The hang-wringing environmental concerns are a thin veneer over the real objection which is that most Americans judge AI to be a technology that will be on-net harmful to them in the near future, which they're likely correct about.
It is kind of crazy that its such a pain to build and power datacenters on land that putting them into orbit - which should be ridiculously uncompetitive - is now arguably plausibly economical.
"The real issue, then, isn’t whether data centers use too much water or energy, but whether the policies and institutions that govern those resources are equipped to handle these new demands, and where they fall short. That is the conversation we are not having."
Consider, though, that this is the conversation we're almost *never* having, and that therefore peoples' reflexive reaction to these things is actually rational.
Intentional or not, pieces like this mainly have the effect of promoting the interests of the tech billionaires, so congrats on that I guess.
I think an underrated fact too is for residents there is no real clear upside to allowing the data center near where they live.
We know the jobs created are not huge
And you can talk about Loudoun county and their data center property taxes all day, most people don’t care. It’s not like the city is about get a really substantive increase in revenue that would effect most people’s daily life.
Data centers obviously benefit society greatly but it’s spread out over a wide area.
It’s More like a prison that does not employ many people.
This is well said in many respects. The problem is more complex than a narrative of ‘water’ (closed loop cooling is the norm, not the exception), or ‘land’, or ‘noise’, because they are not uniformly true either.
The public however does have the right to know what specifically is being built next to them.
There is a structural opaqueness to how data centers are developed. Often developers are out hunting for approvals before they even know if the site can be built.
It matters enormously to the job picture if it’s a hyperscaler owned or colocation data center.
It matters enormously if the person developing it is financed to the point that someone else can buy it. (Half built, or stuck sites waiting for power are a thing).
It matters enormously to a farmer if there is constant noise occurring near their livestock.
Data centers are not the huge demand driver for land, power, water, that one would be led to believe, however their impact, if developed poorly, on a local community can be devastating.
The hang-wringing environmental concerns are a thin veneer over the real objection which is that most Americans judge AI to be a technology that will be on-net harmful to them in the near future, which they're likely correct about.
I appreciate this well written article, sir. Good information is essential.
It is kind of crazy that its such a pain to build and power datacenters on land that putting them into orbit - which should be ridiculously uncompetitive - is now arguably plausibly economical.
"The real issue, then, isn’t whether data centers use too much water or energy, but whether the policies and institutions that govern those resources are equipped to handle these new demands, and where they fall short. That is the conversation we are not having."
Consider, though, that this is the conversation we're almost *never* having, and that therefore peoples' reflexive reaction to these things is actually rational.
Intentional or not, pieces like this mainly have the effect of promoting the interests of the tech billionaires, so congrats on that I guess.
I think an underrated fact too is for residents there is no real clear upside to allowing the data center near where they live.
We know the jobs created are not huge
And you can talk about Loudoun county and their data center property taxes all day, most people don’t care. It’s not like the city is about get a really substantive increase in revenue that would effect most people’s daily life.
Data centers obviously benefit society greatly but it’s spread out over a wide area.
It’s More like a prison that does not employ many people.
This is well said in many respects. The problem is more complex than a narrative of ‘water’ (closed loop cooling is the norm, not the exception), or ‘land’, or ‘noise’, because they are not uniformly true either.
The public however does have the right to know what specifically is being built next to them.
There is a structural opaqueness to how data centers are developed. Often developers are out hunting for approvals before they even know if the site can be built.
It matters enormously to the job picture if it’s a hyperscaler owned or colocation data center.
It matters enormously if the person developing it is financed to the point that someone else can buy it. (Half built, or stuck sites waiting for power are a thing).
It matters enormously to a farmer if there is constant noise occurring near their livestock.
Data centers are not the huge demand driver for land, power, water, that one would be led to believe, however their impact, if developed poorly, on a local community can be devastating.