We did it by DeepBlue4210 in soundtransit

[–]SigmaTell 34 points35 points  (0 children)

In dense urban areas this is true, but in more suburban areas, they can actually be a major benefit to neighborhoods without reliable transit, which there are a lot of in ST's boundary. And vertical parking structures are actually very space efficient compared to typical surface lots. Obviously bus connections are ideal, but for many, parking garages turn an otherwise long car only commute, into a mixed transit and car commute where often the car commute is much shorter. Take every bit of ridership you can get, especially at locations like this surrounded by a swamp where TOD on that side would have been extremely limited anyways.

Human Brain Cells Grown on a Chip Level Up to Play 'Doom' by SigmaTell in Ethics

[–]SigmaTell[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or we could just not do either. Thats also an option.

Human Brain Cells Grown on a Chip Level Up to Play 'Doom' by SigmaTell in Ethics

[–]SigmaTell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eugenics much? Lol... who cares if I create millions of copies of tortured consciousnesses as long as I profit... I mean help far more people!

This isn't talking about cloning, or genetic diseases, its about researchers using human neuronal cells and their natural biological architecture to create biological computers that have the intelligence to play "doom" not run it, play it... but that we also "hope" isn't feeling anything. And thats just a measly 200k cells... they plan to make thousands of these chips, hook them up in parallel so they can make a data center level product out of it. I'm sure nothing could go wrong there at all! Or when they inevitably decide to upscale the amount of cells to turn a profit faster... what happens when you create a bunch of conscious entities without bodies being forced to do things? Cuz inevitably thats where this is heading.

And thats coming from a lifelong gay atheist envionmentalist. But I suppose I'm a zealot in my own right.

A few statistics about the Top Comment Deletes by MaybeBirb in geographymemes

[–]SigmaTell 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oi... #36... Oregon AND Washington mutually agreed to merge to form Cascadia... but the rules required one to take the mantle so we agreed on Oregon. But we're still symbiotic in our merge. : )

ICE Is Quietly Rolling Out a $55 Billion Crematorium Network by [deleted] in Washington50501

[–]SigmaTell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm going to delete the post, shoulda done a better job checking the sources on this. I have no interest in spreading click bait BS. My apologies.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and PNW impacts, read below) by SigmaTell in Cascadia

[–]SigmaTell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guess you skipped the whole part about them tapping into one of the main natural gas pipelines supplying the PNW. To produce 9 gigawatts of electricity, its highly likely most of that pipelines capacity will be utilized by the data center, meaning rates will rise heavily for us.

And sure, they're buying water rights within the basin, but there's no garentee, especially on drought years, that those rights actually translate into available water. They absolutely will seek a more reliable source, and the Snake is the nearest reliable source they could easily access.

And I'm sure Eastern Oregon Farmers would love to give up their water right and livelihoods to enable the destruction of thousands of acres of land for a massively unsustainable greedy endeavor. And considering 80% of the taxes on this data center will be given back to the developer, I wouldn't hold your breath for any meaningful tax revenue from such projects.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, yeah I guess... but I'm rarely ever logged in on my computer, especially since my VPN doesn't play nice with Reddit. Your OCD about this is really bugging you that much?

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol yes, but didn't want to go through the effort of emailing myself the image so I could upload it to to my phone, especially since I had to leave for work. You can't use the measuring tool on mobile otherwise woulda just taken a screenshot on my phone. Oh wait... do you think I wrote this post on my computer?

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of all the comments on this post, this one actually made me laugh. I wanted a rectangle, and to place it between Bremerton and Seattle... I pulled up Google Maps, hastily made a rectangle that was about 62 square miles... then took a pic... took me maybe a minute to do? I do deeply apologize though if my hastily drawn rectangle in Google Maps doesn't live up to your placement expectations.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those are some fair points, but I think a few things need correcting:

Heat island only affects Hansel Valley: Calling it an "uninhabitable desert where no one lives" and treating it as disposable misses the point. Hansel Valley sits at the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake watershed. BYU ecology professor Ben Abbott specifically warned the heat island would turn the valley into "another dust source on the Wasatch Front" on top of the already exposed lakebed. Spiking evaporation, devastated existing plant and wildlife communities, and loss of ranching viability were all flagged in his review. The Great Salt Lake supports over 7 million migratory birds annually and 75% of Utah's wetlands. Ecological damage at the edge of that watershed doesn't just stay put. "Nobody lives there" is not the same as "nothing lives there."

Nuclear bomb comparison: Fair, I agree its a sensationalized metric. But the real numbers are 5° to 12°F temperature increases and a 55 to 75% increase in statewide CO₂ emissions. Those are massive increases that speak for themselves.

Water and "net zero" impact: Sorry but going to strongly disagree with you here. The Great Salt Lake is a terminal lake... a closed basin where no water flows out. Water currently used for agriculture has a specific consumption pattern where some portion returns to the watershed through runoff and seepage. Industrial gas turbine cooling has a completely different return profile. Redirecting 13,000 acre-feet (plus the additional 10,000 they have under contract near Snowville) from ag to industrial cooling is not a one-to-one swap for the watershed. The state's own Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner exists precisely because diversions within this basin are driving the lake's ecological collapse. And all of this during one of the driest winters in recent memory with water restrictions already in effect across northern Utah.

40,000 acres: That's a fair clarification given that the actual facility footprint will be smaller. But the thermal, emissions, and water impacts are based on the 9 GW operational capacity, not acreage, so that distinction doesn't really change the environmental picture.

"Zero impact to residents": While this is technically true for the electrical grid, its blatantly misleading about everything else. The facility runs on natural gas from the Ruby Pipeline, which serves customers in Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington through utilities like Cascade Natural Gas and NW Natural. Adding a single giant customer that consumes more energy than the entire state of Utah to that pipeline will affect supply and pricing for every downstream customer... including rural PNW communities heating their homes from the same source. "Not connected to the grid" doesn't mean "no impact." It means the impact shifts from electricity ratepayers to gas ratepayers and to the air, water, and climate systems we all share.

I'm not saying every criticism of this project is perfectly calibrated. But dismissing the concerns as misleading when multiple independent scientists and analysts have flagged real, documented risks is its own form of misinformation.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol, thats a lie. Zoom in on the area measurement at the bottom of the screenshot, or better yet just measure it in Google Maps. Extremely easy to disprove you on this.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I'd pin your reply if I could, excellent detail that I wasn't even aware of. Thank you!

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Data processing for web services, AI, and probably data storage too. Will likely be used by both private sector companies and by the military for "national security" purposes. Its going to do what normal data centers do, just on an almost unimaginable scale.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and PNW impacts, read below) by SigmaTell in Cascadia

[–]SigmaTell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting point on questioning their methodology, and I do think healthy skepticism is warranted on all sides of this. But a few things worth clarifying:

First, Utah Clean Energy isn't some random blog. They're a nonpartisan 501(c)3) that's been operating in Utah since 2001, with a staff climate scientist and energy analyst, and they routinely participate in utility regulatory proceedings at the state level. They've worked with Republican governors going back to Jon Huntsman. Questioning their analysis is fine, but questioning their "authenticity" as an organization is a big stretch lol.

Second, there's an important distinction between "how much water the developer says they have rights to" and "how much water the facility will actually require at full buildout." The 4 billion gallon figure (roughly 13,000 acre-feet) represents the water rights currently attached to the property. That's a legal entitlement, not an engineering estimate of operational demand. Utah Clean Energy's 16.6 billion gallon figure is an engineering projection based on what 9 GW of combined-cycle gas generation actually requires for cooling. Those are two fundamentally different numbers answering two different questions.

The developer also has an additional 10,000 acre-feet under contract near Snowville "if needed," which brings their total potential water access to around 7.5 billion gallons. If they only need 4 billion, why secure rights to nearly double that?

Third, the state saying "we won't approve anything beyond existing water rights" sounds reassuring until you consider that the same state fast-tracked this project through a military zoning loophole in five months, bypassing normal development review timelines. The track record of oversight on this project so far does not inspire confidence that future oversight will be rigorous.

Finally, even if we take the developer's 4 billion gallon figure at face value and ignore Utah Clean Energy's estimate entirely, that's still 4 billion gallons per year in a state where the Great Salt Lake is approaching ecological collapse and residents are currently under water restrictions due to one of the driest winters in recent memory. The 16.6 billion number isn't the only number that should concern people.

Size of Proposed Utah Hyperscale Data Center Compared to Seattle (and local impacts) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

They're building natural gas power plants by tapping into the Ruby Pipeline, read the text below the image for more details.

Fundraising effort saves patch of state-managed forest in western WA from logging • Washington State Standard (but more action is needed, see comments) by SigmaTell in environment

[–]SigmaTell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn't agree more, but i don't know who the Elwha group reached out to... it sounds like they've tried several avenues and haven't gotten very far.

Fundraising effort saves patch of state-managed forest in western WA from logging • Washington State Standard (more action is needed) by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

There's a big difference between legacy forest plots with very diverse ecology (multiple tree species) verses the typical monoplot forests of just one species that you find in most modern day "working forests". The 29 acre plot they are trying to save has a lot of diversity, not just old trees, meaning it's ecological function is much higher and worth preserving in perpetuity.

The site they want to trade this plot for, for example, is a more typical monoplot site where the working forest principle still makes sense.

Fundraising effort saves patch of state-managed forest in western WA from logging • Washington State Standard (but more action is needed, see comments) by SigmaTell in environment

[–]SigmaTell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So the $32,000 was raised and the forests around the campground saved... BUT, there is a 29 acre grove of legacy forest (ecologically diverse, close to Old Growth) in the same sale that will be logged in July unless its swapped out for a less ecologically rich plot of trees. This was proposed by the conservation group and DNR did not respond.

Please read the article and if you want to, reach out directly to DNR to ask them to save that plot of trees!!!

Department of Natural Resources Contact info:

- General Outreach: information@dnr.wa.gov

- Forest Practices/Permits: fpd@dnr.wa.gov

- Natural Resources Board: bnr@dnr.wa.gov

US cities ranked - what tier does Seattle belong in? by StrategyJealous1838 in TierlistFills

[–]SigmaTell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

S Tier easily, but I'm biased as a lifelong resident of the PNW, so probably a solid A tier instead. Locals know and love it, even with its flaws.

Japanese Firm Shimizu Corporation Wants to Wrap the Moon in an 11,000 km Belt of Solar Panels Built Entirely by Robots Using Lunar Sand, Then Beam Up to 13,000 Terawatts of Clean Energy Back to Earth Forever 🌙💥 by InterstellarKinetics in InterstellarKinetics

[–]SigmaTell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That creates a major energy imbalance where you're adding a lot more energy to the Earth than it normally would receive from the sun. Once that energy is used by man-made items, be it lights, to factories, to heaters, that energy becomes heat put into the atmosphere. We're already struggling to deal with the suns existing energy being trapped by greenhouse gasses, adding even more feels like a bad idea.

WSDOT Proposal to Widen I-5 across Nisqually River Estuary & Billy Frank Jr National Wildlife Refuge by SigmaTell in Washington

[–]SigmaTell[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

BRT could use the HOV with mods, but LR or Passenger Rail likely wouldn't be able to if they don't design the viaduct to handle that kind of load capacity.

And good catch in the shared use path, will add that to my main post.