*BUT*, we've been building huge data centers for decades and they are minuscule compared to the size of the earth. My skeptic meter maxed out when i saw a Tesla with a "End Data Centers" bumper sticker on it. This is just the latest popular panic, isn't it?
If I drink one glass of wine per day, it’s probably fine. If I drink three bottles per day, I’m gonna start having problems.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/monthly-spending-data-cen...
You have people who eat meat at every meal losing their mind over water usage and people who set their AC to 68 panicking over energy usage.
Can you spot the difference?
So do many other things which use less water.
The estimates I've seen place the water consumption of water at such a low level that a whole month subscription consumes roughly as much water as 1-120 grams* of beef.
> Setting my AC to 68 keeps me cool.
What, is 70 not good enough?
Air con, and basically all things connected to the power grid, also "costs [your] community money, damages the environment directly and indirectly, and further enriches a few already rich people."
* yes, one to one hundred and twenty, there's that much uncertainty in the estimates for the AI.
Build the data centre, sure, but if it takes you five years to build out the grid and sufficient generating capacity in a non stupid way in order to do that, sorry, but that's by far my preferred route to get there.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/08/climate/amazon-data-cente...
I can't read your link, paywall, but my question regarding Musk's infamous polluting DC, I wonder why it had to be built near so many people. It's not like there's going to be a need for a huge pool of workers to commute to it.
I can't read the link either, but at a glance, the first one wasn't. It's in clearly industrial land a long way from any houses, with its closest neighbors as far as I can tell being a steel mill, a few existing power plants, and a wastewater plant.
The second one is practically right in the middle of a bunch of neighborhoods, and for that, yeah, I want to know as well. I'm guessing the land was cheap, industrial-zoned, and near a substation?
(Not to excuse what Musk is doing in either case - it's fucked and has wide ranging effects. But I think it's important to clarify the first because I've seen a repeated trend of people acting like a new DC is going to be built in the middle of a peaceful picket-fence neighborhood, and then you look it up, and it's actually being built on top of a former steel mill a mile away from the nearest house. It gets annoying.)
On the other hand, how does that combine with his apparent narcissistic need to be seen? Is his need so simple it can be met with "line go up"?
Think about it, the list is just about endless by now it's hard to tell the lies from the intentions and the character deficits.
So, for this point, I don't care that the words and actions he emits have no apparent rational long-term coherency, but I do care about the coherency of the system behind them which generates them.
Think of it like me wanting to learn how an LLM works so I don't get surprised by it doing more than a Markov chain.
In what country do you not have an electric bill?
AC and meat are bad for the environment but they deliver personal benefit. Having a DC in your community has no appreciable personal benefit, only negatives. That's it.
I'm replying to someone who themselves argued the analogies.
> Having a DC in your community has no appreciable personal benefit, only negatives.
To the extent that statement is true, it applies equally to most primary and secondary economic activity.
Having a farm in your community has no appreciable personal benefit: for scale, the UK famously gets a lot of their sheep meat from New Zealand, as far away as it is physically possible to be.
An abattoir similarly has no substantial local benefit, but worse has much detriment owing to the psychological damage it does to the workers, leading to higher rates of arrest for violent criminal offences: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/108602660933816...
Unless it's at the scale where it becomes a company town, having a factory, a warehouse, etc. these things are all heavily automated or mechanised and employ only a few of the locals as a percentage of the population. Putting anything that isn't service-sector in your community (i.e. schools, hospitals, shops, restaurants, hairdressers, etc.) is going to be of "no appreciable personal benefit" when considered in isolation.
Almost all primary (farming, fishing, mining) and secondary (manufacturing) comes with negatives (pollution, higher wear on the roads and utilities).
One can critique systems they are still interacting with, to suggest otherwise is just so incredibly lazy.
So, my take is that maybe the pro-DC side can do better at seeing multiple perspectives instead of acting like anything negatively said about DCs is a psychosis.
Those things are both a result of a failure of government, not the existence of data centres. If there are externalised costs the company wants to put on people then your government should extract them from the company as a condition of permission.
Data centres are factories that turn electricity into heat and money. They're basically the nicest factories possible. There is no fundamental reason they need to harm people, any issues data centres cause should be easy to address as a fraction of the already massive sums involved.
In a metal foundry some of the physical externality is intrinsic to doing the process. It's a continuous industrial chemical operation emitting smoke, metal fumes, VOCs, dust, sound etc. You can capture 99% of pollution, but you're still melting, casting, shaking out and finishing tonnes of hot metal and sand. Complete physical isolation is expensive and imperfect.
With data centres, most local externalities are engineering choices. With enough money and sensible siting, you could plausibly build one whose effect on neighbouring residents is extremely close to nil. The biggest remaining externalities occur upstream in the electricity/water/grid system - and those are unusually amenable to being charged directly to the operator.
If a local data centre is impacting you negatively it's a failure of your government because it didn't need to be that way. It's not an intrinsic part of data centre operation. They turn electricity into heat and money, a comparatively simple factory to have completely deal with its own externalities.
I'm not saying tylenol is bad. I'm not saying it's good. I'm just pointing out that your position is equivalent to opposing a person saying "lets no shove 20 tylenol down someone's throat" with the argument "but one has reduced the fever".
Existing datacenters at the scale we were used to were just fine for what was expected of them.
AI use has driven this to 20, 50, 100kW per rack or more. Supposedly 1000kW for the hyperscalers.
Extrapolate to the whole building and you have a lot of waste heat that has to go somewhere.
Instead of being similar to light industry, the hyperscale AI datacentre is using as much energy as a large steelworks.
I put in a GPU to run some local LLM stuff. Now the whole thing generates enough heat and noise that I notice it if i sit near the cabinet it’s in.
Scale matters.
Not for nothing that YouTube alone is responsible for a double-digit amount of all internet traffic.
Just because the bubble here uses AI doesn't mean it's even remotely valuable for the 80%. But they've done a great job convincing a specific group of people this.
No one was objecting when pornhub was building out data centers. Anything they like to consume, no matter how frivolous, is accepted as morally better on a metaphysical level.
> further enriches a few already rich people.
Meat eaters damaging the Earth is okay because it's "equal"? 300 million people deciding they're entitled to consume anything they want in ever-increasing quantities is a problem because... there's 300 million of them!
And it’s not like non-meat is fine - the corn industry uses a blinding amount of water, as do almonds, etc.
We have a finite budget for water usage, and i’d allocate that to non-meat food > virtually anything else > meat > data centers > golf courses.
> No one was objecting when pornhub was building out data centers
I’m not entirely sure of the scale of pornhub’s operations, but i feel like one large ai data center uses more resources than all of pornhub’s data center usage around the globe. But maybe i’m wrong there, and the hub was just flying under the radar.
Switching from meat to non-meat unequivocally lowers your GHG and water footprint and there's really no room for quibbling on this unless you are switching to a diet of exclusively almonds
Data centers also generate local tax revenue. In fact, across industries, they have the best tax revenue to tax resource burden ratio, using very little government services while paying significant property tax.
And the environmental damage, whatever that is, is negligible relative to other industries. Their only output is some noise pollution nearby and whatever emissions are produced in the power plants that give them electricity. All industries require electricity in proportion to how much economic value they produce. So unless you want degrowth and no industry, you're going to have energy consumption.
In fact, rising energy consumption is a sign of a growing economy. That's why China has seen its energy consumption grow far faster than any other major economy while its economy has also grown far faster.
They do use water but their water usage is mininscule compared to agribusiness, or even fast food restaurants and golf courses. And the potable water usage can be brought down. They just use the water for cooling. So they could use treated wastewater or recycle the water they use. Newer data centers use these more water efficient cooling systems. So water usage is not a major long-term concern. Not one that justifies crippling this key emerging industry.
We have supply chain routing software already. Humans wrote it, humans can improve it. Getting ai in the loop won’t change the realities of the supply chain, except maybe they’ll hire less programmers.
> maybe i'm making a commodity trading bot that more accurately prices wheat futures
How does that benefit me? Further financializing food production seems like a bad thing.
Not to mention all of what you’ve described could be run on a $1000 consumer GPU in a PC somewhere.
Making supply chain routing software cheaper, improving it for less money → all of these things directly make the products in grocery stores cheaper.
"Further financializing food production seems like a bad thing." →
Why assume rather than approaching with curiosity? Commodity futures are, again, critical to global supply chains and food markets. Farmers in eastern Europe actually look at futures markets to determine when and if to plant their harvest, cargo ships that transport your food buy futures in oil & gas so that they can have stable fuel costs to provide you with your food, etc. etc. Speculating on the future gives rise to the corrections necessary for providing things that people want in the future.
It's actually significantly more environmentally friendly than heating to above 68F in the winter in most cases, since most AC is done with heat pumps but most heating is oil/gas (100% fossil fuel consumption) or resistive electric heaters (dramatically less efficient than heat pumps). On top of that AC use aligns strongly with solar generation output while heating load does the opposite, which means that even when heating is done with electricity it comes disproportionately from gas turbines at natural gas peaker plants.
And even better: all of that data is aggregated together and stored in its entirety several times over across multiple data centers because everyone shares your data with everyone else, such that if any single of more than a dozen data centers is ever compromised, it all gets leaked to whomever compromised it.
How does it damage the environment? By using energy? Like literally any other human enterprise?
What's wrong with it creating wealth? You don't have to spend money on it, it's none of your concern what other people do.
Account for the runtime of the extra mining, production of materials... the scale blows up exponentially when externalities of all those extra screws and zip ties are appropriately accounted. An issue with Americans in particular as capitalism propaganda completely ignores externalities like kids in textile sweatshops not given a choice of college or the mines
3c global increase by 2050 is locked in. Meaning another 10-15 degrees local warming.
If Exxon could predict the min-max of the exact trend in the 1970s.
Physical reality doesn't give a shit about our rhetorical ability to blame a corporation or rich person; everyone consuming this shit is part of the math of the problem.
* Take a bunch of their tax money with no benefit to them
* lower their property value
* Make electricity and water more expensive (both of which make other things they use more expensive also)
* can cause other environmental impacts that raise inconvenience and expenses both directly and indirectly
so some AI douchebags can have a shiny datacenter to enable their bosses' stated desire to replace them with the very same AI might be opposed to the current AI drive datacenter boom.
Whatever actual benefits AI has, or tech in general, the way it is being approached right now is a disgusting and blatant attempt to steal as much as possible from everyone. People don't like that, and the like even less how the people doing it pretend they don't understand the dislike while building bunkers to protect themselves from the anger.
it sounds like you just want to ban American industry altogether, we've quietly let extreme conservatism sneak up on us in the US it seems.
They aren't tax positive. The deal might "theoretically" be tax positive in 30 years if things go exactly according to some plan. In the short term they are usually associated with large tax breaks for some number of years, accompanied a guarantee to occupy the data-center for less than the payback period (so the tax breaks can be extended later with threats to move on so those tax paybacks never happen). They also come with the locality footing the bill for a lot of infrastructure build-out.
That's just a bad use of my tax dollars. Let the datacenter people pay for themselves at the very least - my taxes don't need to go subsidize some pile of shit AI fanatic. If you like AI, pay for your AI, don't take it from me. It has nothing to do with me being pro- or anti-industry, however if an already profitable industry can't exist without my tax subsidizing it just so some rich guy can be a little bit richer... well maybe it doesn't need to exist.
I have no idea how any of this is conservatism... I'm opposed to a specific set of changes, not all changes. Perhaps you are just trying to throw shade because I think you should pay for your own toys?
5x in a decade. The way it’s talked about you would think it’s orders of magnitude.
The question isn't whether it's possible for something to become problematic past a certain scale. The question is whether data centers are at that point, or will be anytime soon.
The actual facts and figures that are presented in opposition tend to be stripped of the larger context, which makes me skeptical. The graph you linked looks wild, but in a country that spends two trillion dollars per year on all construction, is the jump from $1 billion/month to $4 billion/month very important?
If you gave me one night, a pot of coffee, and few scruples, I could probably dump hundreds if not thousands of fake posts on the internet. Hundreds would easily break through and who knows, a handful might even go viral on Twitter. Yeah I could do that 5 years ago, but not nearly at the same scale. Maybe a few dozen?
Back to DCs: it’s like saying “well we had coal fire plants years ago.” Ok…well there are more now generating way more power and spewing way more pollution. It’s not the same situation anymore. This DC build out is massive.
This DC buildout is massive? Yep. So massive that it merits substantial public opposition? Citation needed on that part. And any citation that compares current or projected DC activity with past DC activity is missing the point.
Two concrete examples: the above graph showing a multi-fold increase in construction expenditures is useless, because it gives no indication of the absolute significance of the current level. It tells me very little. For a better example, here's a graph of RAM prices over the past year and a half: https://whereismyram.com/us/price-chart. Here, we can see that data center buildout is big enough to massively affect the global market for an important commodity, and we can translate that into some sort of understanding of how this affects ordinary people.
Completely agreed that the "this existed before" argument is tiring. But so is the "it's a lot bigger now" argument. Neither one actually says anything interesting. They're both statements of opinion (this is fine, versus this is bad) hiding inside obvious statements of fact.
I just want something concrete to judge. The data center debate rages but almost never in terms that help me figure out what to think about it. RAM prices going through the roof is something I can easily contextualize and shows the impact on the broader world. Data center construction spending going up a few hundred percent isn't and doesn't, and when I look up the numbers to contextualize it then it doesn't really look all that significant.
You are assigning additional value to my comments - I get it but I’m trying to say clearly that I’m not saying those things. All I am talking about is acting as if scale is not a part of the conversation. Anything beyond that I have yet to weigh in on. i’m happy to elaborate if you want me to on any particular point, I am not being deliberately opaque here. I’m just not entirely sure what you are looking for.
Honestly we’re getting off track IMO. I think we’re just running in circles here. Appreciate the conversation nonetheless, have a good rest of your week
It is true that wine doesn't do anyone any good (unless you count it making people more social or something). But the effects of one glass a night is indistinguishable from zero. There are definitely statistically significant morbidity effects at 3.
I've been shocked reading public health proclamations that "anything above zero" is bad, and then reading the actual underlying paper they refer to, which clearly states exactly the opposite finding. I think it is an extension of the public policy belief that the public cannot be trusted with moderation, and so therefore must be communicated to in absolutes, and nobody will read the underlying paper anyway.
But if you are overweight or a preclinical obese, any amount of alcohol put you closer to clinical obesity.
For alcohol, almost every big study has shown either no discernible effects going from zero to 1 drink per day, or actual slight benefits going from 0 to 1 that then reverse when increasing beyond that. There is not strong consensus which of these is true, but there's definitely no real evidence that 1 drink per day is harmful as measured by all-cause mortality.
See GBD 2020 in the Lancet (which showed a slight J-curve), Wood in the Lancet 2018 (optimally low risk at 100g ethanol per week, or ~1 drink per day), Zhao in Jama (no discernible negative effects at 1 drink per day, no benefits either, no J-curve), and the latest National Acadamies review showing lowest all-cause mortality at about 1 drink per day (so, a J-curve).
Alcoholism has tons of negative effects. But these seem to start at around 2 drinks per day and rise rapidly from there.
All that said, no one I've ever met said a glass of wine on Friday nights isn't "drinking in moderation". I think the medical establishment is quite well aligned on this. One source is the CDC, which defines moderate drinking to be roughly an order of magnitude more alcohol consumption than "one drink every Friday night."
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/about-alcohol-use/moderate-alcoh...
This is the opposite of how it works, ethanol is the active ingredient for all of the fun parts of drinking, the metabolite, acetaldehyde, is the cause of all of the unfun parts (nausea, headache, flushing).
A significant percentage of East Asians have one or both of a superactive alcohol dehydrogenase (which converts ethanol to acetaldehyde) and a defective aldehyde dehydrogenase (which converts acetaldehyde to acetic acid), and they have significantly lower rates of alcoholism.
> Many people metabolize the alcohol more slowly, and get less of a "hit" from drinking, which makes them less susceptible to addiction. Others, like me, metabolize it very fast and that makes it quite a bit more addictive.
One thing to keep in mind when discussing "drinking in moderation": I think people will surprised to learn that each country has their own (often, very different) idea of what it means. For example, healthy alcohol consumption levels are persistently higher from UK public health sources, compared to the United States (mostly CDC). My sense (that I cannot prove): If your median alcohol consumption is higher than global average, your national health agency will have higher values for "drinking in moderation". I would love to see a comparison of wealthy (primarily) Judeo-Christian countries and their recommended limits.
As for what moderate is: I can absolutely believe it'cultural. I was intending to post from a US/EU perspective, as that's what I'm most familiar with, but your explanation makes sense.
People want to conflate their personal desires and perceived social benefits with health benefits because mental health and physical health have overlaps
However they need to be separate to actually make a claim about alcohol as there are millions of people in functional communities that reject alcohol and have non of the negative effects
(1) https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...
This would be a misquote, but you didn't use quotes. The WHO said that they "can't identify" a safe level of alcohol consumption and that there are no studies that would indicate a safe level of alcohol consumption.
> The new WHO statement clarifies: currently available evidence cannot indicate the existence of a threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol “switch on” and start to manifest in the human body.
I could see why you would say that from this:
> “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges,
But that seems to be a mixture of some language difficulty and some intentional hyperbole.
How do you not then clonclude that there IS a safe amount such that you would then consume it.
What about this study would make anyone who is not an alcohol drinker become one?
The only answer here that is actually logical is that
you accept that there are risks to drinking alcohol, and that those risks are less important to you than whatever social personal benefit that you personally get out of it
Moreover, the WHO never changed their stance when later big studies showed that the "lowest risk" level is not actually at zero drinks.
The timeline was this:
- In 2018, a study was published in the Lancet that was the Global Burden of Disease analysis. They claimed the modeled minimum risk exposure was zero drinks. But the magnitude effects were extremely small: moving from zero to one drink a day pushed the incidence rate of alcohol-associated health effects from 914 per 100,000 people to 918 per 100,000 people. This was the basis of the "no safe level."
- Four years later, an updated Global Burden of Disease analysis, also published in the Lancet, actually reversed course on this. After controlling for more factors, they found risk was actually slightly J-shaped, and for 40+ year olds the theoretical minimum risk was about 0.5 drinks per day. The WHO ignored this updated study when they wrote their opinion piece in 2023.
- Another big study with ~600k participants published in 2018 in the Lancet shows lowest total risk consumption levels at 1 drink per day, with mortality rising above that level. The WHO also ignored this.
- The JAMA study in 2023, with >4 million participants, showed no benefit to low-volume drinking, and also no increase in harms from low volume (1 drink daily) drinking. Again, the WHO ignored it.
Several other studies have shown either no discernible risk change between zero and 1 drink per day, or lowest possible risk at 1 drink per day.
But the WHO and much of the public health policy community ignores almost all of the actual credible science on this because it does not fit with their ideology. It's a huge problem with public health policy: the actual scientists and statisticians are doing great work, but if it's not what the policy people want to hear, they discard it and keep repeating their mantra.
So in the end results are in all practical implementation of this science is exactly the same: Even one drink of alcohol is the threshold
nation states trying to slow progress. I was pretty perplexed as well, now we're concerned about data centers? They're everywhere already.
Oh wait, it's a FUD campaign sewn by competing nations using social media so they can, hopefully, catch up. That makes a lot more sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
Just as complicit in obfuscation of reality through quantity of time spent in a topic: https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...
Thermal efficiency is in the 30s, so roughly 2x the electrical output as waste heat. Looks like waste heat from nuclear is still quite a bit more than from data centers.
Data centers are growing quickly and that's not including the waste heat from generating the energy the consume, just taking a quick look at the relative direct emission.
Although to be fair, when was the last time we actually managed to build a new nuclear plant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
It's also a lot easier to protest data centers then AI companies and they generally provide minimal benefits to the local communities (a brief job boom for construction but minimal reoccurring benefits afterwards) and quite a few negatives like power consumption and noise. People can't stop their jobs from replacing them with an LLM, but they can at least stop the local data center from being built and raising the electricity bill by $70 a month[0]. This batch of data center construction is essentially yet another physical representation of the (often negative) changes the general populace faces with AI.
[0] $70/month is how much my old power company said they'd have to raise prices if several proposed data centers were built. I was already paying $150-200 a month to power a 1 bed apartment so you can bet your ass I filed a complaint with the county about it.
Just make them pay!
Your electricity price shouldn't go up because of them. So just make a rate card for data centers that ensures the burden doesn't fall on residents. That's what Oregon started doing, and residents' electricity prices actually started falling, because the fixed costs of energy production were being spread across more kilowatt-hours and the data centers weren't getting a special deal.
I've also seen counties offer tax incentives. Why? Just have them pay property tax. Then you get nicer schools, more police, better roads.
Instead we have these campaigns to stop them, instead of making them a local cash cow. Loudon County gets half of all its revenue from data center property tax. Its residents were already rich, and now their local taxes are artificially low. Who wouldn't want that?
It might also be more complicated than you might think though due to the complexities of increasing power supply. Power companies also use prices raises to discourage residential use and conserve the existing supply for larger customers. They can't refuse to service residential but they also can't increase supply yet, so they just raise the prices until residential users "choose" to lower their power consumption.
My old power company told me it would be a temporary increase until supply was increased, but they said that the last time and it never happened. which, speaking of NOVA, was caused by the Loundon County allowing more data centers to be built. They get the money but since the power grid is regional everyone gets the bill :) .
That's assuming they have so few alternatives that opening with that wouldn't cause them to just cross you off their list.
Convincing your competitors to do that while you don't tends to be pretty profitable though, which is one of the reasons that strategy has so many champions.
This is actually what happens in most places. It's even what happens in many cases when the data centers are given a discount, because the "amortize fixed costs over more units of generation" thing still happens.
Higher rates are essentially a time lag. You want to add load to the grid today but it will take five years to add that much new generation and in the meantime the only way to make a higher demand curve match up with the existing supply curve is at a temporarily higher price.
You could raise the price of electricity on only the data center by so much that it removes the increase in demand, but what that actually means is not building it there, and then it also isn't there after generation catches up and the local power company would have been able to spread their fixed costs over more units.
> I've also seen counties offer tax incentives. Why? Just have them pay property tax.
Data centers are asset dense. A large one would have a value of e.g. a billion dollars while the neighboring plot of land has an assessment value of a million dollars. That's why they offer tax incentives -- a tenth of the rate on 1000 times the assessment value is a huge revenue win over the 100% of nothing you get if they build it somewhere else.
Or to put it another way, it allows the towns with a higher mill rate to keep themselves in the running instead of being excluded from the outset.
https://www.wemu.org/wemu-news/2026-07-18/saline-township-re...
The problem is that the towns generally want to spend the money on new stuff rather than give the money back in tax cuts.
Noise, pollution, energy costs (which you cover in your comment!) and water usage / contamination. I don't want more of those things. I don't want a bunch of strip malls of golf courses in my community, either.
Both of these are complaints about gas turbines rather than data centers.
Data centers can pretty easily do the opposite by offering to curtail load during energy supply shortfalls, both through region shifting and by temporarily operating backup generators, which allows the grid to add more renewable generation without having intermittency issues, and thereby operate fewer gas turbines.
Obviously you have to actually do it that way, but that's the point -- the focus of noise and pollution concerns should be directed towards how power is being generated.
> water usage / contamination
Do the math on what percentage of any given region's available water is consumed by data centers. Compare this to e.g. agriculture. This one isn't even a plausible concern, it's manufactured outrage.
> energy costs
Energy costs are supply and demand. The econ 101 explanation is generally pretty accurate for supply -- if there isn't enough supply then prices go up. This is why NIMBYs screw everyone (including themselves). If you can't build more of something then you have to pay more for whatever already exists.
Demand is more complicated. Econ 101 usually applies in the immediate term, higher prices don't increase supply instantaneously so an immediate increase in demand tends to create an immediate increase in price. But then you can increase supply, and what does that do?
You now have higher volume, more economies of scale, more units to amortize fixed costs over. The ultimate effect of an increase in demand is usually a reduction in the unit price. The exceptions are the things where supply is highly inelastic, like land (as opposed to housing units), which is not the case with power generation.
Unless NIMBYs or captured regulators are preventing supply from increasing. In which case you should be focused on fixing that.
Is it more than zero? I need to eat (although I do wish we all paid more for cleaner and more ethical food) but I explicitly don't want data centers.
I think this compares to pesticide to control malaria vs. herbicide to to prevent me from noticing two kinds of grass. Both put poison in the environment, but spraying for malaria has a clear benefit to outweigh its costs. But spraying herbicides so my lawn "looks nice" is really only a downside. What are the benefits to more data centers?
>Unless NIMBYs or captured regulators
If we're just doing ad-hominen we need a name for your group. Do you have any suggestions?
This is like complaining that Fox News offices use water in their restrooms because you don't like their reporting. It's transparently not about that.
> I need to eat
Do you need to eat alfalfa grown in California rather than the midwest?
> What are the benefits to more data centers?
Large loads that can be curtailed during supply shortfalls via region shifting or operation of backup generators allow the grid to use a higher percentage of renewable generation without having intermittency issues.
> If we're just doing ad-hominen we need a name for your group.
NIMBY and regulatory capture are both descriptions of behavior rather than group identities.
If Fox news were trying to put a huge bathroom next to my property I certainly would care, though.
> Do you need to eat alfalfa grown in California rather than the midwest?
The only alfalfa I have right now is made of little pellets that I give to my chickens.
> Large loads that can be curtailed during supply shortfalls via region shifting or operation of backup generators allow the grid to use a higher percentage of renewable generation without having intermittency issues.
I don't see how this is a benefit to building more data centers. This sounds like an explanation of how you might mitigate their impact.
> NIMBY
I'm not interested in this term until you'll happily accept a carpet factory next to you that poisons your water for years. There is TONS of stuff that no sane person would want in their back yards.
> Both of these are complaints about gas turbines rather than data centers.
What kind of question is that? Communities that don't want them?
You think money can fix and buy everything?
Besides, they pay already.
Well maybe if you were in community with the people protesting them you'd understand their perspective.
It's far cheaper to buy local politicians.
> I've also seen counties offer tax incentives. Why? Just have them pay property tax.
> Loudo[u]n County gets half of all its revenue from data center property tax. Its residents were already rich, and now their local taxes are artificially low. Who wouldn't want that?
The county's other option is to simply price data centers. Yes, that means they might not win the data center. If the data center can get better terms elsewhere, they do that. If the town doesn't want to concede on price, then fine.
People seem to be mad that data centers show up with less perceived value to the community than they want, so why would they care if the data center builds elsewhere because they don't agree to their price? The position strictly Pareto dominates the ban stance: at worst, they get no data center (same as ban), at best, they get a bunch of tax money.
Please educate me on how I'm "missing the point" because of how "naive" I am!
That plus all the tech bros have gone out of their way to advertise loudly AI as a replacement for humans. So why would a community of humans want to support that?
Data centers pay Loudoun County, Virginia $26 in taxes for every $1 in services they consume - nearly $1.3 billion, 45% of the county's budget - which is why Loudoun homeowners pay the lowest property tax rate in Northern Virginia.
Plus, as I mentioned in another comment, while Loundoun County gets the tax benefits the whole area is affected by the DC's power consumption due to the regional power grid and shared infrastructure (i.e. the Potomoc) so part of my already high power bills was due to the data centers there and I got minimal benefits.
The data center problem seems to be merely a government corruption problem. Which is a problem, of course, but not limited to data centers.
Like I said in my original comment, I think really the problem is just the scale of the build out. Before the AI boom DCs were being built slowly enough that it wasn't a problem and/or costs could be amortized over time. But cost sharing agreements and subsidization needs to be done before the DCs are built the they're certainly not going to push for it, so the people need to. Lower state taxes in the future due to DCs subsidizing power is (sincerely) great and all, but it doesn't do shit for the families deciding between food and heating their house in the winter before those benefits kick in.
Forget about it. These AI companies could really help themselves by subsidizing local rates. Imagine if a large AI datacenter moved in AND your rate dropped by $70!
Everyone would be singing their praises.
So, again, I think it depends on whether you live in a red or blue state.
https://www.opb.org/article/2026/06/04/data-centers-utility-...
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/05/oregon-data-centers-c...
demand goes up + supply remains steady = price goes up.
You want to build an enormous energy sink, you should contribute to increasing the local supply!
Putting up everyone’s prices is a hard impact on a community.
they want to, hence all the natural gas turbines. However, and this is pretty funny, you don't just order those using doordash or turn up a knob like on AWS. It takes years, if not decades, for those things to get manufactured, delivered, installed, and on line. He who shall not be be named here mentioned in a interview how all these software guys are going to get painful lesson in hardware when they start trying to build behind the meter power generation.
i'm not saying it should. but it takes time to bring new power generation online.
>You want to build an enormous energy sink, you should contribute to increasing the local supply!
agreed
(And the marginal cost on infrastructure isn't necessarily paid be the people increasing the demand)
You view this as a measure of data center construction, I view this as a measure of how challenging we've made it to do absolutely anything in the US unless there are massive stacked financial incentives in favor of it.
*As high as 2.2 °C, with average downwind air temperatures 0.7–0.9 °C warmer than corresponding upwind areas. Thermal signatures were detectable at distances up to 500 m"
"As high as", combined with "up to" show two upper limits, but you can be sure if they were simultaneous they would have said so, especially when considering their prhasing of downwind being warmer comes after mentioning the upper limit. It really seems like you are supposed to overlook that it's an upper limit and subconsciously add another 0.7-0.9 on top.
What they are saying is you can feel the warm breeze coming off the hot thing if you stand near enough.
A comparison to other industrial sites would put it in perspective. As would a distinction between localised warming which is what is happening here compared to global warming where small temperature differences at a global scale are far more significant. The publicity about global warming risk has put a lot of effort attuning people to the significance of those small temperature shifts, to co-opt that education to make people fear a situation where it doesn't apply is undermining their work. That puts us at more risk than any one data centre. People can observe a local increase of 2 degrees in relative comfort and think that it won't be catastrophic at a global scLe.
It's also a proxy for people's feelings on AI--essentially the only way people have to fight back against the new technology that makes eternal garbage and is supposedly coming for their jobs is to push for banning "data centers."
I agree with this in principle, but I wonder how asymmetric the usage is. When I hear about developers dropping $200/mo (subsidized!) on AI coding, and having multiple agents on supergigaultramax effort churning on stuff for hours... Versus your average person maybe asking a few chatgpt questions every day or week... IDK.
Like others have said, yes, OpenAI probably isn't literally going to sell you more than $200 of electricity for $200/mo. But data centers get industrial rates, and $200 of power is still a decent bit of power just to be churning out slop! (It's about a monthly home bill and EV charging cost combined) And some companies spend way more than that on API pricing for tokens... It's just hard to get a handle on where the usage is actually going.
I just wish we could pass a common sense law to require them all to build renewables. It's literally electricity, it's the easiest energy to decarbonize.
This is how economies work and the alternative strategy of enumerating morally correct wants/needs and assigning the correct price from on-high has been a demonstrable failure. It is a cognitive failure of humanity that this strategy is so intuitively appealing to us.
Sure, but that's the crux of it all, isn't it. Are they? And are they doing it that much better than before?
I'm far from an AI coding skeptic at this point, the stuff works, and I use it, but I think it's fair to ask whether it's worth burning a middle class home's amount of electricity to spit out CRUD apps and web frontends a bit faster. As many have pointed out, we've still yet to see some kind of huge productivity increase in society at large, or even some particularly revolutionary new app or whatever.
On some level it's people's money and they can spend it how they want, but people get criticized for unnecessary waste of resources all the time.
We're not talking about criticizing, we're talking about bans.
In general I agree (and many environmentalists and such undervalue the fact that environmental waste often correlates with wasted money), but I don't think this is a reliable principle. You can always brute force your way though problems, sometimes it's cheaper that way, doesn't mean it's not wasteful.
We are also assuming that economic value means something is good for society. A lot of money is made off of social media, ads, gambling apps, clearly there's demand for it. I don't think that means we can say all those things are good, just off demand alone.
I'm not really talking about banning anything, I just think it should be asked whether this stuff is worth it. We're just two guys on the Internet, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.
> We're just two guys on the Internet, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.
Post-2020, the internet is real life. Internet native thought has proven to be a powerful force in the physical world. I remember laughing at the absurdity of 4chan posters in high school. I will not make the mistake of taking internet ideology lightly again.
This ceased to be true lomg time ago. AI datacenters are not related to that chain.
For that matter, tech is not about satisfying a bunch of small customers either. Enshittification would not be a thing if it was.
Some of them are doing this at their jobs, but there are also tons of people pushing slop to open-source projects, vibe coding useless or redundant apps, etc.
ChatGPT has been the most downloaded app every month for a year and a half.
There are subgroups who enjoy harm to others, but most dont.
It isn't about hurting others, it's about convenience and price.
This is literally what was said. There was nothing about "convenience", but there were words about "wanting others to loose the jobs".
On the other hand, AI people cheer when someone looses their job. They use it as brag point. Very literally. And "obsolete humans" and "permanent underclass" are selling points of AI.
In reality, in cases you write about, people did changed jobs. These techs did not caused mass unemployemnt.
https://techstrong.ai/features/public-sentiment-sours-as-ai-...
The fact that people try out ChatGPT does not change that. People are complicated!
Now, because supply is so constrained relative to demand, there's no limit. More is always better, which leads to a crazy amount of construction (as its negative effects).
Dismissing it entirely is pretty hard to justify.
So maybe it is that people like AI in certain domains but HATE the way that it is being used overall?
https://techstrong.ai/features/public-sentiment-sours-as-ai-...
>Should their preferences override those who do want it?
This is rather the point of government, balancing the competing amd incompatible desires of different groups of people for the benefit of everyone. Yes, if a community decides they don't want a GPU warehouse, using whatever means that community uses to make decisions (referenda, petitioning representatives, etc.), their desire should overrule the desire of people to have one. That's what society is!
Netflix just serves existing data so their biggest need is data storage ala CDN for closer retrieval to the user. Very low requirements. Creating sweet baby lobster jesus requires incredible amounts of computer/power/cooling. The requirements are totally different. Yes, both ultimately deliver pixels to consumer's eyeballs, but how they get there are so different that it's laughable that people cannot see the difference.
It's doing code, analytics, training, research, operating services. The silly slop stuff is a small rounding error of usage.
The financing for datacenters is also very shady and its own can of worms
And I know what people will say, Vera Rubin is vastly more efficient, but that only matters if you have saturated your needs, it's meaningless if you need that capacity, and I'm sure it will run pretty much at a 100% 24/7.
Could you expand on that?
Megacorps often get significant tax breaks to build AI in a community.
Megacorps advertise that datacenters will create jobs but don't mention that most of those jobs will disappear once construction is finished.
Companies like Meta, Alphabet, etc that were drowning in cash flow and buying back their stock are now back at issuing shares, creating a huge number of SPVs, issuing debt, etc.
There's a gigantic spending spirale with no signs of ending. Nvidia is financing companies to buy its own hardware.
Mind you, this is nothing new in some businesses. Airbus and Boeing have been lending money to companies to buy their own airplanes forever.
But its just all too much, with very little money coming. To understand how massive is the spending: even if every adult on the planet spent 250$ on AI per year this would still not cover anywhere near what's being invested.
Your math does not make sense. That's something like $1.5 trillion every year. That's no where near what is being spent in AI hardware buildouts on an annual basis.
[0]: https://futurumgroup.com/insights/ai-capex-2026-the-690b-inf...
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-tel...
And I'm ignoring the likes of Nvidia building their owns and smaller (but still huge) outside the biggest players. Or the comparably smaller, yet still multi billions spent in the rest of the world.
2. That excludes salaries, research, taxes, cost of running the datacenters themselves, etc.
In fact several estimates are pointing out that global annual spending on AI better be in the range of 3T$ range (that's almost a 1'000 $ / year per every adult in the world) or this is all going bust.
The math that does not make sense is to expect such a gargantuan spending to have any meaningful monetary return.
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-05-1...
Instead of AC they use swamp coolers draining aquifers and thus wells of the neighbors.
Instead of using new power plants (AKA using renewables as most new plants do, and all old datacenters did). They either hook up to the grid and jack up everyones electric prices or use generators because they can't be bothered to wait for a grid connection.
All of which is to say while on the grand scale they may be fine. Locally they can be unpleasant to have in your back yard.
If the LLM datacenter builders and operators weren't cutting corners and rushing and doing everything they can to be good neighbors. There would be much less push back.
I say this as someone with 2 huge pre-AI datacenters in my town that have been fine.
Got source for that? Because in 90%+ of cases the power prices dropped because they are baseload.
This energy is all turned into heat, which means a 1GW data centre facility will dump 1GW of heat energy into the environment, into some combination of air, water and ground. For comparison, the average energy use for the whole city of Toronto, Canada, is 2.7GW, so just three large data centres has roughly the same heating impact as all the air conditioners, baseboard heaters, toasters and ovens of a large city.
That's a lot of energy to dissipate in a small area, so it should absolutely not be surprising that it'll create a local heat island downwind or downstream in the same way cities do.
Latest popular panic, yes, but also physical size relative to the whole planet isn't the relevant factor even for things which have very low power or energy densities like solar power and hydroelectric dams. Local impact on various resources (electricity, water for cooling, noise/thermal/particulate pollution between the compute and any on-site power supply) is somewhat more important.
Five traverses at four facilities in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area, ranging from a 36 MW single-building data center in Mesa to a 169 MW colocation campus in Chandler, reveal downwind air temperature warming as high as 2.2 °C, with average downwind air temperatures 0.7–0.9 °C warmer than corresponding upwind areas. Thermal signatures were detectable at distances up to 500 m from facility perimeters.
It becomes very difficult to foster conversations about how to do something in a way that minimizes negative externalities when both sides come into the room only seeking a "approve" or "deny" outcome. In that regard, data centers aren't different than new housing developments, public services, zoning changes, or anything else that gets a hearing in local governments.
In reality, the NIMBY attitude just means the thing gets built in somebody else's back yard. Unfortunately, for some people, this is an acceptable outcome, and the underlying societal issues don't actually get addressed.
Colossus is probably the most controversial one but when you look at the neighbours there is a steel mill, sewage plant, a combined cycle power plant, a refinery and petrochemical plant. No doubt burning methane is very polluting but it's not like the area was pristine to begin with.
Yes, but most people will tell you otherwise.
Using fossil aquifer for evaporative cooling is bad. Using groundwater in a place that gets 40” of precipitation a year for evaporative cooling is perfectly fine.
Unfortunately, large data center operators shop around for lightly regulated areas or areas with sympathetic politicians that will allow a fleet of trailer mounted gas turbine generators to operate outside of the law. That would never fly in my state, but in TN it’s perfectly fine, judging by xAI’s Memphis data center.
It seems like some water utilities might be connecting data centers to their distribution network without having the actual water delivery capacity needed to do so, but electrical grid operators generally don’t (and can’t) overprovision without brown/blackouts or load shedding customers.
If you live in a municipality with regulations and a state with regulations, you probably won’t find a data center in your backyard. If you live in a lightly regulated area, you may not be so lucky.
It's both.
As with VERY MANY things, the people making the noise about it have extremist views and only a vague idea of what they're talking about.
You can't have a discussion about what the concerns are and how they're addressed with extremists.
The legit concerns are drowned by people talking nonsense, exaggerating, or taking the concern to an unnecessary extreme.
It's like if the response to peanut allergies was a political group advocating for all peanut farmers to go to prison and an effort to extinct the peanut species. Real issue: insane response. (I couldn't mention any actual instances of this kind of behavior without attracting the discussion ruining attention of zealots, so, imaginary peanut situation)
Compare the scale of datacenter construction in the past decades vs the pace post 2022.
Also the general computing datacenters of the past are vastly different in societal utility vs the GPU only AI datacenters, which do just one thing
I also am not happy about the privacy and surveillance state capabilities. How much you care about these things might be subjective, but they are definitely real effects that are happening that are not a panic.
All the grug-brained politics and popular panic hysteria about power and water and heat for AI seems to me to be a transient thing, at least with regards to inference. The power requirements for inference will drop to practically zilch once models get etched onto dedicated hardware and the dynamic state requirments become optimized.
I want to know what the real plans are for all the general purpose compute and memory they are building everywhere. If inference is going to wind up being cheap or free, then that general purpose compute will in the best case be left unused and available for lease like dark fiber was after the over-buildout of the 2000's.
In the worst case, all that compute will be used for probably something awful like surveillance.
Some outrages are based on real things. Not everything is a moral panic. It's like saying the Epstein victims (for example) are just a moral panic because society refuses to hold the rich and powerful accountable and the news cycle moves on.
Your comment about the size of the earth is confounding. How is that relevant? Raising temps 4 degrees locally is a serious issue. Yes it will be worse if it scales but it doesn’t have to in order for us to care.
The tech companies could be building green data centers. Using renewable energy they are paying to add to the grid ( ie building the solar plant along with the data centers) and then flowing half the power they make back to the grid to lower prices. They could similarly work with water, purifying non drinking sources and adding to supply overall.
Costs would balloon but the negative impacts would go and getting a data center would mean jobs, lower prices for energy, less carbon and clean water.
Doing it the way we are - based on subsidies and pollution - is a choice.
As far as what tech companies could be doing to be green, Google's investment into Fervo Energy gives them energy that runs 24/7 with no reliance on the weather or the sun. They've got an initial plant going, all that's left is to replicate it and find cheaper ways to do it.
What makes almond farmers so good at procuring and maintaining political influence?
Note that the absence of nitrogen otherwise plentiful in combustion air eliminates NOX formation.
What they do for the oxygen production is they condense air and then distill it; IIRC it's mainly done for steel production where they use it to burn off carbon dissolved in molten iron. It's side product liquid nitrogen and argon are primarily produced from this but are mostly considered side-products of the "oxygen refining".
From what I've just read, the only real downsides other than initial cost are slow startup time (hours) and they are physically larger than gas turbines. In exchange for a higher upfront price, you get a more efficient and reliable power generator. Very cool.
But yes online there's a populist panic about it that seems disconnected and completely driving itself without basis in reality... Locally there's folks terribly angry about fairly small data centers and they don't realize how many are around them and they never notice. But they don't want to hear it, if anyone is anything but fervently anti data center then you're Elon's friend or something.
The panic reminds me of how the Great Fear in the French revolution was described folks believed everything was an indicator they were right, and denying it meant you were the bad guy ... and thus more evidence that their fear is true...
Some data centers in my area I would love to live near because on the property they have big green space and wetlands surrounding them.
That doesn't sound like a panic, that sounds like people wanting some consideration and moderation of infrastructure that's extremely disruptive and tied to a technology that's causing more damage than it's helping currently.
The "panic" is also largely connected to a strong communal feeling (for legitimate reasons) that democratic processes are being skipped for big money and backroom deals.
I suspect - like with a lot of AI issues - if the companies building these took more time to have proper conversation with the impacted parties, there wouldn't be nearly the same backlash.
But then the data centers did not pay for their electricity infrastructure and made everyone's electric bills go up. I made my home more energy efficient and am using less electricity than last year but my bill is higher. I am now against them. As far as I can tell this is happening in every state that has allowed them.
If they fix this and my electric bill goes back down, they can buzz all they want in the country side.
This is necessary to bring "AI" possessed people back to reality from their feverish dream world, so we can get rid of all the negative externalities of the "AI" push & finally find out what this new tech is actually genuinely useful for.
Sure you can argue that it's less than other industries, but that ignores the rapid expansion of data center infrastructure in the US. Any statistic you use right now is obsolete in 18-36 months when X times more data centers are running.
Also on a local level the water use can even be significant. I don't think you can rightfully tell residents who are seeing an outsized amount of their water going to data centers that they're "panicking" over nothing.
Come on. That's a misleading way to minimize anything you don't want to deal with.
What's the big deal with fossil fuels? We've been burning them for centuries, and the volume of of what we've burned is minuscule compared to the size of Pluto, yet alone the Earth! Global warming must be just the latest popular panic, amirite?
I feel the same way about these data center arguments; it's a backyard issue at the moment. It's politics to hate on them, and that's cool, but the sky isn't falling. It's cringey to act like the sky is falling for any of these propaganda neurosis campaigns. Who is funding this particular propaganda campaign? It's not organic. In any case, I pass on this one.
Alright then. So I suppose you think that was "a backyard issue... [and] it [was] politics to hate on [smog]," and so the expensive efforts to mitigate it, like requiring catalytic converters and NOx mitigation should be repealed? Or not enacted in the first place?
> I feel the same way about these data center arguments; it's a backyard issue at the moment. It's politics to hate on them, and that's cool, but the sky isn't falling. It's cringey to act like the sky is falling for any of these propaganda neurosis campaigns. Who is funding this particular propaganda campaign? It's not organic. In any case, I pass on this one.
I honestly just don't think you understand what's going on, what the issue is, so are just saying all kinds of foolish things. You should probably work on your empathy skills, and put aside your planet-sized skills of dismissal.
You also mentioned "propaganda campaigns," but think about it: investors are pouring literally trillions of dollars into AI. Who do you think is going to be running the "propaganda campaigns," the people with the trillions or their much poorer opponents?
And the opposition is totally organic, which is pretty easy to see. Why would common people want any of this? I mean, FFS: AI data centers are ugly, power hungry, often loud and polluting, don't employ many people, and provide a service literally marketed as a job destroyer. And then to add insult to injury, their builders attempt subvert the local democratic process with NDAs, etc.
> Alright then. So I suppose you think that was "a backyard issue... [and] it [was] politics to hate on [smog]," and so the expensive efforts to mitigate it, like requiring catalytic converters and NOx mitigation should be repealed? Or not enacted in the first place?
The gotcha here is that I must hate politics that address the destruction of the planet so i am self-destructive. But you seem reluctant to ascribe working brain cells to people you disagree with, so your gotcha is worded to get a dummy to think. I wonder who told you people you disagree with are fools. Maybe those people aren't your friends. Maybe they secretly hate you.
Let's jump to the end of the argument where there's common ground. Of course pollution is real, I called living in smog disgusting, didn't I?
Who has the power to deal with these huge negative externalities? Usually the government with regulation that hopefully doesn't create bigger downstream problems.
Catalytic converters: good, regulation on factory outputs: good. See how we can agree?
*But* political grifters love the fear pr0n, the power of panic. And so we also got the world ending climate emergency stuff. And that was an expensive grift for taxpayers and europeans never got to enjoy air conditioners, but thankfully it seems to be petering out now at least in the US. It is safe to unclench your butthole because the sky isn't falling, and it was never falling.
> empathy skills
Emotional arguments and trusting snakes who hate you are what got you to where you are in the first place mentally. Time to be critical OF EVERYBODY. What is their angle? Are they paid?
> You also mentioned "propaganda campaigns," but think about it: investors are pouring literally trillions of dollars into AI. Who do you think is going to be running the "propaganda campaigns," the people with the trillions or their opponents?
I love this! You are thinking rightly, but you need to complete your thoughts.
This place is CRAWLING with shills for the AI businesses. How do you think Anthropic grew from nothing to trillions so quickly? They have big line items on their financial statements for influence campaigns. It is an attack on us and IT IS WORKING SO WELL.
Elon bought Twitter to run continual AI influence campaigns and for his other businesses and to get a trove of decades of exclusive training data in tweets and DM's.
I didn't get shill mogged in this particular instance because I happened to be speaking in favor of AI data centers. If anything, i got a few shills backing me up, but they were downvoted for weak shillery.
You will probably dig in your heels, and feel i've said hurtful things. Being disagreed with IS hurtful in a way, it hurts to have your ideas picked on.
I just hope you can be more discerning and be more suspicious when panic is delivered into your feed trying to spin you up again for the thousandth time. Let your dopamine receptors finally burn out completely. ;)
No, the point is the logic of your initial dismissal was asinine: e.g. the problem doesn't look big from space, therefore it must not be a really big deal, (and later, a conspiratorial) therefore the concern about and opposition to the problem must be "non-organic."
Then you went back into space again to talk about smog.
What you need to do come back to Earth, look at things from the ground, sometimes from others' POV. Your space angle isn't deep or insightful, it may seem so on first glance, like the prose of an LLM instructed to say something deep, but it's similarly empty.
> Emotional arguments and trusting snakes who hate you are what got you to where you are in the first place mentally. Time to be critical OF EVERYBODY. What is their angle? Are they paid?
1. Honestly, that reads like a hallucination. It either literally is one or you assume too much.
2. You're giving vibes like you lack anchors and are trending towards paranoia.
> ...and feel i've said hurtful things. Being disagreed with IS hurtful in a way, it hurts to have your ideas picked on.
heh
> I just hope you can be more discerning and be more suspicious when panic is delivered into your feed trying to spin you up again for the thousandth time. Let your dopamine receptors finally burn out completely. ;)
See point 1 above. But if you're trying to convince me to shut up, you've failed.
See? You think people who disagree with you are stupid! When you run a simulation of what what is going on in others' heads, do you envision a sucking void? You ascribe no nuance to me at all.
In fact, what if your entire belief system on climate is based on moneyed interest greed and pernicious lies? Is that possible? How many more decades will you wait for the sky to fall until you question?
The mind boggling size of the earth reminds me that we are a type 0 civilization that burns stuff for power. Smog for me was not in space, I lived on a hillside and looked straight out into the smog layer and suffered personally for it.
To be against pollution is just logical, to think we're capable of destroying the biosphere with our current pollution levels is hubristic. You are capable of hubris, I know big shock!
> See? You think people who disagree with you are stupid!
No. What I wrote was your "argument" was asinine. Read it again.
However, the pattern of your reactions to what I've written are leading me to form certain opinions of you personally, but I don't generalize those to the class of "people who disagree with [me]."
You're going off the rails. I suspect you're not actually engaging with what I'm writing, but a character you've created in your head.
Asinine means "utterly silly or stupid" and "ass-like".
You can't separate criticizing the person making an argument from criticism of the argument when using a charged put down like 'asinine'.
I have made reasoned arguments, nowhere near asinine tier. If you want to appeal to authority/experts or cite lefty prop, okay I guess. Otherwise, I've heard it all and done the research. I've lived too long and watched decades of doomer predictions fail. It's exhausting! Be tired with me, collapse! :)
Finally, I never want you to shut up, I just want the grift you prefer (or at least tolerate) to end. The best I can offer you is political exile to the wasteland of failed ideas forever. ;)
One of the last definitions of empathy is to possess a supernatural mind reading ability to understand what others are thinking. I must admit to my inability to read your mind in person or over the internets.
Basically, anything people decide not to like is targeted for its climate impact
Some of that targeting is valid and points out optimizations that can be done
They want you to ignore their air conditioning and fridge’s greater relative impact, because the thing they dont like has “no use” in comparison to the thing they do like. They also believe that any power use is easily transportable to the use they do like, which is usually false.
But there are configurations of data centers with less environmental impact, which should become ubiquitous
(externalities in terms of environmental impact and resource usage (water, electricity, etc) usage driving up costs for everyone else).
We've never had datacenters with the power density and size of the ones we've been building for ~5yr now. Each datacenter is like 10x 2010s datacenters.
That is using FUD to avoid accountability. In this case is the last one "doubt". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
4 degrees is real, it is data, and you ignore it an go in a tangent.
> My skeptic meter
Mine says that capital is on the data-center side and is protected in the same way that fossil fuel companies are protected from climate change discussions: FUD
I work with cloud everyday and am disgusted by the waste - not cracking 5% utilization on huge clusters. It feels like globocorpo money laundering to me.
Every once in awhile you get to see good utilization in cloud with distribution and amazing scaling and failover with big data and it all seems worthwhile. :)
You either are able to convince people of its utility, or you are run out of town.
At the very least, a lot of these projects are done via less-than-open deals with municipalities and often receive tax incentives or structurings that are, honestly, not appropriate for multi-hundred-billion-dollar corporations to receive.
It very much feels like a far away elite exploiting an area in a way designed to prevent the locals from having a say about what they should receive in the bargain.
Throw in the fact that many people have concerns about the impact of AI on their employment prospects in the face of decades of flat wages and offshoring, and it's really no wonder people absolutely hate these damned things.
Step 2: Pass laws that will make owning/operating a data center so expensive (regulatory capture…) that only the big players can remain (companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc - who are already in bed with US Intelligence agencies).
General public won’t make a fuss since Data Centers = EVIL. They are destroying the earth. We need more regulations!
Step 3: The big players buy all smaller/independent data centers since they can afford to stick around.
Step 4: Pass laws that ban personal VPN usage.
Step 5: The big players disallow self hosted privacy tools to be run on their infrastructure.
Step 6: CGNAT is made mandatory for all new installations by residential ISPs. The reason?
“Pedophiles are hosting tunneling software from their home! We can’t let them go undetected. Think of the children!”
Step 7: Any hosting will be under the eyes of the big players.
Step 8: The Digital ID system being rolled out on all iPhones (that has a nearly 90% market share for young adults in the USA) will now be required to “Prove you’re not a robot”.
i2p = dead Hyphanet = dead TOR = dead [insert self hosted service] = dead
I’m not saying this will happen overnight. It will take time. This could take years. But I think it can happen. And I’m not happy about it, either.
Basically, I think that the the capitalist class are finding out that things like social safety nets, socialized healthcare, income equality, etc. aren't just important for humanitarian reasons; they are also prerequisites for people to trust society enough to be willing to coordinate around major projects.
At some point, their 401Ks are going to depend on it.
I imagine that things would be dramatically different if most people believed that the success of data centers would directly lead to their economic success.
I don't think we can really just dismiss the people who live near proposed data centers and don't have 401Ks. What do they get out of the deal?
I'm not concerned about people having 401Ks or not. I'm suggesting that people with 401Ks that are against data centers will at some point be benefiting from the success of the companies running those data centers. They may not be aware of it as most people do not know the individual stocks in their managed funds.
This is the trumped up rhetoric you speak of.
They use order of magnitudes more resources.
They add to the Rust Belt once their lifetimes end, contrast this with old brick warehouses which were eventually repurposed as homes and offices.
If they were built with a bit of thought around what happens once they depreciate completely and they're abandoned/sold for residual value they wouldn't be as despised.
Current construction completely ignores the nearby communities present and future development.
The issue is an incentive one, for the companies involved in the construction.
Right now, they are getting paid so much to build it fast. Time is of the greatest importance. Nothing else is mattering to anyone involved except how fast datacenters are being built. At best, this is an after-thought.
As such, I believe that we have to change the incentives to create more sustainability but it requires time, discussion. Perhaps laws can help in making them more sustainable but currently, the sad reality is that for all the parties actually involved, I don't think that many truly care about the after-math or repurcussions of it as much as its the only thing that they want right now
It's not a pro or anti business stance it's just a deal-is-a-deal stance.
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comp...
What recent mass-media panics have been legit?
For example, I think crypto is dumb. But I was also not dumb enough to fall for the articles like 6-8 years ago about how it was going to use more energy than half the countries in the world by 2025.
It was already a huge problem that powerful people in this world work to enrich themselves with no regard to regular people's wellbeing. The rage about data centers is because it suddenly started happening in everyone's backyard, making the abstract problem into a physically palpable one.
Imo their anger is completely justified. This only gets any better when there is an actual imperical shift towards behaving prosocially and away from mindless profiteering, and people have every right to want that from people in power. I fully expect the path we're on to end in some kind of revolution if nothing changes and there seems to be no sign of anything changing.
In particular, shame on anyone who uses arguments of the form: "it's these company's jobs to maximize profit, therefore they should not be beholden to behaving prosocially; the abstract force of economic growth justifies all iniquities because it will miraculously benefit everyone eventually". This argument is a lie on every count: it's only their job because we've chosen for it to be their job; the force of economic growth famously hurts people all the time; there is no evidence that it will fix everything versus just accelerate burning everything down (quite literally in this case); and finally, people's happiness is proportional more to their ability to trust those in power to care about them and their communities than to their material wealth per se, so trust is the thing they want maximized, not profit--and they are presently starved of it, because the people with power behave like lying manipulative scumbags at every possible opportunity.
50 years later...
Second Anthropic at the start was very vocal about datacenter doom. Their motivate besides wanting regulatory capture is again slow down their competitors and corner the market.
Lastly mainstream media loves a good doomer story of tech people getting rich displacing working class Americans while “destroying earth”.
It’s gotten so bad that it almost makes SENSE to launch data centers in space at this point, just to avoid the insanity.
People literally live next to data centers RIGHT now and don’t know it or care.
Imagine what a good investment it would be for a competing nation-state to rally and funnel all anti-growth and and anti-energy-consumption propaganda into the hand-wringing American doom-scroller…
Zoning, grid strain (->pricing), and chip strain (->pricing) seem to be pretty legit most of the time I look into them. Noise seems to have a lot of "they opened a 5G tower in the town and now I get nightmares" type panic but also some legitimate problems which, ultimately, relate to zoning. I try to reserve NIMBY for "things I want in someone's back yard, just not mine". The reality is data centers don't fit that because there is no reason they need to be in anyone's back yard. They are perfectly happy to be built in the middle of other industry/commercial blocks or even in the middle of nowhere.
I think if the grid had been better prepared for massive demand growth with cleaner sources than before and things came in slow enough that zoning didn't feel rushed people wouldn't really make as much of a stink around it. Unfortunately, the US spent many years with flat grid demand and companies want to cram these DCs in as fast as possible because their demand was for last year already.
For some large factor, it's also a reason to really hate on AI. Which there may well be valid reasons for, I just also wonder how many of these people actually care about the environment and how many are just saying it because it's another con to list. I say this as someone who has traditionally voted for environmentally conscious options/representatives - my previously existing circle doesn't spend that much time talking about AI compared to other causes.
I imagine China bought the accounts or pay $20 for a post.
It’s all principally a tribal association. They uncritically pass around water use numbers three orders of magnitude higher than anything else and suddenly start caring about things that are a fraction of alfalfa shipments to Saudi Arabia.
The water use panic is so ridiculous. The sheep pushing it do so while sipping almond milk lattes. One almond milk latte uses the same water as tens of thousands of chat gpt requests.
~80–90 liters for one typical almond milk latte vs. ~0.3–15 mL for one ChatGPT request. Using a mid-range AI figure of ~5 mL: one latte ≈ 16,000–18,000 ChatGPT requests. Using OpenAI’s ~0.32 mL figure: one latte ≈ 250,000+ requests. Even with a higher AI estimate of 50 mL: still roughly 1,600–1,800 requests per latte.
The energy thing is exaggerated. Want to compensate for a week of heavy AI coding usage? If you drive to work, telecommute for one day. Skip one long-distance DoorDash order. Cars use tons of energy, a lot more per-user than the fraction of data center capacity you're using with your AI stuff. A burrito on DoorDash delivered using an average MPG gas car uses something like a week's worth of heavy AI usage in energy.
The water thing is region-specific and where is a problem it's due to incompetent or corrupt goveranance. Bottom line is that if a data center is using too much water, it means they're not paying enough for that water. Make them pay more for their water and they'll magically discover closed cycle cooling.
The noise thing is in some cases real, and needs to be fixed with local regulation or a class action suit by neighbors to force them to deal with the noise problem.
I am a little puzzled though by where these things are being built. Phoenix? Other than cheap solar power I can't tell why you'd want a data center there given the energy needed for cooling.
Why are we not putting them up in the Arctic circle? Build run-of-the-river hydro in northern Canada and put them way up there. Free cooling, especially in winter. AI is not a very latency-sensitive load so an extra 50ms doesn't mean much.
I suspect state incentives are a reason. The giant Amazon data center proposal in Texas with the giant natural gas power plant sounds a lot like "taxpayer funded indirect fossil fuel industry subsidy." Offer some kind of big state incentive to get a huge natural gas customer with long-term locked-in demand.
Not Phoenix, but I learned an interesting fact about some of the huge data centers in Las Vegas, which pre-date AI: since it's 72 degrees or cooler for more than 70% of the year, during those months they can just pipe in outside air without needing to cool it first.
On top of that, I think both Phoenix and Vegas have fewer natural disasters than other major metro areas.
https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-energy-demand-to-rise-dri...
> Wisconsin energy demand to rise 40 percent by 2032, driven by data centers, draft report finds
> Draft report: Over 72% of peak electricity load is 'associated with three active data center developments'
https://www.wpr.org/news/we-energies-add-3gw-electric-grid-d...
https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wisconsin-ai-data-center-powe...
> Two AI Data Centers Require More Energy Than All Wisconsin Homes Combined: Just two AI data center projects — the Microsoft data center in Mt. Pleasant and Vantage data center in Port Washington — will require a combined 3.9 gigawatts (GW) of electric power, which is enough energy to power 4.3 million Wisconsin homes. There are only 2.8 million housing units in the entire state.
Compare with the city of Los Angeles - https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/power-system
> In fiscal year 2023-24, we supplied more than 20,749 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of power for more than 1.6 million electric service customers, including nearly 6,000 in the Owens Valley.
That's an average of 2.3 GW over the year.
-----
> The water thing is region-specific and where is a problem it's due to incompetent or corrupt goveranance. Bottom line is that if a data center is using too much water, it means they're not paying enough for that water.
https://www.opb.org/article/2026/01/15/as-googles-water-dema...
> When Google purchased a defunct aluminum smelter in The Dalles, it also acquired the right to pump massive amounts of water from underground — up to 3.88 million gallons a day. That’s almost as much water as the entire city averaged per day in 2024.
> The corporation transferred those water rights to the city in 2021, Bentz noted, allowing The Dalles to pump more water from underground. The city only obtained part, not all, of the former smelter’s water rights, Mays said after OPB’s story published.
It's the rights to pump the water. Google can pump up to 3.88 million gallons per day and the city can't bill them a penny for that. Also, because it's an old claim, it's likely more senior to other water rights.
https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/programs/waterrights/pages/defau...
It doesn't work like that because skipping your DoorDash burrito doesn't make the energy not used for that available for data center use.
The AI data center energy problem is that they use an order of magnitude more than regular data centers and they are being built at a massively higher rate than regular data centers and they are being built in places where many are being built and their owners are in a hurry.
The electric grid is designed to handle growth in demand, but this is growth way beyond anything that was anticipated.
A closed cycle cooling system doesn't solve the overall problem of water usage. Yes you have a cycle within the datacenter, but you need to then move that energy somewhere else, out of the system. Eventually that energy needs to find its way in the environment. A close loop system for a datacenter reduces the water use on site, but actually increase electro use. If that electricity comes from a power plant that is cooled by water you just moved the problem upstream
Seems like we do observe heating but a much smaller average delta T than the title would hint at; I didn't see a max distance they evaluated over, seems like 500-1000m was their search window from their text. The next paragraph discusses how one of the sites they compare to is a relatively lower average temperate than the rest of Phoenix. Not really convinced by this methodology. Seems like doing something in a flat field with an array of temperature sensors would be a much more robust way to look at heating effects over some reasonable distance. Plenty of data centers fit the bill of flat and semi-isolated, curious why they chose these sites to look at
If you catch me on fire my average temperature rise doesn't go up very much, but I have the barest of hints that it might have an impact.
I understand that the study only showed that this was the maximum observed difference downwind of one data center during one run.
It is completely understandable that it is in the interest of the public to enforce some limits on the resource use, radiation, etc on any building, be it a data center or not. And these limits ideally should take local, state-wide, national and global considerations into account.
I really feel like we need some sort of new revolution in terms of online communication, how it's done. How people share information and communicate. I just don't see how the current systems can continue existing without leading to societal disaster.
This site has as much of an ideological slant as any other site, this isn't a unique oasis in a sea of partisan echo chambers.
If you need dispassionate reasonable debate to get things done you'll be waiting a long time.
I think it's good that there are topics that elicit emotional responses. It does make the discussion a bit difficult, gotta admit that.
Actively pisses me off hearing climate rationale for opposing something so relatively inconsequential while the house is on fire from pre-existing industry that is grandfathered in.
You're certainly wrong in my case, and I can't speak for others but I think you're probably wrong about many of them.
> Actively pisses me off hearing climate rationale for opposing something so relatively inconsequential while the house is on fire from pre-existing industry that is grandfathered in.
not complicated: it's much harder to stop pre-existing industry than it is to stop the building of new data-centers (esp for something that isn't really going to help most of the population much; it's not we're accepting an increase in global warming in exchange for curing cancer)
just because I'm voicing opposition to data centers doesn't mean that I'm okay with all the the other sources of global warming. Those are separate discussions.
It doesn't even matter if it's AI slop. If AI slop asks a question you can't answer, it's good AI slop.
Jesus.
has there ever existed any forum of perfect discourse in all of human history? HN is still so much better than on any other site I've been on outside of MetaFilter. I get pissed everytime I read any reddit commentary because it's just a series of tropes - here at least, the tropes are well written and people come with citations
come on now, HN is just a step above reddit. some of these discussions are pretty solid.
It didn't used to be this way. The line between HN and reddit is converging and now sometimes it's difficult to tell them apart.
Meanwhile many of those people had a secondary agenda to keep the FDA from releasing the covid vaccine. America's Frontline Doctors (the group) promoted drugs over vaccines, etc.
Granted there was a lot of fear in the air back then. But this site is not immune from toxicity.
Frankly, it's a shame that the only high quality discussion I can find is on gross platforms like 'the everything app' or more obscure forums.
https://environmentalintegrity.org/news/13-oil-refineries-in...
https://www.theenergymix.com/gas-stations-leave-behind-toxic...
if they had voted differently we'd see more positive action
that's a pretty stark difference
On second thought, fuck 'em.
Let 'em burn.
This is a pretty weird assertion to make on HN when we've had constant AI threads about everything from mass surveillance and job threats to bio-warfare agent creation. Or just simple economic debt and risk. People clearly care about all sorts of aspects. Even in mainstream media there is tons of coverage on many aspects. But if you're talking purely in terms of the law and local activism:
>Why is that?
The way we have things structured (for good and less good reasons) in the judiciary and local politics is heavily biased towards immediate or very short term, concrete, and individualized/divergent harms vs broader societal costs and risks. Water, heat, electrical access/costs, and noise all meet those standards. They can be objectively measured, impose significant immediate burdens on a small population living near the DC while little (and over time) to nothing at all elsewhere, have clearly priceable harms and/or mitigations, and are instantly graspable by everyone regardless of education/research. On a practical level, they also involve a significant degree of local power without diffusion across as many people, including traditional things like zoning. A small motivated group living there can definitely make a difference, and definitely has standing for lawsuits too.
So of course those are the first and most immediately loud focuses in that arena. The broader stuff is also under scrutiny, but at a different scale right?
The water figure folks cite is wildly manipulated, it really confuses me why a known piece of misinformation is so routinely used. Water usage for global data center cooling is under 30B gallons of water. You only get to the 300B number by including the estimated water required for the power generation. Data centers are the only technology where we include estimated water usage for power generation under general water requirement. And even with that fudging, global water usage by data centers is a magnitude less water than just the leaky pipes in the United States.
There are much stronger points to be made without resorting to misinformation. I think points around zoning + noise pollution is something that everyone, besides our most ardent AI stan, can get behind. Every pro-ai person I know are all pretty happy to say that data center should not be built in residential zoning
There are many reasons to not like these things nearby (anywhere it affects power or water too). And on top of that they've been "somehow" getting massive incentives and tax cuts, despite bringing in very little money or employment, which costs the area even more in future years.
It's everything combined, and pushback has been somewhat successful. Success in a protest tends to help bring more success to the same protest elsewhere.
Another commenter said the concerns about heat/water were because they were being built next to their houses, and I responded to that. I am specifically asking this person why they are touting water usage and not noise pollution as the main problem. I was not asking generically why no one talks about it
But, had I been, it is not all of these things because one of those things is abject misinformation - water usage is not a real problem and touting it as the issue hurts the protests. 30B gallons of water globally for data center cooling is 100x less than the leaky pipes in just the United States
If data centers are such a big issue that we must stop them, communicating that without lying is the protestor's responsibility. You'll never have a successful protest if it is motivated by falsifiable information and water usage is still the number one thing I see written about and spoken about my protestors. It is impossible to get on board so long as that misinformation is front and center of most arguments
I agree the total usage isn't particularly large, and any "they'll use up all the fresh water everywhere" FUD is flat out wrong. But it can be a large jump for an area, and they've broadly shown themselves to be incredibly amoral and willing to fight legal battles with infinite money just because they can. They are not good neighbors.
> There have been quite a lot of extremely-drawn-out lawsuits about them drawing more than claimed, dumping hot water into streams and damaging the ecosystem, and polluting other water sources by dumping dirty water into drinking water affecting areas.
And I support strict EPA guidelines and heavy fees for violators! I just think that we should keep the conversation clear and not introduce facts that can be easily overturned as it moves the conversation away from impact and to the argument being made
I am in full support to address it ahead of time and nothing I have said goes against this.
So people fight by pattern recognition: abnormally incentivized and extremely large? Kill it with fire immediately. It's mostly reasonable and more effective than anything else at the moment.
Beyond this, it is my opinion that people are cowards. The few who care about this issue enough to perform terroristic actions won't spur any sort of meaningful change in the general population because the general population is not made up of extremists. The general population will not do anything that endangers their lives no matter how much they praise another for doing so
Luigi kills a healthcare CEO. Endless chatter about how this is the end for big pharma, the people are rising up, they better count their days because the people are paying attention. Nothing has happened since but more dead people due to denied insurance claims. But there sure are a lot of people talking about how another Luigi will show up sometime soon
An arsonist burned down a large warehouse. Endless chatter about how this is the end for big corporations screwing us at the register, how workers will rise up and burn even MORE if they don't get treated better. Nothing has happened since to these big businesses. There is no tiktok trend for large scale arson, no worker unionization. Nothing changed but boy do people talk about i
I would rather solve it politically by strengthening the EPA. We may just disagree here and that is fine.
I agree that'll be a much better end-state to be in, but is it the best right now? ... idk. We're in an increasingly blatant "smash and grab" phase for major corporations right now, and they need to be stopped quickly.
Something is being done, urgently (vastly faster than the larger legal system), and public outrage is loud and annoying and widely visible, which is indeed what I want. Beyond that it isn't especially fair to say "if you like to eat, why haven't you solved world hunger", particularly when those EPA/zoning laws aren't in place yet, so I'll just ignore that part.
My points have consistently been (1) lying is the quickest way to make an issue divisive as they focus on the lies and not the cause and that (2) that you cannot trust members of the general public to undertake radical actions nor can you sit by and egg them on to achieve your goals for you.
Data centers are coming up left and right and no violent uprising has stopped them from being built. What has slowed them down in certain communities are those communities coming together, organizing, and making themselves heard via political action. Which is the avenue I am advocating for here in this conversation with you.
You are here discussing how someone must do something and how it needs to be done urgently because it is so pressing. No one challenged you to solve it. Equating any call to action, especially for an issue that you yourself declare urgent, to solving world hunger is an immediate end to this conversation. If you cannot take your own views seriously, neither can I. No one is going to take care of the bothersome priest for you as living out your ideals is your problem, not theirs.
This is the world-hunger-equivalent bit fwiw. It's rather explicitly "if you care about this, why haven't you solved it", an over-the-top bad-faith argument.
Telling you to live out your own ideals vs committing stochastic terrorism online is, rather explicitly, not asking why haven't you solved that. We know that because no where in my text do you find me asking you to solve it or asking why haven't you solved it.
It works better to read the text written then to read it, get mad about an imaginary statement, and justify your outrage via a quote you create out of thing air. If you can't do that, you don't need me to include me in your imaginary argument between you and yourself.
But if you truly cannot do that, and we have no proof to say otherwise, maybe log off and take a breather. No one should be so upset that reading becomes a challenge.
Which is claiming I'm doing nothing because you haven't seen it. The implication is that you're disregarding "my ideals" unless I do something so impactful that you would have passively noticed.
I fully believe that's not what you intended, but that is a rather straightforward read of what you typed out, so I pointed it out.
You are lying here.
> it's all people seem to care about.
You were specifically asking why what "all people seem to care about" is "the whole data center heat/water thing," and when somebody told you that's this is not the only thing people care about, you immediately lied about what you just said.
Even by the end of the comment:
> water usage is still the number one thing I see written about and spoken about my protestors.
So you're still not talking specifically to this person, but making easily falsifiable generalizations. And you still haven't claimed why water and power usage are not problems, you've just decided that people must only talk about "the main problem" but somehow not being the "main problem" becomes "falsifiable information" by the end.
It's just garbled when it's not dishonest.
I have "mixed" feelings about data centers, although they're pretty clear. I do not think that we will get the utilization out of data centers that we are expecting, I do not think there is as much revenue as needed in it, so I think this is a massive waste of resources. But if I am wrong and we do, I think noise pollution, heat pollution, power usage and water usage are worth it. I also think that poor and powerless people are being victimized by the placement of these things, just like they are in most large polluting capital expenditures. This should be compensated for. I also think that the longer data centers are delayed, the better idea we will have of their potential utilization.
The idea that current data center water use is as much as 1% of all of the leaky pipes in the US is not a statement of its insignificance, it's a statement of its massive significance. You might as well say that all of the shootings in the world are only 1% of all of the deaths from heart disease.
> The idea that current data center water use is as much as 1% of all of the leaky pipes in the US is not a statement of its insignificance, it's a statement of its massive significance. You might as well say that all of the shootings in the world are only 1% of all of the deaths from heart disease.
Google what fallacies are. You should start with False Equivalence
It mostly needs zoning as you say and maybe require each project put down a bond to supply a power plant expansion / new plant that covers their projected energy uses, imo. That sorts out a lot of issues. Maybe put some kinda tax on them and use it to pay for local infrastructure or schools for PR too
Most datacenters I've been to around the world are barely noticeable. Most of them are in warehouse districts and the AC chillers are barely noticeable over the chillers on other nearby buildings. Often, they WANT to be nondescript.
That being said, I've not been to any of these new ones which are both significantly larger and also can have onsite turbines that run all the time and not just during power outages.
Another commenter said the concerns about heat/water were because they were being built next to their houses, and I responded to that. I am specifically asking this person why they are touting water usage and not noise pollution as the main problem. I was not asking generically why no one talks about it
The way you're using language here is putting the problem so close to the edge that abuse, ignoring the quality of lives of residents, would seem just so logical.
Which is why we need laws around where data centers can and cannot be built. Something I clearly alluded to in my first comment. Do you want to make up things I never said such that you can make some snarky comment and feel good about yourself or have a real conversation? If it is the former, fuck off.
For example, the lower Colorado River basin is facing heavy drought, extremely low reservoirs, and federally mandated cuts in water shares. Awkward time to build water intensive infrastructure, even if the usage is relatively low.
You shouldn't try to assess what people care about from what you see in the media, including social media. Focused thought and gigantic resources go into shaping the public perception of reality through media.
If you haven't been paying attention to the "water thing," that doesn't mean it's not serious af.
All of the irrigated golf courses combined use more water than all of the US data centers combined.
DCs, new golf, new homes, new alfalfa, new ranching - the math isn't there.
Tech people saying ignore the water problems are saying implicitly that AI, despite showing up late in line for access to a resource that's an old, old problem in the western US, is more important than hearth and home considerations fighting for the same dwindling resource.
The average western farmer/rancher, their own judgement and contributions to this problem aside, definitely love coastal tech people sniping their pre-colorado compact water rights via all that goes into getting water rights like that.
same if increasing alfalfa farming was increasing significantly
it's harder to stop something that already exists (shutting down existing golf courses or alfalfa farms has consequences for the local communities) than to stop something from coming into existence in the first place
no, it's a thing because you can put water in terms that even a hair dresser can be convinced to get scared and angry about. No technical knowledge required.
All that being said, if your actual goal was to hinder AI growth in some way, slowing the data center buildout in the US would probably work towards that end reasonably well.
That fear and rage needs to be expressed somehow, ang going NIMBY on local data center construction is probably the only real way most people can do anything remotely affecting the AI boom.
Lack of industry build-out in the USA? We're losing our industrial base to the Chinese.
Social media always promotes the angry take because that's what maximizes engagement, so everything that happens (or doesn't happen) is always bad. Doesn't matter what it is. Everything is bad and we're all gonna die. Better keep scrolling to find out more!
Data centers can do a thing positively and yet have negative impacts that should be discussed. It's not that hard.
If the our world in data report is correct, "AI" data centers (apparently metaphysically morally inferior to noble pornhub servers) are just a scapegoat: https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-energy-do-data-centers-a...
Pinning carbon emissions on a steel mill (which sells to airplane manufacturers who take people on vacation flights) is logically incoherent and motivated reasoning.
Then there is also the heat island effect. Concrete boxes will heat up an area more than dirt or wood, even if those boxes are completely empty inside. If you build them near where people live, people are gonna notice. Houses have gardens, industrial complexes such as data centers and factories don't.
Also, the effect is more concentrated downwind, so the heat effect is not some kind of uniform distribution in all directions.
If you had a hypothetical 1 GW generator and used a hypothetical 1 GW loadbank with 1 GW of resistive heating and a fan that was outdoors, the air temperature would rise.
Seems more likely that the heating is climate change driven primarily. But, 140k cars 24/7 is a lot of cars, so???
This is more of a zoning problem
"...downwind air temperature warming as high as 2.2 °C, with average downwind air temperatures 0.7–0.9 °C warmer than corresponding upwind areas. Thermal signatures were detectable at distances up to 500 m from facility perimeters"
https://selectmesa.com/business-environment/incentives-progr...
I visited a few of them. They are loud, but there definitely no homes close enough to hear them. I’ve read this is sometimes not the case now.
For me, noise would be my first concern
honestly I'm sure other industrial uses can cause temperature increases too, the nature of industrial zoning on its own tends to reduce green space which can lead to the heat island effect, so this is at least partially because hating on data centers is the issue du jour
But if we're going to keep factories and chemical plants away from housing we can keep data centers over with them I think. Out of sight, out of mind, less chance of local protestors, maybe even closer to good power plants for transmission. Everyone wins?
* a bunch of places didn't have the foresight to actually put buffers between industrial and residential zoned areas (either due to space limitations and/or poor planning)... sometimes people only notice when the empty lot they lived next to for a decade actually gets something built
* currently some protests are whipping up enough fervor where location doesn't really factor, people are fighting against any data centers within city limits at all
If anything about this paper is accurate, which it clearly is not, then the >8000MW rejected to the atmosphere from the nearby Palo Verde power station should be raising the air temperature at least 250C, 1km downwind. Which it obviously does not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
I've only heard about datacenter protests in the past 2 years. So perhaps what the authors warned about is happening now?
That article is two years out of date, and looking at nationwide electricity usage doesn't account for the local impacts of these data centers.
(* nb4 "it's summer": talking about price per kWhr)
Because... that's not how prices work. And certainly not energy prices, which have both significant capex requirements, spot-market pricing dynamics, and capacity headroom requirements.
1) their electricity bills rising
2) their land prices (read: rent) rising
3) actual fucking nutjobs in charge of these companies who can't seem to simply not say actual nutjob shit all the fucking time
4) entry level jobs disappearing
5) the obvious fact that "I am building the most powerful technology ever" means "the already-powerful people who own these technologies and companies are working to become vastly more powerful"
And I say this as someone who uses and loves using AI heavily across both my personal and professional life. It's better to grapple directly with the fact that people have very legitimate fears and concerns around this technology and the people who own it.
The benefit to effort ratio seems fishy to me.
Amodei, who used to research cancer biomarkers at Stanford, said this:
>I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years
Pessimists are going to say he is lying or crazy.
Given the trajectory of progress over the last year, I do not see where they get the confidence to say with certainty that AI will not change the world.
If there is even a small chance for the biomedical breakthroughs mentioned, this to me justifies any data center buildout, a hundred times over, and I still would not need to think twice.
The benefit to effort ratio is great already today, and the upside basically has no known limit.
But just trying to say this isn't data center specific. A steel mill with 36MW of electric arc furnaces is going to release the same 36MW of heat into the general environment.
It needs around 300 W to run Qwen 3.8-27b here, which is roughly eqivalent to me as a human walking around and doing basically anything other than sitting still.
The subtext is broken social contracts[1]. A 36MW steel mill is loud, hot and polluting, but it is tolerated because it makes up for the ills by employing a lot of locals and positively contributing to the local economy (housing, retail, food and beverage), etc.
The AI CEOs thought it'd be a good idea to hype their products by promising to take people's jobs away, and people remember that when a new data center proposal pops up in their town/county.
Circling back to your generalization: if an equivalent 36MW steel mill flew in workers from Canada/Mexico for each shift - or somehow implemented 99.5% tele-operation by Ghanaian workers, locals would grouse about the pollution and noise because they can identify a raw deal.
1. Americans have been fed up with powerful people getting away with violating social norms for 2 decades - if not longer, sometimes with a partisan tinge, oft-times without. It's the common thread linking the Tea party, Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Bros, Trump I, BLM protests, the Epstein files legislation and release, cutting down of Flock cameras and the ire against AI and AI data centers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260519125520if_/https://asmedi...
Well, no? That could also mean that the heat island effect of the (statutorily mandated) employee parking lot is causal.
Anyway the main problem with this paper is it does not have an explanation for why the response isn't linear. If areal density of heat rejection was able to raise air temperatures this amount, then nobody would be able to go anywhere near a thermal power station without being vaporized.
> "... air temperature warming as high as 2.2 °C ..."
That's not an exaggeration.
And plenty of anti-datacenter folks are sipping that every day.
All of the DC designs I've worked on the last few years have all included heat absorption chillers driven by engine exhaust (for reciprocating engine power plants) and HRSGs with steam driven chillers for the turbine power plants.
It's absurd, cruel, and criminal that any hyperscalers are using fossil fuels of any kind, much less simple cycle turbines.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0620288/characters/nm0362548/?i...
4F is not enough to rise above a noise floor; 4C is getting close.
there are now record setting gas turbine sales instead of solar/nuclear
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8ziQCWK1w
and for what?
so we can have totally useless "AI" customer service agents where you still have to demand to talk to a human to properly get a problem solved
> This gap is significant because many facilities are sited adjacent to residential neighborhoods (Fig. 1), and their air-cooled condenser arrays discharge air at temperatures 8–14 °C above ambient—often exceeding 50 °C during Phoenix summers—with air velocities of 2–4 m/s [15,16], creating thermal plumes that are advected downwind over inhabited areas. For example, the Iron Mountain Data Center (Fig. 1(c)) has cooling equipment located less than 50 m from the nearest three-story apartment building.
[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/33.267398/-111.880313
(article says 2.2 [C/K], btw)