582
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TIEPilot@lemmy.world 97 points 1 week ago

I have been working in data centers for decades. You have no idea the amount of waste there is. We fill up roll away dumpsters w/ boxes/packing materials when a new customer comes in.

They do an upgrade, ever server/switch/router etc ends up in the dumpster. Even if they are perfectly good and it isn't worth shipping back or they have devalued to zero so they cannot be sold for tax purposes. Oh and another round of boxes/packing materials in the dumpster.

Some customers demand proof we destroy their servers (not drives). So we record one of us on a fork truck running over hundreds of servers. That part is kinda fun.

Areas uninsulated w/ AC blasting. Machines running that are idle as backup to the backup.

On paper we recycle them, but most of the time they end up in a landfill.

[-] dan@upvote.au 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They do an upgrade, ever server/switch/router etc ends up in the dumpster

How many customers do this?

At least here in the Bay Area, hard drives and SSDs get destroyed, but a lot of the other equipment goes to e-waste recyclers who end up refurbishing it and selling it on marketplaces like eBay.

A lot of homelabbers get their equipment from eBay, and the source of that equipment is almost always second-hand data center equipment.

[-] TIEPilot@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Everyone.

Its not worth it to them. They are making money hand over fist with these services and they right them off. So there is zero incentive to keep the gear.

Sometimes we buy the entire system for a dollar if we can use it on our network. Meaning we built these data centers for our systems. If there is space in them we allow colocation of other companies gear. Its better than empty racks and we charge a lot.

And I would be interested on how they are referbing the equipment and selling for a profit. When its devalued to zero it gets messy w/ the tax code. Not throwing shade, I would rather go this way then the landfill but this is what I was told by the executives. Also liability, someone illegally dumps them and the DNR runs the serial numbers they come back to you.

I got in a ton of trouble when I recycled (for no money, I raged on this point) a pile of battery bank cells and didnt require the scrap dealer to list all the SN on the invoice.

[-] dan@upvote.au 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

And I would be interested on how they are referbing the equipment and selling for a profit

My understanding is that an e-waste recycling company is contracted to take all the old equipment. The original company can say they've recycled it, record it as such, and doesn't care what's done with the equipment after that - whether that be reselling it, recycling it, whatever. The e-waste company is the one that handles finding the useful stuff and refurbishing it.

[-] TIEPilot@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Interesting, maybe w/ my company they just don't want to risk it w/ 3rd party (customers) equipment. Or more likely we don't have the authority to tell the recycler that because its not our gear?

I know with our gear we ship it back to depot when its no longer in use as we have other centers that can use it. Or the repair group will part it out for future repairs.

I will say it chaps my ass seeing a roll away taken away w/ 5-10 million dollars of gear to be crushed.

Same w/ the cardboard, I asked for a bailer, too dangerous, denied. Asked for a cardboard only dumpster, again denied. We had a local charity picking it up as they made a few bucks off it. That got nixed for liability concerns... I gave up at that point.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

or they have devalued to zero so they cannot be sold for tax purposes.

Well that's just stupid. In my country, if you sell property that's been depreciated to zero (or lower than its sale price in general), you're just supposed to record it as profit.

Of course when you've depreciated something to zero and it's not something like a car where it's registered with the government, you could just give it away to employees or friends.

[-] vext01@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago

The problem is, few employees or friends will want an enterprise grade server screaming in their house.

The waste described above makes me sad. Surely parts of servers can be recycled.

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 week ago

Even if they are perfectly good

Could that perhaps be an issue of stupid licensing? With, smart licensing, or whatever, if the license is non-transferable, then the hardware is basically an expensive paper weight.
I've heard Cisco used to give out Meraki devices for free on some events, because without a license they were totally useless. Until someone figured out how to run OpenWRT on them.

[-] TIEPilot@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Thats an aspect I hadn't considered, licensing. Unless you keep it off line your right its a boat anchor. What fun is that as you can't update?

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The amount of waste out there like this is tragic. I could understand destroying hard drives, but the rest of the hardware?

[-] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 52 points 1 week ago

Climate damage related to AI workloads could exceed $50 billion by 2030

It's a sad state of affairs that even when talking of extinction level threat, it is still quantified in monetary terms. Unsurprising, considering it's written by Allianz.

"Do you know how much money our investors will lose if the human race goes extinct???"

[-] NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

The current investors are hoping to be rich enough to have their own compound by the time the climate catastrophe gets that bad. By the time they lose money, it will be fairly meaningless. This is why I’ve always hated measuring climate damage in dollars - we can’t measure real world catastrophe against a societal construct

[-] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

My estimates show that climate damage of data centers will cost more money than is on Earth! Spread the news...

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

People have the memory of a gold fish when it comes to anything long term, so they just vote against their best interest again because they're incapable of connecting the dots.

They understand money to some extent though, but even at that scale, not as much.

[-] matthurtme@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

At the current rate of increase, half the country will be homeless in ten years. I don't think people this greedy use their brains at all.

[-] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago
[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago

And some people think AI could help solve climate change…

[-] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago

It has shown that there's enough money around we could just tax it and solve our problems collectively. Not sure which height of tax rate would be as devastating for the economy as a bursting AI bubble.

[-] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It can! We just need to train a few more models. I'm sure we'll find one that comes up with the solution!

/s

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think it was a black mirror episode, but might have been something else, where civilization as we know it is gone, but the fully automated mega factories are still running.

AI: 2154 We've solved climate change for real!

Global Human Population: 125,000

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Killing all humans would solve climate change pretty quickly.

[-] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Quick! Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for pie!

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

In a sense, we are already at that point. Well... maybe not solve it, but at least slow it down. And maybe not help, but be part of the solution. And that solution is to shut it down.

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The answer is 42.

[-] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

I still do not understand why they don’t use heat exchange loops, like we figured out for nukes 75 years ago

[-] lemmelemmy@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago

I’d assume it’s cheaper to fuck up the environment.

[-] binux@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s as the case is with everything for these parasites: if it loses them too much money or makes them too little, they avoid it like the plague. It’s cheaper upfront to just run it through an open system.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 9 points 1 week ago

Because it's considerably cheaper to do it this way and they're being allowed to do so. Why would they spend money building giant cooling towers when they can just dump the hot water into the river and then drain main supply for fresh supply.

[-] T156@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

They usually do. They just do the same thing a lot of nuclear reactors do and also evaporatively cool one end of the heat exchange loop.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago

As far as I can see they don't ever do it that way, that's the problem, if it was a closed loop they wouldn't be pulling water from the mains and causing water pressure issues for everybody else.

[-] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They cool the hot side of the loop with running water, like reactors do, rather than using air.

So the loop is closed, but they're using running water to cool it off faster, rather than needing a bigger radiator on the hot side.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago

That's not what they're doing though. That would be fine that's just a heat exchanger.

What they are doing is pulling water from the mains to cool the system either directly or to cool an internal system via heat exchanger and then are dumping hot water back into the environment. They're not pumping the water to cooling ponds and letting it cool back down and then pulling the water back out of the cooling ponds to use again.

[-] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I was thinking more along the lines of the big evaporative cooling towers you see with a lot of reactors, since they rely on vaporisation to cool off, most of that water can't be reused, short of getting picked up in the water cycle again.

[-] philodendron@lemdro.id 3 points 1 week ago

Hmmm can they … add a turbine?

[-] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately not. Computing hardware doesn't get that hot.

The chips would be fried if you had them at the temperatures where they were generating enough steam to run a turbine.

[-] BillyClark@piefed.social 13 points 1 week ago

The people who thought data centers bad sides weren't that bad for the environment are the same people who thought Epstein Island was just a nice place for boats to stop for lunch.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Than thought? No. Ill wager they knew.

[-] Trilogy3452@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

I thought for a second they're emitting CO2, it's their footprint or the grids energy sources

[-] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

"Marking ones own homework" is a translation of a proverb in my own language which I found fitting here

[-] Auth@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

"286 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025" wow literally nothing.

[-] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 5 points 1 week ago

Oh, how very unexpected

[-] FE80@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You're going to get scolded over the carbon impact of streaming tv.

[-] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Obviously this is bad, but there is definitely some irony in the fact that if the government and all the evil lobbyists that are pushing these data centers would have significantly less issues if they'd actually invested in clean energy earlier like we were all already asking them to years ago.

But instead all that BS about "clean coal" is coming back to bite them in the foot now that they actually want to use that "clean" energy

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Wanna bet they didn't ask people with realistic exlectations what they thought emissions would be?

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
582 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

86408 readers
2423 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS