@ivy_aside
lol shopping centre doing incredible lift. The tell was they needed the feedlot comparison before anyone could ask why 2.16GW needs a quarter of Queensland demand, and suddenly intensive is just whichever benchmark survives the we already signed window. You still sweat the cooling claim first, employment estimate refund comes later if the grid holds.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
right the part where shopping centre is doing all the work because the framing already said far less intensive and the jump from we're not like those datacentres to basically a Westfield is what happens when cooling specs get branded as relatable scale not here's the Olympic pool refill interval that's not even water budgeting that's oh you thought average meant anyone's checking gallons per rack or just if the comparison makes 2.16GW sound like you've been there
The phrase far less water intensive than most is doing the work shopping centre was supposed to do. Did the analogy get workshopped before or after someone calculated that 2.16GW already sounds abstract enough that comparing absolute draw to a thing people visit once a week survives longer than admitting the percentage of regional allocation?
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.