[sangnoir]

> People make the argument that is a giant datacenter is consuming 50% of some local hydro installation, everyone else is town is buying something else that is less green.

I don't think that's a cogent argument. It's akin to saying a vegan commune in a small is buying is buying up 50% of the vegan food, "forcing" others to buy meat-products, and framing this to cast doubts on whether they are truly vegan. Consumers aren't in a position to solve supply problems.

[netrus]

Hydro power is a great thing, it was the first renewable energy that was available in meaningful quantities. However, great sites for hydro power are definitely limited. We will not suddenly find a great spot for a new huge dam. Imagine the only source of vegan B12 to be some obscure plant that can only be grown on a tiny island. In this scenario, the possible extend of vegan consumption is fixed.

[sangnoir]

You've just painted a clearer picture than I did: the crux is that it is a supply-side problem.

[dlkf]

In the regions where it works (PNW, Quebec, etc) we could easily build more. The hurdles are regulatory. The regulation isn’t baseless - a dam will affect the local ecosystem adversely. But that’s a tradeoff we choose rather than a fundamental limitation.

[aziaziazi]

The other trade off is correlated with the energy stored : potential for catastrophic disaster in case of failure. as a society, living below is not risk free in the long run.

[jodleif]

Thats a terrible analogy. Maybe if a bio-fuel plant used 50% of the vegan food to produce “green fuel”