Power Grid Worries Force Amazon To Run Oregon Datacenters Using Fuel Cells (theregister.com) 100
Unable to get the power it needs to feed its growing datacenter footprint, Amazon plans to transition some of its Oregon datacenters over to natural gas fuel cells. The Register reports: First reported by local media, Amazon's initial plan would involve installing just shy of 75 megawatts of fuel cell capacity across three datacenters with the option to expand that to four additional sites in the future. Fuel cells extract electricity from a fuel like natural gas or hydrogen without the need for combustion. With hydrogen, the only byproducts of this reaction are electricity and water vapor, but with natural gas, CO2 -- a potent greenhouse gas -- is still produced.
For Amazon, these natural gas fuel cells will be used as the primary energy supply, delivering 24.3 megawatts of power to each of the three datacenter sites. "We are investing in fuel cells as a way to power a small number of our operations in Oregon," an Amazon spokesperson told The Register in an email. "We continually innovate to minimize our impact on our neighbors, local resources, and the environment and this technology provides a pathway for less carbon intensive solutions in the region."
Continuing to use fossil fuels to power its datacenters is at odds with Amazon's stated sustainability goals -- which include transitioning facilities to 100 percent renewable energy by 2025. However, sources familiar with the matter tell The Register that Amazon's decision to use natural gas fuel cells was made in part due to challenges associated with power transmission infrastructure in the region. Oregon Live notes that the e-tail giant has had problems with landowners, who have objected to having high-voltage transmission lines cross their properties. Fuel cells provide Amazon a way to circumvent these headaches by generating the power onsite. However, regulators are concerned that the decision could actually increase Amazon's carbon footprint in the region as the power supplied by local utilities includes a mix of hydroelectric power. In documents filed with the state, it's estimated the fuel cells would generate 250,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.
For Amazon, these natural gas fuel cells will be used as the primary energy supply, delivering 24.3 megawatts of power to each of the three datacenter sites. "We are investing in fuel cells as a way to power a small number of our operations in Oregon," an Amazon spokesperson told The Register in an email. "We continually innovate to minimize our impact on our neighbors, local resources, and the environment and this technology provides a pathway for less carbon intensive solutions in the region."
Continuing to use fossil fuels to power its datacenters is at odds with Amazon's stated sustainability goals -- which include transitioning facilities to 100 percent renewable energy by 2025. However, sources familiar with the matter tell The Register that Amazon's decision to use natural gas fuel cells was made in part due to challenges associated with power transmission infrastructure in the region. Oregon Live notes that the e-tail giant has had problems with landowners, who have objected to having high-voltage transmission lines cross their properties. Fuel cells provide Amazon a way to circumvent these headaches by generating the power onsite. However, regulators are concerned that the decision could actually increase Amazon's carbon footprint in the region as the power supplied by local utilities includes a mix of hydroelectric power. In documents filed with the state, it's estimated the fuel cells would generate 250,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Amazon's carbon footprint (Score:4, Interesting)
In documents filed with the state, it's estimated the fuel cells would generate 250,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.
I'm pretty sure the bulk of Amazon's gigantic carbon footprint comes from their fleet of underpaid drivers using 2-ton vehicles to deliver small packages to people's doorsteps the next day.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It is silly to complain about fuel cells instead of the gigatonnes of CO2 vehicles produce.
What Amazon is doing totally makes sense. They need a reliable power supply that can complement the grid. Renewables don't work because the grid power is already heavily dependent on wind in the PNW. Using wind as a backup for wind doesn't work.
Fuel cells are very efficient. There is no more efficient way to convert NG to electricity. The world would be better off if we had many more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Found the guy that doesn't know anything about power generation in the Pacific Northwest.
There are 31 hydropower projects on the Columbia River and it's tributaries, as well as the Columbia River Nuclear Generating Station, generating in excess of 37GW of power. And those are all operated by the Bonneville Power Administration, who wholesales the power at generation cost to grid operators in 8 western states.
They've relied on a "green grid" for the entire existence of the us-west-2 region until this announ
Re:Amazon's carbon footprint (Score:5, Informative)
Ideally they'd use hydrogen fuel cells if they want to reduce their carbon footprint.
And where is the hydrogen going to come from?
Amazon easily has the money to run its own green hydrogen operation
Oh. I see. Use electricity to make H2 and then use the H2 to produce electricity, at about 30% roundtrip efficiency.
(i.e. using dedicated renewables not grid renewables to turn water into hydrogen).
Except energy is fungible, so it would make WAY more sense to connect the renewables to the grid where they offset generation by gas turbines and then use methane fuel cells for reliable backup. Which is what Amazon is doing. Cheaper and cleaner than what you propose.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it hard to believe that you could not use waste heat from the fuel cell to help catalyze the CO2 into something more manageable
oh wait, 30 seconds on google and here it is [acs.org]
FuelCell Energy (FCE) is offering an alternative. The Connecticut-based firm has developed a new type of fuel cell that uses molten carbonate electrolytes. This electrochemical cell can capture CO2 from a power plant’s flue gas while generating additional electricity from natural gas, coal, or other fuels. The company has more
Re: (Score:2)
The datacenters need the power now. From what I know of Amazon, they will upgrade to better energy sources as soon as they become available. They're putting a lot of resources into renewable energy. They're transitioning to electric trucks as fast as manufacturers can build them. Shutting down and waiting isn't an option.
Re: (Score:2)
they will upgrade to better energy sources as soon as they become available.
I hope they don't.
Instead of replacing fuel cells with renewables, we should be replacing coal plants with renewables.
Shutting off the fuel cells makes no sense until the last coal plant is closed.
Re: (Score:2)
They already (transitively) did that. There used to be a coal-fired generating station which was the single largest source of carbon output in the State of Oregon about a mile down the road from Amazon's facilities in Boardman. It was built in 1975, two years before the 1977 Clean Air Act would have mandated stricter emissions standards - the place was responsible for ~7% of the entire state's carbon output, and >65% of stationary sulphur dioxide output.
Portland General Electric shut it down in 2020 af
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what ends up with the CO2 once this cell captures it
CO2 is a valuable chemical feedstock. If you collect enough, you can sell it on commodity markets. If it is pure enough to be food-grade, then you can sell it for much more.
feed it into another catalyst to make fuel again? [stanford.edu]
The round-trip efficiency is terrible. Catalysts speed up reactions but they don't change the energy balance.
Re: (Score:2)
>>The round-trip efficiency is terrible. Catalysts speed up reactions but they don't change the energy balance.
That would be my, "No such thing as a free lunch" assumption, but they throw this nugget in:
“This nugget of ruthenium sits at the core and is encapsulated in an outer sheath of iron,” said Aisulu Aitbekova, a doctoral candidate in Cargnello’s lab and lead author of the paper. “This structure activates hydrocarbon formation from CO2. It improves the process start to fin
Re: (Score:2)
It's a datacentre - they have waste heat in abundance. If anything that's probably their biggest contribution to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meaning that the harvesting, processing, packaging, and shipping can be accomplished with relative ease.
Both the withdrawal of hydrogen from the Ocean water and the storage of it in easily used and transported exist and are being developed at this time. It ready isn't a expensive procedure and all the equipment, land, building can all be made in Oregon, USA.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of hydrogen they would need would ensure that it wouldn't be as green as you think. Somewhere above 95% of industrial hydrogen comes from fossil fuel sources, specifically natgas. [wikipedia.org]
Probably cheaper and more energy efficient to just use the natgas as-is without dealing with losses to convert to hydrogen, ship the hydrogen in trucks to the site, contain the hydrogen in big cryogenic tanks that will embrittle and fail someday while losing hydrogen every day to boil-off, and then finally use the hydro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the point that you conveniently ignored is that there is no source for that much green hydrogen.
In addition, the energy used to create that much green hydrogen came from where? And how much?
And how much non-green energy was used to haul all that hydrogen to Boardman, Oregon from where it was produced?
And what's the efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell? At the end of the day, are you going to get as much energy out of it, than all the energy expended creating it and getting it there? The laws of thermod
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering that they need the power now, and a company just got permitting to build the first 'green hydrogen' production plant in North America and won't be producing until at least 2025 [reuters.com] I'd say that doesn't really fit the project requirements.
Also, it takes a lot of electricity to make green hydrogen - if they can't get power lines to their three properties in Boardman they already have, why would they be able to get the same high voltage lines to a green hydrogen plant in Boardman, and then either
Re: (Score:2)
There is no more efficient way to convert NG to electricity [than fuel cells].
AND fossil NG is the least carbon-emitting of all (non-nuclear) fossil fuels - about 2/3 that of petroleum, half that of coal. So if you must get your electricity from fossil fuel, NG fuel cells is as low-carbon as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
> silly to complain
Reg doesn't even realize that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. It is silly to complain about fuel cells instead of the gigatonnes of CO2 vehicles produce.
There's nothing silly about it. Amazon has pledged to take various aspects of business in a sustainable direction. Your post is 100% whataboutism. This has nothing to do with vehicles. They are addressing those through EV transitions and have a completely different target including an order of 100000 EV vans from Rivian.
Incidentally transport emissions only make up 30% of company emissions overall, 18% of which are 3rd party contract deliveries such as DHL.
Any move that goes the wrong direction is worth com
Re: (Score:2)
What's interesting is that Portland General Electric shut down a coal power plant that is just down the road a bit from Amazon's us-west-2 datacenter in Boardman, OR a few years back.
I suppose natgas is better than coal, but clearly the kW are needed...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I am sure they won't try to capture the CO2, it is an easy application to try to do so, as you have a very predictable exhaust gas composition, flow, and temperature.
What I don't understand is how it could be cost effective for them. When gas prices were much lower it had a break-even cost of around $250/MWh.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not silly at all to complain. Fuel cells are in fact more efficient than running a standard generator, but if all they're doing is pulling electrical power from them, barely so - maybe 50-60% territory compared to 30-40% for modern n.g. engines or turbines. The fuel cell setups that get up into the 70-80-close to 90% efficiency range are combined-cycle systems that make use of the waste heat (and there's plenty) for other purposes, too. So they're better for both CO2 and local emissions than running a
Re: (Score:3)
What Amazon basically needs to do is to relocate the data centers to places that are right next to the hydro plants, or maybe geothermal (all those nice volcanoes around in the Pac NW)
"For increased power reliability, we relocated our data center next to an active volcano." Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
"We secretly replaced this data center's active volcano with Folgers Crystals. Let's see if anyone notices!"
Re: (Score:2)
You've already been indexed [google.com], is this how baby memes are made?
Re: (Score:2)
That is impressive, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
It's valid risk management: if Yellowstone goes and destroys the data centre there won't be anyone around to be impacted by the loss of the data centre. RISK=negligable :)
Re: (Score:2)
Overcome it we will, I guess style points matter though.
I'd much rather be part of a graceful utopia than some lumpy Cronenberg planet
Re: (Score:3)
Basic Data Center Location Requirements
First, from TIA-924-A-2012 (these are very basic requirements; they must be satisfied before any discussion of Tier 3 or higher takes place):
If cooling equipment, generators, fuel tanks, or access provider equipment is situated outside the customer space, then this equipment should be adequately secured. In the Midwest, this also means sustaining a 120 MPH wind load.
The data center owner will need access to this space 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week. (This is impossible if th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see volcanoes are not mentioned.
How convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's existing Boardman data centers already violate a few of those things. Specifically, the highway bit. Interstate 84 is basically right next to two of the three facilities they have there. The third one is pretty damn close to a very major rail line that moves goods through the Columbia River Gorge to and from the Port of Portland.
It's also less than a mile from the Columbia River, but it's probably thought that flooding risk is minimal due to all the hydropower dams that were also built for flood
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Amazon has decided they have a robust enough distributed infrastructure that they don't need to bother with such things.
AWS data centers are generally designed to meet the requirements of concurrent maintainability, which is at the core of the Uptime Institute Tier standards. However, AWS has chosen not to have a certified Uptime Institute-based tiering level so that we have more flexibility to expand and improve performance... AWS infrastructure within our Availability Zones exceeds concurrent main
NIMBY hardball (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be the other way around - Amazon is pulling out a fossil fuel secondary solution to the problem, in order to help justify the state / county to exercise eminent domain to put in the interconnects they need. State policy probably won't look fondly upon increased carbon output because of some local whinging about high voltage power lines, in an area that is already criss-crossed with high voltage power lines due to all the hydropower installations and solar / wind farms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's really not the problem at all. BPA and PGE have the generation capacity - they sell excess power generation to Southern California via the Pacific DC Intertie all the time. What they don't have is delivery capacity to Amazon's specific location because neighbors are opposed to more high voltage lines.
It's right there in the summary, ffs:
However, sources familiar with the matter tell The Register that Amazon's decision to use natural gas fuel cells was made in part due to challenges associated with power transmission infrastructure in the region. Oregon Live notes that the e-tail giant has had problems with landowners, who have objected to having high-voltage transmission lines cross their properties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are still missing the actual problem.
The only capacity issue here, is transmission capacity. Amazon can't get the kilowatts to the building, because the neighbors are telling them to fuck off with regards to high-voltage transmission lines running across their neighboring property.
The Bonneville Power Administration could have a 100-gigawatt fusion reactor 4 miles from Amazon's land parcels and it wouldn't change a thing about this situation. The source of the energy doesn't matter in the slightest if
Re: (Score:2)
However, the comment to which I responded, has to do with the second part of TFS in that using the fuel cells is less carbon-friendly than buying electricity because purchased electricity would be partially comprised of hydo-electric sources. That "carbon math" doesn't add up. For that, all that matters
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot purchase energy that cannot be delivered to you.
That simple fact makes everything else moot. You may as well be talking about the price of a loaf of bread on Neptune, and whether that bread is keto friendly or not. None of that matters, because you can't get the damn loaf of bread to Neptune at any price, or regardless of whatever is on the ingredient list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please read.
There is no lack of generation. PGE and Pacific Power would absolutely love to sell more megawatt-hours to Amazon, and they have the capacity to sell more megawatt-hours to Amazon, but can't get it to them because the existing connections are already at capacity and cannot run additional connections due to an adversarial community response.
The only reason Amazon is looking to do on-site generation is because they can't get more power lines in.
I don't know how many times that needs to be said be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You still aren't reading. Buying from somewhere else, no matter the generation technique, IS NOT AN OPTION because THEY CAN'T TRANSMIT THE POWER TO WHERE IT'S NEEDED.
Here's a little exercise for you, in order to help understand:
Step 1: get any form of power generation you like; be it solar, wind, a car battery, a generator, or even the outlet on your wall.
Step 2: put the device you would like to power 8 feet from that source of power.
Step 3: connect them with only a 6 foot cord, without moving anything. U
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're already only 40 miles away from the only nuclear power plant in the region, and less than 100 miles from The Dalles Dam. There's high voltage lines all over the place through there already, because of all the BPA hydropower dams on either side of them.
The problem is that the neighbors don't want any more of those lines criss-crossing their own land for Amazon, and they're not going to give in without eminent domain usage. This is a last-mile problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could locate new data centers in the High Desert like Apple and Facebook did. Sure, there's scarce water, but it's hydropower and the temperature is low/mild in the summer and cold in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably the most cost effective solution available to them, because the most cost effective solution - increasing electrical delivery capacity from the grid - isn't available to them.
I have no doubt they looked at feasibility of other options, and this one probably came out as being the lowest cost, quickest to implement, least risky, and actually logistically possible.
Re:Amazon's carbon footprint: Rivian (Score:2)
I'm starting to see more and more of the Rivian delivery trucks. Hopefully in a few years it will be rare to have an Amazon delivery that isn't using an EV delivery van.
But they still have their own fleet of freight jets, and they also have a ton of semis (again, almost certainly independent contractors). The jets won't be changing anytime soon, but the semis likely will in a few years.
And besides the carbon footprint, this will make their business much less vulnerable to swings in gas prices.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen a single one except on Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm starting to see more and more of the Rivian delivery trucks.
Doesn't surprise me, they ordered 100000 of the things.
Re: (Score:2)
Around my area they're still using personal vans and the occasional budget rent-a-truck for deliveries. Less than during the christmas rush, but still about once a day I see a non-amazon marked vehicle making amazon deliveries.
Them just using a more modern amazon van would be an improvement around here.
Amazon is more efficient than the alternate (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if Amazon didn't split up orders into several deliveries. I get that the items are already coming from different places so they're separate boxes, but I really don't care if you can get me some of the items in the morning and the a couple in the evening and the rest the next day. I'd much rather just deal with a single delivery at the later time.
The only thing I can think of is that warehouse space-time is more expensive than van/truck space-time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the bulk of Amazon's gigantic carbon footprint comes from their fleet of underpaid drivers using 2-ton vehicles to deliver small packages to people's doorsteps the next day.
Which is why they've ordered 100,000 EVs from Rivian motors for doing deliveries. But this is actually irrelevant. Their pledge wasn't to have CO2 neutral operations by 2025. Their pledge was to power operations in a CO2 neutral way by 2025. This means datacentres, warehouses, etc, where they get their electricity from. They are already at 85% CO2 neutral (according to themselves, which probably means paying a shitload to a tree planting scam).
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt my part of their delivery emissions come even close to the emissions saved from my reduced city trips.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the bulk of Amazon's gigantic carbon footprint comes from their fleet of underpaid drivers using 2-ton vehicles to deliver small packages to people's doorsteps the next day.
Amazon gave up on even 2-day delivery in most towns, I'm already on like day 4 of a 2-day prime delivery window. It's only if you live where it's convenient that they even try to still deliver on their promises.
Re: Amazon's carbon footprint (Score:3)
Is a van that drives two blocks to the next stop worse than an entire extra car driving to the store and back?
It's not clear package delivery is worse for the environment than shopping. There are efficiencies in having a central distribution warehouse.
A Carnegie Melon study actually showed e-commerce has a smaller carbon footprint than retail.
Re: US... (Score:2)
We are already at the favela stage (though the Brazillian favelas are better architectually speaking than homeless encampments). We really aren't far off from Brazil, including the mass desire of having a right wing military dictator run the country.
Let's kill More Whales and Birds (Score:1, Troll)
With Windmills and Solar Energy Farms.
And Amazon will still get my daughter's hair conditioner here in 2 days for Free,
Whoosh (Score:2)
Oh the Irony.
That's the sound of a F-22 Raptor shooting down a Chinese weather balloon with a AIM 9X Sidewinder missile.
Right over your heads,
Re: Whoosh (Score:2)
As if a bullet or two could not take down the balloon. But someone has to be Top Gun Rambo.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has gotten really good at downsizing their munitions, I suspect the sidewinder just fired a volley of steel balls at the balloon [youtube.com] instead of trying to hit it with a high explosive charge
Re: (Score:1)
As if a bullet or two could not take down the balloon. But someone has to be Top Gun Rambo.
In 1998 Canada put a 1000 rounds of 20mm into one of theirs, followed up with a volley of 2.75" rockets, and it just kept going...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for telling us you're a fucking idiot. However, it wasn't necessary.
Here are some things you can read to educate yourself so you don't repeat this mistake about this particular subject:
1,000 rounds fired at Canadian weather balloon failed to pop it [bbc.com]
This one was 200 feet tall, and carrying a load the size of a medium airliner [bbc.com]
We're talking about downing something the size of a skyscraper, not some kid's birthday balloon.
Re: Whoosh (Score:2)
"Thanks for telling us you're a fucking idiot. However, it wasn't necessary."
Bad school day?
"Here are some things you can read to educate yourself so you don't repeat this mistake about this particular subject:
1,000 rounds fired at Canadian weather balloon failed to pop it
This one was 200 feet tall, and carrying a load the size of a medium airliner
We're talking about downing something the size of a skyscraper, not some kid's birthday balloon"
Even so, they should've tried frying or interfering with t
Re: (Score:2)
If the Chinese are going to give us an easy target for a live fire exercise, why should we waste it?
The training value is probably the only thing of value to come from this whole horseshit episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't tell me, the fossil fuel industry is funding environmental groups to go after wind power now?
Makes sense, because they already did it with nuclear power [environmen...ogress.org]
How long will it take for the people that support greenpeace and the rest catch on to the con?
Re: (Score:2)
So again, how does a wind farm kill whales? Are the turbines falling off their anchors and smacking whales in the head?
Get out of here with your non-sourced FUD. Show some evidence, or show your own way out.
a generator powered by LPG -fuel cell greenwash (Score:2)
why dont they just call it what it is a generator powered by LPG
fuel cell implies hydrogen and solar but hey why bother actually constructing any sort of supply chain...
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel Cell does not imply fueling only by pure hydrogen, even though the power-generating reactions in the fuel cell do involve hydrogen. Any sufficiently unstable carrier of hydrogen will do for many non-PEM types of fuel cell. Stationary fuel cells have been sold and used for decades - they're actually a fairly old technology - running on an assortment of hydrocarbon liquid and gaseous fuels. Military versions are often capable of running on straight diesel or gasoline. Some fuel cells (especially stationa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing implied anywhere is your ignorance of what a fuel cell is. There's a reason hydrogen fuelcells are called ... "Hydrogen fuel cells" and not just "fuel cells".
I thought us-west-2 is hydropowered via The Dalles (Score:2)
Oh? I thought us-west-2 is mostly hydropowered from The Dalles.
Did I miss something?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are planning on it drying up soon
Re: (Score:2)
Oregon and Washington don't have the oversubscribed + drought problem that all those "Colorado River" states do. And the AGW models show a slight increase in precipitation over the next 100 years in this corner of the US.
It's true that there'll be less snow and more rain in the mountains, but that should still be manageable in terms of hydropower. Skiing's gonna suck even worse than it already does, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I visited The Dalles once, and the amount of water moving past made me feel like my soul was being drawn with it
We are having a record snowfall this year in desert-land, starting to hope this is an emerging pattern and not just a statistical oddity
Re: (Score:2)
And The Dalles Dam is one of the smaller ones on the Columbia.
If you really want to see an amazing public works project some time, go check out the Grand Coulee Dam a bit farther upriver - they regularly are holding back 6 cubic kilometers of water, with capacity for up to 12. It's the largest energy production facility in the United States (by nameplace capacity of 6800 MW).
For reference, The Dalles Dam has a reservoir capacity of 0.41 km^3.
It's been said that if Grand Coulee catastrophically fails, the a
Re: (Score:2)
us-west-2 region is actually three different properties in the Boardman area, and they're always bringing in bigger more-dense equipment, if not building new structures on the existing parcels. That means they need more power coming in, and if they can't get the transmission lines in place due to community rejection (as stated in the summary) no amount of hydropower production will matter.
This is a "last-mile" problem.
Unsurprising (Score:5, Interesting)
As an Oregonian this is the first I've directly heard of this. But it's unsurprisingly, unfortunately.
Transmission line placement is a ridiculously contentious issue here. Rural landowners are, by and large, very much against the installation of further transmission lines. The annoying part is that it's rarely for rational reasons; typically it's for unfounded health concerns.
It's a whole Pacific Northwest problem. Washington is having similar issues, which I'm sure is part of the impetus driving Bill Gates to step in on the matter, as an article last week went over.
Re: Unsurprising (Score:2)
Maybe they should just stop repairing lines in rural areas until they're allowed to put in new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Take ALL the lines down that go over any rural area and see how that works out for them.
It's ridiculous. Power lines overhead aren't hurting anybody and they're a cost-effective way to get energy from point A to B.
You could bury them underground, which I like better since they don't get knocked down accidentally in vehicle crashes or blown over with high winds/storms. But the big towers for high voltage transmission aren't likely to have ANY of that happen to them in the first place. But surely, they won'
Apropos of Nothing (Score:2)
Oh this is about Amazon and not even about the state government? Huh, well I'll be a shitposting nazigameshow host. Forget that thing about syphilis.