspective.
by Lerc
1/1/2026 at 1:24:07 PM
What "flawed argument" ? All facts and evidence have been provided - the measured nitrogen dioxide increase of ~80% will harm the respiratory system. Folks who cause harm should be punished not excused.by lenkite
1/1/2026 at 3:05:52 PM
I am not referring to any particular argument here, I mentioned it to place in context one of my motivations to challenging ideas is to seek the truth, not to prove my point of view correct.It was bought up here because it seemed like the post I was replying to was contesting the reasons for making a point rather than the point it was making.
>Folks who cause harm should be punished not excused.
In this instance I think the issue is not think that was suggested otherwise. The issue was more of Are the claims true, Does it have the impact stated, and who caused them.
Personally I do not want those who cause harm to be punished. I want them to not cause harm. Seeking vengeance on harm already done is unlikely to lead to an understanding of why their actions were harmful. It motivates them to not get caught in future, I would much rather they not want to harm.
by Lerc
1/1/2026 at 5:42:08 AM
Here are some quotes from an article [1] that directly addresses your point:> The turbines spew nitrogen oxides, also known as NOx, at an estimated rate of 1,200 to 2,000 tons a year — far more than the gas-fired power plant across the street or the oil refinery down the road.
> The turbines are only temporary and don’t require federal permits for their emissions of NOx and other hazardous air pollutants like formaldehyde, xAI’s environmental consultant, Shannon Lynn, said during a webinar hosted by the Memphis Chamber of Commerce. The argument appears to rely on a loophole in federal regulations that environmental groups and former EPA officials say shouldn’t apply to the situation.
> Mayo and Lynn didn’t respond to calls and texts from POLITICO’s E&E News requesting comment and have not said publicly how much longer the “temporary” turbines will remain onsite. Musk did not respond to a request for comment.
As you can see, xAI is being deliberately deceptive here and this has been known, but unaddressed for a while now. Remember that we are talking about a grave threat to the health and life of the entire population of a town. That too in a country where healthcare is deliberately unaffordable to ordinary folks. I don't know if you know how nasty formaldehyde and NOx smells.
How do you so casually trivialize and vilify such concerns as 'agenda pushing'? It's very sad that HN has too many apologists for these greedy serial violators and abusers. At the same time, the sheer lack of empathy towards the unprivileged is appalling! They're humans too!
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/elon-musk-xai-memph...
by goku12
1/1/2026 at 10:03:02 PM
Thank you for taking the time to respond.A thousand bots can spread a thousand lies faster than we can dispell them, but giving up the public square to them is worse.
What a situation...
by Xss3
1/1/2026 at 11:16:11 AM
Thank you for pointing to these details!by Zacharias030
1/1/2026 at 11:59:16 AM
You're welcome! And as you pointed out in your other comment, it's a bit frustrating when someone tries to sow doubt on well-established facts.by goku12
1/1/2026 at 11:04:29 AM
This stance strikes me as questionable, to use the first hunch that comes to mind to seed doubt in a topic that is researched and reported by multiple fairly reputable sources and multiple people on the ground.by Zacharias030
1/1/2026 at 10:31:24 PM
Just because one corp does something x bad, it means some other corp is ok to do something 10x bad?There's a huge difference between a utility scale power plant (you know, with things like tall chimneys) and "truck mounted" generators in the impact to the local air quality. But you know this and are playing word games.
by cfraenkel
1/1/2026 at 8:59:46 AM
Or the usual Musk externalizing costs and letting someone else handle the cleanup. Who's going to fine him? The government?by user____name
1/1/2026 at 2:50:50 AM
Polluting the environment in any form is a violation of property rights. It’s unfortunate our government hasn’t codified that reality.My neighbor’s don’t have a right to pollute my property by shining a bright light on it or blowing smoke into it or dumping chemicals into my underground well. Even if it’s mostly legal, it’s still a violation of my underlying right to property
by anon7000
1/1/2026 at 4:59:09 AM
Ah so because they're black people and they're already near _some_ pollution, we can just add _more_ pollution since they won't notice./s because some of you are fucking psychopaths
by HNisCIS
1/1/2026 at 12:14:17 AM
That plant is subject to regulations. The xAI turbines have evaded regulations by claiming that they are portable.by foobarqux
1/1/2026 at 12:06:05 PM
You're not very off the the mark. To add in that extra detail, xAI is using portable gas turbines that are meant for providing emergency backup power in case of a catastrophic loss of power, like in the event of a natural disaster. Being portable, they lack the systems necessary to avoid polluting the surrounding air with oxides of nitrogen and formaldehyde - really nasty stuff. That shouldn't normally cause a serious issue, since the turbines are meant for temporary backup alone. But at Memphis, xAI is stretching the meaning of 'temporary'.by goku12
12/31/2025 at 8:18:26 PM
We can sue to shut down pollution generators? Finally, I can get rid of that annoying airport...by cl0ckt0wer
1/1/2026 at 2:18:53 AM
Adding to their sins, many of those airports are in "historically black neighborhoods", you know!by kakapo5672
12/31/2025 at 8:10:51 PM
I'm a bit skeptical about this. I know diesel generators make these kind of pollutants, but I haven't heard the same about natural gas.My city has a big NG facility downtown that pipes heated water to a bunch of buildings, and it is surrounded by condos. I've never heard anything about it impacting the air (other than CO2 which is a global and not local issue).
Every building here (except for those connected to district heating systems), large and small, has a natural gas boiler or furnace. We have also several NG plants generating electricity within city limits. Again, localized pollution is not what concerns people about these things. Coal plants, on the other hand, tended to be way outside the city when they were still in operation.
by badc0ffee
12/31/2025 at 9:08:18 PM
Burning gas always creates stuff you don't want to be breathing. These small portable turbines were allowed to run dirtier than a full-size NG plant because the premise was that they are small and temporary. But then xAI put 40 of them in a parking lot and fired them all up at the same time, which is quite illegal but xAI also controls the government of both Tennessee and the USA, so residents are fucked.You hear AI folks including Trump's AI Tsar David Sachs frequently promoting what happened in Tennessee as the future of AI power generation. They're calling it "behind the meter" power generation. Understand that this is what it is: generating gigawatts of power with dozens or hundreds of "small" gas turbines all stacked in one place. Instant, on-demand toxic triangle coming to a data center project near you.
by jordanb
12/31/2025 at 10:32:30 PM
They certainly can emit NOx. The common technology used today to reduce this is called Dry Low Emissions (DLE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_low_emission). Emissions can be very low if done correctly.by osigurdson
12/31/2025 at 8:29:20 PM
Gas furnaces and stoves are known polluters of indoor air: https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/gas-stoves-and-indoor-air-p...Large gas plants are probably relatively clean overall, but the temporary, portable gas generators used by eg the xAI datacenter are not as tightly regulated and aren’t inspected or controlled in the same way. Given the particular corporate agent involved, I’d be surprised if any care at all were being taken to minimize air pollution caused by these portable generators.
by skywhopper
12/31/2025 at 8:37:30 PM
That is true of gas stoves, but gas furnaces don't exhaust into the house.by badc0ffee
12/31/2025 at 9:55:06 PM
Lower efficiency gas furnaces don’t have a completely sealed exhaust and rely on a draft for pollutant evacuation. This usually works good enough when properly installed and maintained but can be a source of indoor air pollution. Although typically minimal.And there are also decorative and/or supplemental gas heating devices which exhaust into the home.
by kube-system
1/1/2026 at 7:10:19 PM
But gas turbines do vent to their neighbors’ air, which is the main point here.by skywhopper
12/31/2025 at 8:22:20 PM
Global issues start locally. See: tragedy of the commonsby butlike
12/31/2025 at 8:24:34 PM
[dead]by cindyllm
12/31/2025 at 8:23:08 PM
>I'm a bit skeptical about this. I know diesel generators make these kind of pollutants, but I haven't heard the same about natural gas.it is about gas turbine high temperature and pressure, not about natural gas. That is why diesel engine does it too, while it isn't such an issue for regular gas engine, nor for "simple" LNG burners/heaters.
What xAI does here sounds horrendous. 270MW of gas turbines dumping the exhaust straight into the neighborhood. It is like 1000 diesel trucks running their engine full power 24x7 near your house.
by trhway
12/31/2025 at 10:56:40 PM
Check the map. There's an operational industrial scale natural gas power plant next door to xAI facility. And it was there for what, a decade already? Before it, there was a coal power plant there too.Basically, it looks like the whole "xAI poisoning black neighborhoods" thing is the usual FUD by the usual agenda pushers.
by ACCount37
1/1/2026 at 12:57:24 AM
I just looked, and you're right. It's in an industrial area several km from homes, and near existing NG facilities, including one where they flare gas.https://www.facebook.com/abacustrategic/posts/pfbid02rrUwoWM...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fYwcSi8vfPBnsYeK7
I don't doubt that it is a source of pollution, but I agree that this is overblown in the same was as the claims that datacentres are using up all the fresh water.
by badc0ffee
1/1/2026 at 3:02:50 PM
It's not overblown. That plant has sufficient pollution filters installed. You can find more info elsewhere in this comment section.by immibis
1/1/2026 at 5:47:50 PM
But it's still not localized to the one neighbourhood in the Time article any more than any other in Memphis (or even West Memphis across the river).by badc0ffee
1/1/2026 at 12:16:16 AM
That plant is subject to regulation and the xAI turbines evade regulations by claiming they are "portable".by foobarqux
12/31/2025 at 9:38:32 PM
[flagged]by renewiltord
12/31/2025 at 10:07:39 PM
TFA said it's all legal and explicit federal policy. You don't have to like it, but some people are going to have to make minor sacrifices if the majority want AI services. Look on the bright side, when these people all have personal robot doctors caring for them well into their 100s they will be grateful they didn't listen to the NIMBYsby casey2
1/1/2026 at 3:56:04 AM
> some people are going to have to make minor sacrifices if the majority want AI services_Does_ the majority want AI services? I feel like the question “if you could stop AI, would you?” is far too controversial for this to be the case.
by pastel8739
1/1/2026 at 3:38:14 AM
Would you be willing to volunteer and make that sacrifice for the majority?by roze_sha
12/31/2025 at 11:33:10 PM
I honestly cannot tell if this is satire. Literally a Lord Farquaad level take. Some of you may get asthma and lung cancer, but that’s a sacrifice we’re willing to make to ensure we can deliver MechaHitler to the masses.by strange_quark
12/31/2025 at 8:08:06 PM
Why is the skin tone of the residents of the affected community relevant?by mhb
12/31/2025 at 8:14:03 PM
In the US, we have a living history of discriminatory policies based on racehttps://www.thesidewalksymposium.com/blog/the-enduring-shado... , here is a quick overview of redlining in Memphis
by ladidahh
12/31/2025 at 8:17:33 PM
Yeah. I've heard about it. So this wouldn't be a problem if it affected a different group of people?by mhb
12/31/2025 at 8:23:45 PM
Probably not because if it affected white neighborhoods, it either wouldn't be enacted, shut down after complaints, or receive enough bad press as to be shut down.by butlike
12/31/2025 at 9:57:06 PM
That's a lot of assumptions. If they wanted that to be the point of the article they could have done it a lot more explicitly.by mhb
1/1/2026 at 9:53:00 AM
It isn't affecting (and historically doesn't affect) the "different group" though. That's the point.by abenga
1/1/2026 at 12:22:47 AM
It would be the exact same problem, and equally bad.by ladidahh
1/1/2026 at 12:56:16 AM
I agree. Which is why I think that detail is not relevant and just a distraction.by mhb
12/31/2025 at 8:33:39 PM
Because the people who decided where to locate it and the people in government who could do something to stop it make decisions about how much they care based on those folks’ skin color. If those generators were placed near a rich white neighborhood, the government response would be wildly different.Mississippi in particular is well known at the state government level to actively choose not to enforce environmental regulations in areas where its Black citizens live.
by skywhopper
12/31/2025 at 9:11:12 PM
And TFA addresses this. South Memphis was a community largely composed of freed slaves, where manufacturers set up shop, the military dumped waste (now a superfund site), and people have continued to mark the area for polluting industries for generations.by redwall_hp
12/31/2025 at 9:12:31 PM
To be fair they would definitely do this to rural and/or poor white people too.by jordanb
12/31/2025 at 10:02:40 PM
Maybe. East Palestine OH got a decent amount of political attention.by kube-system