If the standard is "necessary" then you can shoot down anything you want on a whim. No particular connection or plant is ever necessary.
> “Co-location arrangements of the type presented here present an array of complicated, nuanced and multifaceted issues, which collectively could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs,”
...and? This is so generic, and you have even more potential for ramifications if the power has to take a less direct route.
What's the actual meat of the complaint here?
For most of us the compelling argument would be the underlying data and decision making that Amazon made, not the outcome of Amazon's decision alone.
If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone.
At least not cost effectively. Why?
It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further.
Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?
I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.
I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you.
Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.
This argument makes no sense. There are a zillion different companies, research labs, VCs etc making investments into everything- better solar panels and better batteries and yeast that make biofuels and modular nuclear reactors and lower-energy CPUs and alternative ways to make fertilizer or concrete and on and on.
You're saying in essence, "Because a company with specific use-case X wants technology A, then technology B must be bad".
Unless you are located near a hydroelectric dam, there is really no substitute.
The government will not allow the technology companies to "hog" existing reactors.
Presumably this will force the technology companies to build their own reactors. Good.
I'll end with a quote from Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta):
AI datacenters will be built next to energy production sites that can produce
gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity continuously.
Basically, next to nuclear power plants.
The advantage is that there is no need for expensive and wasteful
long-distance distribution infrastructure.
Note: Yes, solar and wind are nice and all, but they require lots of land
and massive-scale energy storage systems for when there is too little sun
and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap.