I dislike the framing of „natural“ gas. They‘re using fossil fuels.
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2026
266 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
87469 readers
3436 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The fossil fuel (just like crude oil) was formed via natural processes, so it's accurate.
I get what you're saying though. It makes it sound happy and safe to use.
In case you're unaware, that's literally why they took to calling it that.
Technically correct, easiest to market back when people were first starting to have doubts about setting stuff we found underground on fire.
Using the word "natural" was very much a deliberate choice.
The term was useful back when we used coal gas. It stopped being useful 100 years ago.
Maybe say methane.
I love being in Canada and they routinely use terms like "clean natural gas". Like wut?
It's only clean when you compare it to the fossil fuel alternatives it replaces like coal.
Oh Jesus Christ.
This guy is just-- Not one word this guy (You know who!) says is true.
Nothing he's ever said is true.
We'll turn this into the worlds biggest racquetball facility before Elon ever makes it to mars.
Can we not legitimize these projects that will never fucking happen by reporting on them. I know the tech news places need clicks but this is not based in reality. My space tech proposal is that we all fart into jars and send the full jars to space-x for tax credits, where pure methane gas will produced. The rockets will have a pressurized 60KM long line attached to provide natural gas as a booster fuel, then detached to be caught an aircraft carrier. This will save big $$$.
Are you seeking investors?
Yes. You will have to buy in with Worldcoin.
Sorry, I only hold safemoons and assorted memecoins named after Musk and Trump
Back up proposal- we only send lactose intolerant astronauts, and somehow get dairy cows on the moon fulltime.
You would get more methane from the cows than humans. More cows?
How is more economical to pay for a build for a fossil fuel than to sell to yourself for a renewable.
New levels of stupid.
Specifically it's to make it happen faster, these have less lead time.
Uh solar panels cost a bunch of money to make and they take a ton of space, which means buying extra land
Solar panels are cheap these days and end up paying for themselves in cost savings. Especially when you own the factory that makes them.
It's also good advertising. "We've powered this data centre with our solar panels, think of what it could power for you".
Like all that useless roof space?
I don't think you have any idea how much the power consumption is unfortunately. The roof would cover maybe 1-10% of the power consumption of a modern data center. A single rack's power consumption is basically the same as a neighborhood. An entire data center is more like a small country.
To be clear I'm not trying to say it's OK they're using gas plants, I'm just saying why the solar power Musk promised was never going to be feasible.
Edit: My bad, this is a fab, I thought it was yet another XAI datacenter. Might be more feasible, but still - for energy intensive purposes, which this is likely to be, on-site solar can offset part of the energy requirement, but generally not all of it.
The FAB is going to need 10GW of power when done.
The US biggest solar array is 900MW and uses between 4600 and 5000 acres.
To do that with solar, you'd need to over provision by 3-4x plus batteries to run for bad weather for days. The scale of this is bonkers.
This is what nuclear is good for.
Just stack several layers of solar panels, easy.
Weird shit happens when you do that… you put a new one up, suddenly the last one stops getting power. Take it back down, the problem is solved. Weird shit.
That's easily solved by turning the panels upside down!
They make them? They would likely have the lowest price per kwh achieveable in history given their size and current costs.
The absolute size of their premises is also ridiculous.
There is no way this is not a bad decision or else there is a political apect.
The Republican party is a religion with two and only two commandments: Racism and fossil fuels.
They literally own a company that makes them, can't get cheaper than that.
They're doing this as a stunt for some stupid reason.
I know the character and the game, but I don't get what this is supposed to convey as a comment.
BJ Blazkowicz hates Nazis. Musk is a Nazi/Fachist.
Oh, right. Couldn't place him.
I... wut? Even ignoring the environmental impact, that's terrible marketing.
"Will you be using your solar panels to power this?"
"What? No. Those things wouldn't work. I mean... they're great. You should buy them. But they wouldn't work for something that's important. Well... fuck. They do work when it's important and they are awesome and everyone else should buy them. But when it matters we count on power sources that destroy the environment, because... of reasons."
It has to be really difficult to run a company that creates solar panels but also be a dedicated Republican who wants to poison the environment and keep that coal, oil and natural gas burning as much as possible.
A terafab for the petacunt.
Of course they're not using them: have you seen what Telsa charges for their solar tiles? Tesla can't afford that.