Rendered at 15:32:34 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
doublepg23 32 minutes ago [-]
Many things divide us here: Wawa or Sheetz; cheesesteaks or pierogi; Eagles or Steelers; but I very glad we could come together on this.
inferniac 30 minutes ago [-]
why? data center opposition is just morons who don't know what they're talking about 99% of the time
hightrix 27 minutes ago [-]
Concerns about noise pollution and increased electricity costs are just morons?
What about concerns about air pollution from unregulated diesel generators? Or using large amounts of water in drought prone areas?
gruez 14 minutes ago [-]
All of those can be addressed by proper regulation. Banning them outright is the equivalent of banning all immigration just because there's some particular subgroup that people hate.
bothers 4 minutes ago [-]
> All of those can be addressed by proper regulation.
No it can't. Regulation is already being flouted.
> Banning them outright is the equivalent of banning all immigration
Please be less obvious, this is just insulting.
simondotau 22 minutes ago [-]
I wouldn’t be so coarse, but mostly yes. Data centres are hardly new, and the subset of legitimate criticisms problems are hardly unique.
doublepg23 12 minutes ago [-]
> Data centres are hardly new
A commenter below quotes a 73% annual growth rate vs. 23% over the prior decade.
You don't think that'd have an effect on people's perception?
simondotau 10 minutes ago [-]
Perception, absolutely yes.
ratelimitsteve 16 minutes ago [-]
so what you're saying is that the problems people have with new data centers are real and well-documented?
hightrix 21 minutes ago [-]
Care to expand?
simondotau 10 minutes ago [-]
Others already have elsewhere in this discussion.
ratelimitsteve 16 minutes ago [-]
>99% of the time
99% is an interesting figure because that's roughly how much my energy bill has increased despite no significant change in my usage due to data center demand on the grid
kerhackernews 2 hours ago [-]
Really the main issue causing the data center backlash is because they aren't building new 100% green energy production capacity with it. When you drop a data center into an area, energy prices will spike. Additionally, without that green energy capacity they will cause much more air pollution.
OroPla 34 seconds ago [-]
> When you drop a data center into an area, energy prices will spike
Why is that?
Where I live my energy bill is a fixed cost. It's a super expensive fixed cost, since I'm living in Germany, but it is fixed none the less. It increases year by year because all costs only go up, but it remains completely unaffected by unrelated infrastructure being built around where I live.
I've been to a data center before due to work and my impression of the place was really good. It's kinda invisible from the outside, everything is extremely clean. There's no noise on the outside and the excess heat is used to get people cheap warm water or something like that.
I'm quite confused why people suddenly hate on them. Feels like I'm missing a whole lot of context.
lordgilman 1 hours ago [-]
I suspect the authors of this paper would like to hear out your evidence for increasing energy prices https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19777
In the United States at least there's been plenty of polling on why people oppose data centers. Consistently, it's water usage and water contamination fears, which is exactly what you see most often in social media and discussed online. I think a lot of high-minded rationalizations are just trying to dodge the embarrassing fact that people simply think data centers are draining municipal and natural water sources.
estearum 49 minutes ago [-]
2015 to 2024...?
Monthly private spending on data center construction:
2015: $168 million
2024: $1.59 billion
10x increase over 9 years (26% annual growth rate)
2026: $4.36 billion
3x increase over 2 years (73% annual growth rate)
Let me reiterate: MONTHLY spending.
Compound this with presumably we've gotten better and not worse at building data centers (if nothing else, just building larger data centers would create economies of scale), the construction dollar to power consumption ratio has probably moved in the wrong direction for your argument.
The 2015 - 2024 growth curve would conceivably encourage more consistent usage of baseload and, where insufficient, gradual construction of additional supply. That would have the expected effect as seen in the paper.
The latter growth (which is obviously accelerating), especially after an extended period of the former growth, would not necessarily do this. We in fact know this to be true because the rate-limiting step on data center construction is lack of energy.
So obviously there is not ample excess baseload just sitting around. Obviously it's non-trivial to add additional capacity at the speed data centers need it.
maxerickson 34 minutes ago [-]
You misunderstood I think. They aren't arguing water is a bigger problem than energy. They are arguing that negative perception is mostly focused around water use.
estearum 32 minutes ago [-]
They suggested (and linked to paper arguing) that data centers are not causing energy prices to go up.
I am saying the paper's scope of analysis (up to 2024) renders it pretty much irrelevant.
zamalek 15 minutes ago [-]
And that's very suspicious given that they published the paper in 2026. Was it somehow impossible to find energy prices for 25+26?
vegetablepotpie 12 minutes ago [-]
There is a methodical issue with that study that the authors acknowledge.
> How can higher demand lead to lower prices? … a bump in demand can allow for higher utilization of the existing generation … Provided the bump does not violate capacity constraints
I.e. data centers reduce electricity prices, as long as you don’t build new generation to support them. Whereas data centers, nationally are projected to increase energy use between 325 to 580 TWh annually by 2028 [1]. There is no way you are going to meet that without building new generation assets to meet that demand.
They do use water, and the numbers look very large which makes for big scary headlines. However people who actually know how water is used in a city are used to numbers much larger than that.
ratelimitsteve 9 minutes ago [-]
it's the demand delta, not the total demand, that's concerning. Also not all use cases are created equal: using water to keep people alive is legitimate and using water to build a machine that can automatically almost count the number of vowels in a sentence is not legitimate, especially when that usage drives up demand and makes it harder to use water to keep people alive.
semiquaver 29 minutes ago [-]
golf courses use much more. But you don’t see massive resistance against new golf courses being planned.
Farms use an order of magnitude more than either. You don’t see any demands whatsoever on agriculture to reduce water usage.
citrin_ru 13 minutes ago [-]
I would expect that a golf course construction is relatively rare event. And there is definitely no explosion of new golf courses. Total DC power consumption growth is practically exponential for the last 5 years.
gruez 8 minutes ago [-]
>I would expect that a golf course construction is relatively rare event
That's just status quo bias, given that they're an ongoing source of water consumption. "oh it doesn't matter that [thing] is guzzling water, because it's already there!".
daveguy 5 minutes ago [-]
Exactly right. It's a lot easier to prevent an asshat venture than it is to dismantle it. Now that the public is aware, I wouldn't be surprised if new golf courses start getting the same treatment.
lokar 56 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, it’s one thing when SV runs the Uber script (ignoring the law to build big enough to buy politicians) to hurt cab drivers. It’s very different when it’s your neighborhood.
jpalawaga 54 minutes ago [-]
Some do, some use closed-loop systems that are essentially 'charge once'. higher energy use, but less water
asciimike 9 minutes ago [-]
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, most of the new facilities (e.g. Stargate) are running closed loop systems. PUE goes up a bit if you have to use chillers, but ultimately it's faster/easier to build a large facility in a closed loop fashion than get water (permitting, treatment, etc.). NVIDIA pushing 45C inlet temps is to allow facilities to run dry coolers instead of chillers and make this even easier! Two phase cooling (required above ~3kW TDP) would eliminate water use in the secondary loop (if not the primary, eventually).
luxuryballs 52 minutes ago [-]
Why and how would they contaminate the water supply though? Sounds like a municipality problem, a water consumer shouldn't be feeding back into the system, or is it being caused by poorly executed construction practices? Maybe when they first pipe in or something is being left open during construction, this seems like it shouldn't happen if things are being done properly, water supply systems are not a new technology so who is dropping the ball?
estearum 45 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, all these stupid little municipalities have to do is shit they've literally never had to do before while getting sued out of their socks by literal trillion dollar companies.
That's all it takes for them to do their part in generating gargantuan amounts of value for people who live 1,000 miles away and their uberwealthy hardly-human CEOs and investors.
anon84873628 17 minutes ago [-]
The construction itself absolutely alters local watersheds:
1. Replacing forests and fields with concrete buildings prevents rainwater from filtering into the soil, which stops local aquifers from recharging.
2. During storms the rain runs off impervious surfaces and can cause downstream flooding.
3. Heavy land grading washes loose sediment into nearby waterways, destroying aquatic habitats and turning private drinking wells muddy. (That especially gets local homeowners angry and gets lots of video views).
And then you have the ongoing operation of open cooling systems:
4. Evaporative cooling systems discharge concentrated mineral brine that spikes the salinity of freshwater ecosystems.
5. Cooling water is treated with toxic biocides and anti-scalants that can contaminate local water basins. It can also contain leached copper, zinc, and PFAS.
6. Discharging warm wastewater depletes oxygen in streams and alters the overall ecology.
Of course all of these issues could be mitigated to a reasonable degree with proper care and effort:
>this seems like it shouldn't happen if things are being done properly
Do you want to bet your whole town on things being done properly right now?
lordgilman 4 minutes ago [-]
All of this applies to all construction of all types. There are already plenty of environmental regulations around buildings and their construction. Maybe these aren't being enforced, maybe the laws need to be stricter. I'm not an expert but it sounds plausible. But if that's the case, we have to fix those problems otherwise you're just playing whack-a-mole with development. When you specifically focus on datacenters and stopping datacenters it gives away that environmentalism is just a fig leaf for your actual goals.
gruez 6 minutes ago [-]
>The construction itself absolutely alters local watersheds:
The first 3 apply to all construction. It's just being selectively applied because people hate datacenters.
lordgilman 8 minutes ago [-]
My understanding is that they don't but there's a measurable amount of the population that thinks they can.
blooalien 43 minutes ago [-]
> Why and how would they contaminate the water supply though?
One recent-ish example: ^[1]
> ... or is it being caused by poorly executed construction practices?
I believe their contractor was responsible for this one IIRC?
People should stop citing that paper. It makes the opposite point they think it makes. I think most people just read the first couple of sentences in the abstract.
"We estimate that data centers caused average retail electricity rates to fall modestly in the United States from 2015 to 2024 using an instrumental variables approach."
But the data center backlash really started 2 years ago. It's 2026 now. Getting new energy generation built and approved takes time.
"We caution that future supply constraints could reverse the effect."
There it is.
15 minutes ago [-]
ratelimitsteve 13 minutes ago [-]
>your evidence for increasing energy prices
it's my power bill, dude. and everyone else's around me. your paper stops measuring that data right at the time when everyone's bills started increasing sharply.
lordgilman 1 minutes ago [-]
There's a global market for energy. What you see at the pump translates into electricity prices in a slow and grinding process. Remember that most of our electricity is not generated from renewable sources! Three years ago Russia invaded Ukraine, that pushed up fuel prices and electricity prices have followed. Now, we have the Iran war and that will push up electricity prices even more. The issue here is that you do not understand these markets.
ifwinterco 30 minutes ago [-]
Also Sam, Dario et al have constantly (like literally, every single week at least) been telling us that AI is going to make all of us unemployable and have to live on welfare.
Is it any wonder people hear that and go "hmm, no thanks" when the prospect of a massive whirring data centre next to their house is raised?
The SV LLM crowd know a lot about LLM psychology but seemingly very little about human psychology
adventured 18 minutes ago [-]
They've fired up the same irrational hordes that brought us flat earthing, anti-vax, and 5G Covid. It's just another parade of extreme ignorance. And yes, the SF crowd is comically oblivious to what they're dealing with, ivory tower style.
They're detached from the great unwashed masses. It's not that they don't know anything about human psychology. They don't care about those people or their concerns, historically. And that's what is coming out in this interfacing with the broader public.
masfuerte 11 minutes ago [-]
Ignorant? Do enlightened people want to live next door to noisy data centres?
daveguy 11 minutes ago [-]
Opposition to AI data centers is completely rational, which is why both liberal and conservative folks are against it. These data centers are being forced on communities with soon-to-be-former leaders agreeing to nondisclosure agreements. They raise electricity prices. They are being slapped together with poor water recycling, and noisy diesel generators that pollute. The data centers for AI use a lot more resources than traditional ones. And the tech oligarchs think they can ram rush these things through, but they can't. People are sick of the lack of transparency. They're doing it all wrong to save a buck and a minute.
sschueller 1 hours ago [-]
Exactly
Here in Switzerland new AI datacenters are also causing some uproar but a lot less because regulations are rigid enough in most places that you can only build them if you do so cleanly. You can't just take all the water, electricity, make noise and polute.
I live next to a waste valorisation plant and they have very over sized water cooling systems because they need to keep the noise below regulation. They also for example have under pressure in the trash receiving bunker to prevent smells from escaping. All regulations that cost money but are the benefit of all.
daveguy 1 minutes ago [-]
Oligarch asshats. Making regulation great again, even in the US!
About time.
lisp2240 1 hours ago [-]
Even worse some data centers have been caught running on diesel generators even in places where that is illegal. People are sick of tech companies bribing their way out of any accountability.
blooalien 40 minutes ago [-]
> Even worse some data centers have been caught running on diesel generators even in places where that is illegal.
Yeah, Elon's a big fan of this tactic.
altcognito 12 minutes ago [-]
Companies are content to charge more in the short term to pay for the upgrades on the backs of the current subscribers as opposed to just charging the people for whom the extra load is desired.
Then these big buyers go ahead and pay 50% of what everyone else is paying.
sarjann 52 minutes ago [-]
And if they can't give capacity, they should maybe be required to give a kind of "call option" or hedge locals energy prices linked to regular inflation.
running101 59 minutes ago [-]
Or the fact everyone's utility bills are going up.
simondotau 2 minutes ago [-]
In part due to rising global prices of energy resources, which affect local markets and non-oil markets due to the (partial) fungibility of energy and the global nature of marketplaces.
slibhb 50 minutes ago [-]
That's not the main issue at all. I'm baffled where you got that idea.
Also, I live in Northern Virginia where we have tons of data centers, and energy prices have not spiked.
estearum 41 minutes ago [-]
Northern Virginia has tons of data centers because it had massive amounts of excess energy capacity.
That is now being consumed and now Loudon County will also start engaging in electricity price wars with data centers. New regulations to segregate markets is supposed to kick in on Jan 1 2027, in fact.
rconti 37 minutes ago [-]
Wow, you have insanely, enviably cheap power.
But also, it seems to have increased in price quite a bit lately.
Just a man on the street here—I sense it's more a backlash against tech-bros in general. People are seeing the world getting worse from tech and they're taking their pitchforks to the data centers and Flock cameras.
(Of course I might simply be projecting.)
blooalien 37 minutes ago [-]
> I sense it's more a backlash against tech-bros in general.
I can almost guarantee there's a good bit of that also involved in addition to all the other concerns and issues folks also rightly have.
nxm 1 hours ago [-]
That includes nuclear power, correct?
triceratops 1 hours ago [-]
Can they build it safely as fast as the data center it's meant to power? Full steam ahead then.
leonidasrup 51 minutes ago [-]
Some older nuclear power plants are been commissioned back into production:
Three Mile Island
"2027 – Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide whether to issue operating license to Constellation Energy, with the decision expected in May. If granted, Constellation expects to bring the reactor back online later in the year."
If electricity bills are steady or falling they should have no trouble convincing voters. Nothing to worry about.
bluGill 30 minutes ago [-]
You don't need to build them. You can just not retire, or unretire one.
Though we really should get better at building nuclear power plants. I'm think more of small ones to power ships though, not land based ones. Ships are one of the few places where oil/coal are used that there are not realistic renewable alternatives.
postalrat 1 hours ago [-]
It can be a little later. Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.
AndrewDucker 1 hours ago [-]
People do not believe big companies when they say "I'll deal with the externalities a little later."
triceratops 1 hours ago [-]
So then does the data center compensate local residents for their higher power bills today? Until the new capacity comes online?
> Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.
No it's like demanding your new neighbors aren't forced to lend you money for your purchase - which is entirely reasonable. If you need money, get it from the bank.
The top-level comment explains it already:
"When you drop a data center into an area, energy prices will spike. Additionally, without that green energy capacity they will cause much more air pollution."
no-name-here 54 minutes ago [-]
It typically takes 11-12 years for a nuclear plant to get built including planning and construction [1].
Is the idea that we'd build the data centers now, and finish the nuclear plants to power them 11-12 years from now?
For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years. An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.
Adding to the sibling comment, from your link, actually building a wind turbine "takes approximately 3-6 months". The longest piece is "Approvals and permits" which takes up to 5 years. So wind can be built far faster if we're willing to speed up approvals and permitting. And the worst case for a wind turbine failure is a lot better than a nuclear failure.
triceratops 44 minutes ago [-]
> For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years.
That's still better than 11-12 years. How long does a solar farm take?
If residents' opposition is rooted in higher power prices, data centers could just pay extra instead until the new capacity comes online. Seems like a cheap way to pay off opposition.
> An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.
Given this article is about Pennsylvania, it'll probably take millions of years.
leonidasrup 27 minutes ago [-]
> How long does a solar farm take?
24–48 months, but for a data center that has to run 24/7 you need to also build a gas power plant.
So not the massive Chinese bot farm (200K +) launching anti-datacenter propaganda campaigns? It's just the green energy concern? ("Spiking local prices" was one of the propaganda talking points.)
These new AI data centers are now built with their own power generation capacity. They're too electricity hungry to be supplied by the local grid, requiring megawatts to gigawatts of generation. If they're grid-connected at all (for training / inference racks + cooling) it is secondary supplementation.
There is a concerted effort by foreign governments to slow down American progress in fielding AI capability. Attempts to generate civil unrest and propaganda against $new_thing are included in this.
BigTTYGothGF 23 minutes ago [-]
Ah, the good old "outside agitators" canard.
> These new AI data centers are now built with their own power generation capacity
And now you've got all the noise and pollution from that to deal with.
slowmovintarget 10 minutes ago [-]
Some of the data centers build out solar, most are natural gas turbines.
The outside agitators are in the news. The U.S. just happens to be a little more vulnerable to "straight to the people" propaganda campaigns.
redwood 1 hours ago [-]
No a big part is that the buildings are ugly and transform the character of a place that folks grew up in. Maybe focus should be put on beautifying these buildings in some way
iamnothere 54 minutes ago [-]
I don’t see how they are any uglier than any other industrial facility. That’s really what these are and it’s how they should be viewed. Typically most people don’t want to live next door to a factory, but there are some places where it’s appropriate to build them, often remote land or former industrial sites (brownfields) where you don’t want housing due to previous contamination.
wood_spirit 59 minutes ago [-]
Even if invisible they would not be a popular neighbour because they are a very overt reminder to the poor people around them how uneven the wealth and political power distribution is between them and the tech exec owners?
bluGill 18 minutes ago [-]
They should be popular - they pay property taxes to the local schools without taking much from the community at all. (note that I'm coming out against the all too common tax breaks that they get to build in your city)
ipdashc 50 minutes ago [-]
People in my area are complaining about data centers being built in rural fields and on former aluminum plant and power plant sites. The debate has become pretty detached from reality. What remains rooted in reality mostly comes down to electric bills / power consumption and the fact that, as everyone is saying, it's the only way for people to push back against big tech billionaires.
VoodooJuJu 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
blooalien 48 minutes ago [-]
There's also the water usage, which time and time again they lie blatantly about, and they choose to want to often build these things in heavily populated drought-stressed areas for some foolish reason. And then you got clowns like Musk wantin' to build 'em entirely powered by dirty generators instead of any form of clean energy (which, I mean, if you're buildin' in drought-stressed sunny areas, why not some variant of solar, right?).
S'okay. Facts and reality don't matter. Everything's peachy-keen, folks. Just wander on by and downvote reality and it'll magically go away... :sigh:
iamnothere 1 hours ago [-]
It won’t necessarily impact local energy prices significantly. Some facilities build gas turbine generators, but these cause the noise that neighbors complain about. Gas isn’t as bad about pollution (except CO2) but you don’t want to live next door to a plant either.
Also, adding a few data centers to a large grid shouldn’t bump up the energy prices, it’s only when you add many across the area. This is difficult to pin down because if one side of a region builds many data centers without their own power generation, the whole region could see eventual price increases. Fortunately most (all?) states regulate utility price increases, but still you don’t want to max out the price bump year after year.
It’s hard to discuss because different facilities have different configurations, and the local impact depends on that plus local characteristics.
Given the externalities of large facilities like this, impacted neighbors should definitely get a vote. Maybe we need a standard to define the impact radius based on the facility characteristics. This would add transparency and make it easier for people to decide without FUD and distortion. Unfortunately I don’t have much confidence in anyone coming up with such a standard without altering it to benefit their side, now that it’s become a political football.
neko_ranger 1 hours ago [-]
Residents of the state should get money for needing to live next to data centers and the use of their land/natural resources/etc, similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund.
jrflo 1 hours ago [-]
They already do, indirectly. The local government gets property taxes from these data centers. But maybe it would be more real for people if you just wrote them a check I guess.
mikestew 1 hours ago [-]
The local government gets property taxes from these data centers.
Not if they get a sweetheart tax deal. Why do you think folks are so pissy? It’s like a sports stadium next to your house in that the principals get tax breaks, eminent domain, and other considerations, but it makes noise every day(not just weekends) and you don’t get to go to the game.
WarmWash 58 minutes ago [-]
The sweetheart deals are usually from the state, sometimes the county. Town budgets tend to be so small that ~$20m/yr will have the council falling over themselves to approve it.
The problem, from the cases I have looked at, seems to be that towns want to do dumb shit with this money rather than just cut residents a tax break.
nancyminusone 50 minutes ago [-]
Or the towns are not rich enough to fight in a lawsuit after the town council initially says no, which is how my local datacenter was approved against the will of the people
bluGill 17 minutes ago [-]
The sweetheart deals I've seen has been the state approving things that mostly affect the locals. A large part of property tax goes to local governments who were given no input in the deal.
forshaper 59 minutes ago [-]
Even with a state sweetheart tax deal, the most populated county in my state gets half of its property tax income from a datacenter. Projection for one in my county looks like it would hit 70%.
tbh I'm more worried about the resource curse from the sudden change in budget
jrflo 10 minutes ago [-]
I think people are pissy because they're scared of AI and have consumed a lot of misinformation. Most people I know still think that datacenters are going to literally drain the lakes. No one is actually informed on the details, it's all just become a meme at this point.
Unless local governments are getting bribed en masse, literally no municipality would want a datacenter if there wasn't a net benefit. I checked in my area and the datacenters are receiving tax breaks, but they also have to pay into the local school districts and fund the energy infrastructure buildout. Just because tax breaks are part of the deal doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit for the community.
GolfPopper 1 hours ago [-]
While specifics vary by state and county, data centers have often been getting 100% property tax abatements good for decades.
Yhippa 1 hours ago [-]
New rev source = spend more as opposed to reduce taxpayer burden?
cush 57 minutes ago [-]
Billionaires don’t pay taxes, they receive tax breaks.
estearum 40 minutes ago [-]
You can just do this for everything everywhere with near-zero enforcement complexity by instituting a high Land Value Tax
vatsachak 15 minutes ago [-]
Why don't they just buy extra land surrounding the data center to reduce noise pollution concerns?
Regardless hopefully this restarts nuclear power generation
cmiles8 22 minutes ago [-]
You tell everyone AI is going to put them out of a job and then you’re surprised when working class communities say “no, please leave” when folks want to build a data center in their back yard.
There are times when Silicon Valley looks out of touch and there are times when Silicon Valley just looks like idiots with hubris. This is more the later.
bpodgursky 20 minutes ago [-]
There are many surveys which make it clear, this is not the reason. They are straightforwardly (right or wrong) protesting the physical installations, their water and electricity use, and other hard-to-quantify vibes like radiation and noise (similar to 5g protests).
They know very little about the job market impact of AI, and are mostly retired so they don't care anyway.
jamesmaniscalco 2 minutes ago [-]
“Mostly retired” is a red herring. Protests of all kinds are always full of retirees. They can speak up for the community while the rest of us have to go to work.
I'm glad to see that people unite for things like this. This is important and necessary.
spiderfarmer 32 minutes ago [-]
It's just sad that Americans only unite when it's something in their own backyard. Democracy in the US is collapsing, and people are standing idly by. Maybe they'll leave an angry comment under a TikTok video, but that's about all the patriotism people seem to muster.
greenowl 1 hours ago [-]
Turns out putting them in space is the answer!
blooalien 55 minutes ago [-]
> Turns out putting them in space is the answer!
Can we put them on Mars, and maybe send Elon to tend them?
nancyminusone 54 minutes ago [-]
People don't want the billionaires coming into your town and having their way with it, the one you live in and are supposed to get a say in how things are done. This is not difficult to understand.
mannanj 18 minutes ago [-]
Anyone who has never lived next to a data center is commentating on the side lines without experience about what it’s actually like.
Lots of these commentaries miss the following:
- noise and uncomfortable vibrations making nearby habitual living challenging
- rises costs of power and water
- more traffic and disruption to traveling patterns
The first is a big deal. These companies have a history of refusing to address noise and disruptions to neighbors personal health. They simply don’t care because they only care about the money. Its greed at an immense level. Until you’re ready to accept you would be comfortable with a data center as your neighbor you have 0 skin in making decisions for others who do.
And the rich bourgeoisie people who are so misguided about this: mark Cuban, Kevin O’Leary famous shark tank billionaires, who claim “you’re experiencing Chinese propaganda about data centers” and probably even anyone on these forums who makes a strong claim without experience, would never ever accept living next to a data center. They are sideline commentators and should take responsibility for the harms to local people.
Zigurd 1 hours ago [-]
There's lots of AI capex that is low risk. If it ends up being under utilized companies like Amazon and Google will adjust their capex plans. When they say things like under spending is riskier than overspending, for them, that's plausible.
But the sketchiest part of the bubble is when you directly bolt a no name data center company to Nvidia's cash pile, and you start turning cash into ever-lengthening receivables collection time, that's why people are skeptical of data centers: even if they can't tell a Google data center from a pivoting crypto bros data center, they smell the bullshit.
People also know they are being lied to, Oracle claims their New Mexico data center will run on Bloom fuel cells. I doubt Bloom is ready to scale to data center size without proof of concept in different applications at large if not directly comparable scale.
monster_truck 1 hours ago [-]
Do they promise?
jmyeet 22 minutes ago [-]
Consider:
1. Lawmakers literally do not care what you think (study from Princeton) [1];
2. Private utilities are more expensive than public utilities [2]; and
3. Nobody goes to war over a solar panel [3].
All of this is relevant here.
The privatization of utilities has shown to be a massive mistake, in part based on debunked economics (ie the tragedy of the commons). Demand is very inelastic so they have to be highly regulated. The electricity price is set by lawmakers so how do they make profits? By building more infrastructure because that cost can be passed on to consumers.
So if a hyperscalar needs 6GW of power, you need to build massive transmission lines and power plants. That's great for private utility profits. And that's what we're all paying for. The DCs are usually getting subsidized electricity as well as not paying for the extra infrastructure.
So many things would be better if we'd had mass adoption of renewable power but that's bad for the wealthy. You install a solar panel and it just generates electricity every year. It can be built incrementally and quickly. It also tends to utilize land that is of little value otherwise, such as in the Southwest US. But fossil fuels make people wealthy. An oil or natural gas well declines in production over time. That means you have to keep building them. That's more profit.
This whole saga is revealing to a lot of people just how little lawmakers care about the voters. They'll ignore protests and vote anyway. They'll do it in secret. If they get voted out, who cares? They'll magically find their way into jobs for these companies.
The intense anti-DC sentiment shouldn't be surprising - NIMBYism is the only viable mechanism available to people in the US. It doesn't matter if you're worried about Glonzo or have real concerns, they must be expressed in NIMBY terms in order to be heard.
For example, imagine you're worried about what goes on inside those DCs, are worried about the lack of accountability from Big Tech and would like to see sensible consumer-protection regulations. Can you express that anywhere? Sure, you can leave random comments somewhere, but that doesn't matter. OTOH, you can actually join a local NIMBY group and slow things down. It's not what you want, but it's better than nothing. Same goes for people worried about clean energy and other issues.
nixosbestos 53 minutes ago [-]
I think this is why I'm sort of excited about this, even if some of it's "misguided" according to some.
I haven't seen people really care and mobilize since maybe BLM?
iamnothere 52 minutes ago [-]
This is fair and I think it’s what is really happening here.
The only lever the government seems to have is tax breaks, and the only lever the people seem to have is NIMBYism. What a joke.
bugbull 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
gilliethefoil 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
peterldowns 1 hours ago [-]
As a Pennsylvanian I think this is idiotic and I completely blame the press, who have breathlesslly amplified baseless negative claims. Such as that datacenters are somehow bad for the environment, have negative impacts on water supply, will raise energy and water rates for residential customers, etc.
I HATE that this is somehow becoming a culture war issue.
nemomarx 42 minutes ago [-]
I remember the fracking roll out here. The companies involved directly handed checks to local residents, promised to train locals for new jobs, paid to fund schools, and so on.
These companies have a lot of money behind them - if they're not willing to put in the effort to convince local residents that the data center will be good for them, I feel like that's on them. They could easily do some handouts and fix this. Offer to pay extra taxes to the state or whatever, fund a new power plant, pay everyone who lives nearby the DC some thousands of dollars, whatever.
WarmWash 53 minutes ago [-]
The older I get the more and more convinced I become that the media is the actual real enemy of the country. Their lifeblood is creating controversy and drama about everything so they can show ads. So insane that so few call them out (probably because most people are already "captured" by them).
catlikesshrimp 37 minutes ago [-]
Dictatorships abolish all free press, they don't like it. There was a quote where I live "Free press dies along democracy" and it did.
CharlesW 47 minutes ago [-]
> As a Pennsylvanian I think this is idiotic and I completely blame the press, who have breathlesslly amplified baseless negative claims.
But have they disproportionately amplified them? I follow some energy experts, and the consensus for AI-focused mega-datacenters seems to be "no". Some interesting reports:
What about concerns about air pollution from unregulated diesel generators? Or using large amounts of water in drought prone areas?
No it can't. Regulation is already being flouted.
> Banning them outright is the equivalent of banning all immigration
Please be less obvious, this is just insulting.
A commenter below quotes a 73% annual growth rate vs. 23% over the prior decade.
You don't think that'd have an effect on people's perception?
99% is an interesting figure because that's roughly how much my energy bill has increased despite no significant change in my usage due to data center demand on the grid
Why is that?
Where I live my energy bill is a fixed cost. It's a super expensive fixed cost, since I'm living in Germany, but it is fixed none the less. It increases year by year because all costs only go up, but it remains completely unaffected by unrelated infrastructure being built around where I live.
I've been to a data center before due to work and my impression of the place was really good. It's kinda invisible from the outside, everything is extremely clean. There's no noise on the outside and the excess heat is used to get people cheap warm water or something like that.
I'm quite confused why people suddenly hate on them. Feels like I'm missing a whole lot of context.
In the United States at least there's been plenty of polling on why people oppose data centers. Consistently, it's water usage and water contamination fears, which is exactly what you see most often in social media and discussed online. I think a lot of high-minded rationalizations are just trying to dodge the embarrassing fact that people simply think data centers are draining municipal and natural water sources.
Monthly private spending on data center construction:
2015: $168 million
2024: $1.59 billion
10x increase over 9 years (26% annual growth rate)
2026: $4.36 billion
3x increase over 2 years (73% annual growth rate)
Let me reiterate: MONTHLY spending.
Compound this with presumably we've gotten better and not worse at building data centers (if nothing else, just building larger data centers would create economies of scale), the construction dollar to power consumption ratio has probably moved in the wrong direction for your argument.
The 2015 - 2024 growth curve would conceivably encourage more consistent usage of baseload and, where insufficient, gradual construction of additional supply. That would have the expected effect as seen in the paper.
The latter growth (which is obviously accelerating), especially after an extended period of the former growth, would not necessarily do this. We in fact know this to be true because the rate-limiting step on data center construction is lack of energy.
So obviously there is not ample excess baseload just sitting around. Obviously it's non-trivial to add additional capacity at the speed data centers need it.
I am saying the paper's scope of analysis (up to 2024) renders it pretty much irrelevant.
> How can higher demand lead to lower prices? … a bump in demand can allow for higher utilization of the existing generation … Provided the bump does not violate capacity constraints
I.e. data centers reduce electricity prices, as long as you don’t build new generation to support them. Whereas data centers, nationally are projected to increase energy use between 325 to 580 TWh annually by 2028 [1]. There is no way you are going to meet that without building new generation assets to meet that demand.
[1] https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-new-report-eval...
Here's a recent source: https://pacinst.org/publication/how-much-water-do-data-cente...
Farms use an order of magnitude more than either. You don’t see any demands whatsoever on agriculture to reduce water usage.
That's just status quo bias, given that they're an ongoing source of water consumption. "oh it doesn't matter that [thing] is guzzling water, because it's already there!".
That's all it takes for them to do their part in generating gargantuan amounts of value for people who live 1,000 miles away and their uberwealthy hardly-human CEOs and investors.
1. Replacing forests and fields with concrete buildings prevents rainwater from filtering into the soil, which stops local aquifers from recharging.
2. During storms the rain runs off impervious surfaces and can cause downstream flooding.
3. Heavy land grading washes loose sediment into nearby waterways, destroying aquatic habitats and turning private drinking wells muddy. (That especially gets local homeowners angry and gets lots of video views).
And then you have the ongoing operation of open cooling systems:
4. Evaporative cooling systems discharge concentrated mineral brine that spikes the salinity of freshwater ecosystems.
5. Cooling water is treated with toxic biocides and anti-scalants that can contaminate local water basins. It can also contain leached copper, zinc, and PFAS.
6. Discharging warm wastewater depletes oxygen in streams and alters the overall ecology.
Of course all of these issues could be mitigated to a reasonable degree with proper care and effort:
>this seems like it shouldn't happen if things are being done properly
Do you want to bet your whole town on things being done properly right now?
The first 3 apply to all construction. It's just being selectively applied because people hate datacenters.
One recent-ish example: ^[1]
> ... or is it being caused by poorly executed construction practices?
I believe their contractor was responsible for this one IIRC?
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2026/07/09/meta...
"We estimate that data centers caused average retail electricity rates to fall modestly in the United States from 2015 to 2024 using an instrumental variables approach."
But the data center backlash really started 2 years ago. It's 2026 now. Getting new energy generation built and approved takes time.
"We caution that future supply constraints could reverse the effect."
There it is.
it's my power bill, dude. and everyone else's around me. your paper stops measuring that data right at the time when everyone's bills started increasing sharply.
Is it any wonder people hear that and go "hmm, no thanks" when the prospect of a massive whirring data centre next to their house is raised?
The SV LLM crowd know a lot about LLM psychology but seemingly very little about human psychology
They're detached from the great unwashed masses. It's not that they don't know anything about human psychology. They don't care about those people or their concerns, historically. And that's what is coming out in this interfacing with the broader public.
Here in Switzerland new AI datacenters are also causing some uproar but a lot less because regulations are rigid enough in most places that you can only build them if you do so cleanly. You can't just take all the water, electricity, make noise and polute.
I live next to a waste valorisation plant and they have very over sized water cooling systems because they need to keep the noise below regulation. They also for example have under pressure in the trash receiving bunker to prevent smells from escaping. All regulations that cost money but are the benefit of all.
About time.
Yeah, Elon's a big fan of this tactic.
Then these big buyers go ahead and pay 50% of what everyone else is paying.
Also, I live in Northern Virginia where we have tons of data centers, and energy prices have not spiked.
That is now being consumed and now Loudon County will also start engaging in electricity price wars with data centers. New regulations to segregate markets is supposed to kick in on Jan 1 2027, in fact.
But also, it seems to have increased in price quite a bit lately.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS35A72610
(Of course I might simply be projecting.)
I can almost guarantee there's a good bit of that also involved in addition to all the other concerns and issues folks also rightly have.
Three Mile Island
"2027 – Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide whether to issue operating license to Constellation Energy, with the decision expected in May. If granted, Constellation expects to bring the reactor back online later in the year."
https://www.witf.org/2026/07/28/three-mile-island-reactor-re...
Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/americas-first-...
Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nextera-energy-partn...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Arnold_Energy_Center#Res...
Though we really should get better at building nuclear power plants. I'm think more of small ones to power ships though, not land based ones. Ships are one of the few places where oil/coal are used that there are not realistic renewable alternatives.
> Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.
No it's like demanding your new neighbors aren't forced to lend you money for your purchase - which is entirely reasonable. If you need money, get it from the bank.
The top-level comment explains it already:
"When you drop a data center into an area, energy prices will spike. Additionally, without that green energy capacity they will cause much more air pollution."
Is the idea that we'd build the data centers now, and finish the nuclear plants to power them 11-12 years from now?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-timeline-of-a-nu...
https://jmhpower.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-wind-t...
That's still better than 11-12 years. How long does a solar farm take?
If residents' opposition is rooted in higher power prices, data centers could just pay extra instead until the new capacity comes online. Seems like a cheap way to pay off opposition.
> An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.
Given this article is about Pennsylvania, it'll probably take millions of years.
24–48 months, but for a data center that has to run 24/7 you need to also build a gas power plant.
https://www.pvfarm.io/blog/utility-scale-solar-project-devel...
https://globalenergymonitor.org/research/betting-big-data-ce...
Also residential and industrial use will be lower at night. So the existing grid supply may also be enough.
https://x.com/GrantChalmers/status/1422472474487263233
These new AI data centers are now built with their own power generation capacity. They're too electricity hungry to be supplied by the local grid, requiring megawatts to gigawatts of generation. If they're grid-connected at all (for training / inference racks + cooling) it is secondary supplementation.
There is a concerted effort by foreign governments to slow down American progress in fielding AI capability. Attempts to generate civil unrest and propaganda against $new_thing are included in this.
> These new AI data centers are now built with their own power generation capacity
And now you've got all the noise and pollution from that to deal with.
The outside agitators are in the news. The U.S. just happens to be a little more vulnerable to "straight to the people" propaganda campaigns.
S'okay. Facts and reality don't matter. Everything's peachy-keen, folks. Just wander on by and downvote reality and it'll magically go away... :sigh:
Also, adding a few data centers to a large grid shouldn’t bump up the energy prices, it’s only when you add many across the area. This is difficult to pin down because if one side of a region builds many data centers without their own power generation, the whole region could see eventual price increases. Fortunately most (all?) states regulate utility price increases, but still you don’t want to max out the price bump year after year.
It’s hard to discuss because different facilities have different configurations, and the local impact depends on that plus local characteristics.
Given the externalities of large facilities like this, impacted neighbors should definitely get a vote. Maybe we need a standard to define the impact radius based on the facility characteristics. This would add transparency and make it easier for people to decide without FUD and distortion. Unfortunately I don’t have much confidence in anyone coming up with such a standard without altering it to benefit their side, now that it’s become a political football.
Not if they get a sweetheart tax deal. Why do you think folks are so pissy? It’s like a sports stadium next to your house in that the principals get tax breaks, eminent domain, and other considerations, but it makes noise every day(not just weekends) and you don’t get to go to the game.
The problem, from the cases I have looked at, seems to be that towns want to do dumb shit with this money rather than just cut residents a tax break.
tbh I'm more worried about the resource curse from the sudden change in budget
Unless local governments are getting bribed en masse, literally no municipality would want a datacenter if there wasn't a net benefit. I checked in my area and the datacenters are receiving tax breaks, but they also have to pay into the local school districts and fund the energy infrastructure buildout. Just because tax breaks are part of the deal doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit for the community.
Regardless hopefully this restarts nuclear power generation
There are times when Silicon Valley looks out of touch and there are times when Silicon Valley just looks like idiots with hubris. This is more the later.
They know very little about the job market impact of AI, and are mostly retired so they don't care anyway.
Can we put them on Mars, and maybe send Elon to tend them?
Lots of these commentaries miss the following: - noise and uncomfortable vibrations making nearby habitual living challenging - rises costs of power and water - more traffic and disruption to traveling patterns
The first is a big deal. These companies have a history of refusing to address noise and disruptions to neighbors personal health. They simply don’t care because they only care about the money. Its greed at an immense level. Until you’re ready to accept you would be comfortable with a data center as your neighbor you have 0 skin in making decisions for others who do.
And the rich bourgeoisie people who are so misguided about this: mark Cuban, Kevin O’Leary famous shark tank billionaires, who claim “you’re experiencing Chinese propaganda about data centers” and probably even anyone on these forums who makes a strong claim without experience, would never ever accept living next to a data center. They are sideline commentators and should take responsibility for the harms to local people.
But the sketchiest part of the bubble is when you directly bolt a no name data center company to Nvidia's cash pile, and you start turning cash into ever-lengthening receivables collection time, that's why people are skeptical of data centers: even if they can't tell a Google data center from a pivoting crypto bros data center, they smell the bullshit.
People also know they are being lied to, Oracle claims their New Mexico data center will run on Bloom fuel cells. I doubt Bloom is ready to scale to data center size without proof of concept in different applications at large if not directly comparable scale.
1. Lawmakers literally do not care what you think (study from Princeton) [1];
2. Private utilities are more expensive than public utilities [2]; and
3. Nobody goes to war over a solar panel [3].
All of this is relevant here.
The privatization of utilities has shown to be a massive mistake, in part based on debunked economics (ie the tragedy of the commons). Demand is very inelastic so they have to be highly regulated. The electricity price is set by lawmakers so how do they make profits? By building more infrastructure because that cost can be passed on to consumers.
So if a hyperscalar needs 6GW of power, you need to build massive transmission lines and power plants. That's great for private utility profits. And that's what we're all paying for. The DCs are usually getting subsidized electricity as well as not paying for the extra infrastructure.
So many things would be better if we'd had mass adoption of renewable power but that's bad for the wealthy. You install a solar panel and it just generates electricity every year. It can be built incrementally and quickly. It also tends to utilize land that is of little value otherwise, such as in the Southwest US. But fossil fuels make people wealthy. An oil or natural gas well declines in production over time. That means you have to keep building them. That's more profit.
This whole saga is revealing to a lot of people just how little lawmakers care about the voters. They'll ignore protests and vote anyway. They'll do it in secret. If they get voted out, who cares? They'll magically find their way into jobs for these companies.
[1]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
[2]: https://energyandpolicy.org/utility-profit-report/
[3]: https://www.theenergymix.com/no-one-goes-to-war-over-a-solar...
For example, imagine you're worried about what goes on inside those DCs, are worried about the lack of accountability from Big Tech and would like to see sensible consumer-protection regulations. Can you express that anywhere? Sure, you can leave random comments somewhere, but that doesn't matter. OTOH, you can actually join a local NIMBY group and slow things down. It's not what you want, but it's better than nothing. Same goes for people worried about clean energy and other issues.
I haven't seen people really care and mobilize since maybe BLM?
The only lever the government seems to have is tax breaks, and the only lever the people seem to have is NIMBYism. What a joke.
I HATE that this is somehow becoming a culture war issue.
These companies have a lot of money behind them - if they're not willing to put in the effort to convince local residents that the data center will be good for them, I feel like that's on them. They could easily do some handouts and fix this. Offer to pay extra taxes to the state or whatever, fund a new power plant, pay everyone who lives nearby the DC some thousands of dollars, whatever.
But have they disproportionately amplified them? I follow some energy experts, and the consensus for AI-focused mega-datacenters seems to be "no". Some interesting reports:
• Artificial Intelligence: Generative AI's Environmental and Human Effects - https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107172
• FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission): "…approximately half of this [$5.1 billion] cost will be borne by customers…" - https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-clements-...
• Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas: Processing Power: The Effect of Data Centers on Wholesale Electricity Markets - https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/papers/...