4 ms·

Bingo. Data centers are a net negative wherever they are. Giant, employ far fewer people than a grocery store after they’re built, crank up electricity costs, u

Bingo. Data centers are a net negative wherever they are. Giant, employ far fewer people than a grocery store after they’re built, crank up electricity costs, use tons of water, air pollution if it’s self-powered, noise pollution (it’s really worth watching Benn Jordan’s video on infrasound,) ugly… the only local entities that win are the landowner and the municipality that collects taxes on them. Though I’ve seen some astonishingly misinformed politicians offering big tax incentives for data centers not realizing that they employ so few people. From what I hear, even much of the construction is done by flown-in contractors with experience doing it elsewhere. The people that own these data centers have only themselves to blame. They’ve been obnoxious, at scale, for so long that damn near everybody knows how much they suck, and they’re losing their ability to railroad locals into eating their turd sandwiches. Edit: I know it’s gauche to talk about votes here, but this comment trended upward consistently for 45 minutes. In much less than 10 minutes, it collected more than half that amount in downvotes. I’d eat my hat if there wasn’t some kind of organized/automated brigading happening here. Edit again: Now close to 70% gone. Not exactly surprising given the forum, but pretty depressing nonetheless.

bitexploder 6mo ago
Perhaps they are simply not taxed enough to benefit the community. If the local municipality is bearing a lot of these hidden costs, then perhaps the taxes need to be higher and directed at efforts that mitigate the worst of the problems. Water management solutions, air pollution management. Are there ways to mitigate the noise pollution? It seems like they should be taxed /more/ to help offset the negatives. There is surely a way to mitigate the problems. For example, can the noise pollution be addressed by forcing more green spaces around them, etc?
- bombcar 6mo ago
  Almost anything can be mitigated at some cost - but it has to be determined what those mitigations are, and then demand them. Many municipalities are unequipped to deal with a "datacenter" because on paper it is the same as an office building (that draws a lot of power), where it should be treated like an industrial site (rail yard, factory).
  - bitexploder 6mo ago
    True. There likely needs to be some sort of templating handled by states. Each data center and location will be different and require assessment. This does drive costs up for the data center, but I don't see another fair way to handle it really.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    They get their own unique third category as unlike industrial sites there's no hazardous chemicals and even the noise pollution is substantially different in nature. The old datacenters are analogous to office buildings that emit some unusual noise and consume large amounts of electricity. The new ones (ie gigawatt class) consume enough electricity for ~1 million households and at minimum enough water for 100k households (but possibly many times that).
    - bombcar 6mo ago
      Where does the water go afterwards? Is it evaporated? Sewer?
      - trollbridge 6mo ago
        Evaporated. Given how the water cycle works, it should be expected it will be precipitated back as rain.
        mylies43 6mo ago
        With the catching being of course that it won't end up where it was being pulled from.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - fc417fc802 6mo ago
        I believe evaporative cooling is the norm (thus my "possibly many times that" remark doesn't apply) however theoretically they could provide hot water as a utility or (as you say) just dump it into the sewer. If located next to a river or the ocean they could conceivably dissipate it that way but I'm not aware of any examples. It's the sort of externality that could be solved with a well placed megaproject. A related question to my mind is why we're building such expensive strategic assets in the open rather than under a mountain.
- DrewADesign 6mo ago
  The city making money off of it doesn’t make the impact smaller. You can’t tax away the air pollution coming from a gas turbine running in a populated area.
  - bitexploder 6mo ago
    That was my point. It doesn't all have to be taxes. It can also be agreed upon mitigation maintenance. Better filtration on gas turbines, etc. Green spaces to mitigate sound impact. I don't know, I am just wondering if there is a model that can be designed that makes a data center "balance" within its local environment instead of getting the opposite, tax incentives. Right now I agree, they get to socialize the costs and reap the benefits of building data centers to a large extent.
    - DrewADesign 6mo ago
      That all sounds nice in theory, but does the Lewiston municipal government have the resources and expertise to determine what countermeasures would be effective? Would it be left up to the company paying for the mitigations to decide what’s reasonable? I think we know how that would turn out. Even in heavily regulated states, industrial pollution still heavily impacts people in the vicinity. They usually accept it because so many of them work there. This place was estimated to employ 30 people. We don’t even know if problems like infrasound are reasonably avoidable or mitigated, and it’s not like they can make more water. Additionally, the way the industry has conducted itself over the past decade has been abhorrent. There’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t try to circumvent every last shred of mitigation knowing the city has comparatively minuscule resources to fight it. If we put them anywhere — and I’m not convinced we really need all of the data centers we have, let alone all the ones we’re building — they should not be in the middle of densely populated areas like Lewiston.
    - order-matters 6mo ago
      youre starting a good conversation but as per typical internet fashion you are being critiqued as though your direction of thought is being presented as some sort of final solution. i completely agree that we should be looking into modelling this in terms of what is possible to mitigate its impact and what does that look like with current technology and costs, and where would we need to develop new tech, and what would be the critical values to hit to consider mitigation a success
- hermanzegerman 6mo ago
  They lobbied for tax exemptions for 10 years or longer in most cases. Which probably is the useful lifespan, from most of the stuff in there
marcosdumay 6mo ago
> Data centers are a net negative wherever they are. They really shouldn't be. There is a need for them and they aren't inherently damaging. There's no reason they can't be placed under some environmental regulations that cancel all their negatives, at least on some places. And they would still pay taxes. But no, datacenter owners are using their connections to remove any regulation instead.
- AgentK20 6mo ago
  Unfortunately it’s a race to the bottom in most of America: If you pass such regulations locally or in your state, the data centers will simply choose to not build in your area of authority (county/state). Unless we were to pass sweeping, nation-wide regulations (which this administration is aggressively against because they believe we are in an AI arms race with China), those regulations/bans just drive the data centers elsewhere.
  - bryanlarsen 6mo ago
    Maine obviously wouldn't have a problem with that, this law indicates they want them somewhere other than Maine. Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations.
    - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
      >Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations. So basically steal legitimacy from real environmentalists by applying their label to something that's not really motivated by environmentalism but can be construed that way? "They don't actually want what I'm selling so I'm gonna dress it up as something else, they'll never know" AreWeTheBaddies.jpg The other problem you're gonna have is that this isn't an original thought. You're at least 20yr late to the party. So, so, so much absolute garbage has sailed under the flag of environmentalism that the public is starting to be more critical (see for example the kerfuffle over wind turbines off Rhode Island) and it's not unforeseeable that eventually the environmentalists are gonna have some sort of purge or reformation or reversion to more traditional environmentalism and serving corporate interests in order to reclaim some lost respect/legitimacy. Trying to sail "obviously not primarily about the environment" stuff under the flag of environmentalism is only gonna hasten that.
Anechoic 6mo ago
noise pollution (it’s really worth watching Benn Jordan’s video on infrasound,) Noise from data centers is a real issue, but Benn's measurements and analysis are not great (speeding up the sample rate to demonstrate frequency effects is just wrong, among other issues).
- jesse_ash 6mo ago
  It was a bit misleading in terms of the audibility of infrasonic noise, but I think he did a good job of highlighting some of the effects of infrasonic noise on QoL/health with the study towards the end. IIRC, he also recorded some regular human-range noise that I would personally find disruptive to have to live with (though this was a fair bit closer to the data center than the claimed range of infrasonic noise's effects)
andrepd 6mo ago
> Though I’ve seen some astonishingly misinformed politicians offering big tax incentives for data centers My national government is currently giving massive tax breaks for one of these. It's going to be, after all, "the biggest foreign investment in the country ever"...
sershe 6mo ago
Doesn't this also apply to new housing? Strain on services per job created is probably even higher. The benefits are for someone currently not living here, just like data centers used for remote users. And if cheaper housing is available obnoxious poor people might move in. I think there should be a moratorium. Not in my backyard!
- DrewADesign 6mo ago
  I’m not sure who you’d expect to sway equating data centers to east coast urban housing during a giant, sustained housing crisis, but your obviously disingenuous argument is completely ridiculous.
  - sershe 6mo ago
    At least my comment is not completely content free. How is it different? First, the gp comment says the data center is not good for existing residents - obviously true for housing too, which you didn't refute. Then it assumes statewide ban should be based on personal preference of local residents. That is just a definition of nimbyism. While in reality I am a YIMBY and the end was part sarcasm, I would genuinely prefer living next to a data center, rather than next to non immigrant poor in the US. I grew up lower middle class or poor by US standards, and also live in Seattle, lots of experience. So I say along with data centers we have a statewide ban on anyone who is lifetime net consumer of tax money anywhere near my backyard.
DrewADesign 6mo ago
This thread is obviously being brigaded. Wiped out like 30 upvotes on one comment in no time. If you need to silence people talking about your company or favorite toy, maybe you should re-examine your life choices. Pathetic. Is there some polymarket nonsense going on here?
will4274 6mo ago
- Datacenters don't use tons of water compared to just about any other business. - It's not really fair to blame datacenters for using the municipality's electricity and then blame them again for being loud and generating electricity instead of using the municipality's electricity. Any given datacenter is only doing one of these. - Presumably, the municipality's tax dollars benefit the people who live in the municipality in the form of better services

bitexploder 6mo ago

Perhaps they are simply not taxed enough to benefit the community. If the local municipality is bearing a lot of these hidden costs, then perhaps the taxes need to be higher and directed at efforts that mitigate the worst of the problems. Water management solutions, air pollution management. Are there ways to mitigate the noise pollution? It seems like they should be taxed /more/ to help offset the negatives. There is surely a way to mitigate the problems. For example, can the noise pollution be addressed by forcing more green spaces around them, etc?

bombcar 6mo ago
Almost anything can be mitigated at some cost - but it has to be determined what those mitigations are, and then demand them. Many municipalities are unequipped to deal with a "datacenter" because on paper it is the same as an office building (that draws a lot of power), where it should be treated like an industrial site (rail yard, factory).
- bitexploder 6mo ago
  True. There likely needs to be some sort of templating handled by states. Each data center and location will be different and require assessment. This does drive costs up for the data center, but I don't see another fair way to handle it really.
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  They get their own unique third category as unlike industrial sites there's no hazardous chemicals and even the noise pollution is substantially different in nature. The old datacenters are analogous to office buildings that emit some unusual noise and consume large amounts of electricity. The new ones (ie gigawatt class) consume enough electricity for ~1 million households and at minimum enough water for 100k households (but possibly many times that).
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    Where does the water go afterwards? Is it evaporated? Sewer?
    - trollbridge 6mo ago
      Evaporated. Given how the water cycle works, it should be expected it will be precipitated back as rain.
      - mylies43 6mo ago
        With the catching being of course that it won't end up where it was being pulled from.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      I believe evaporative cooling is the norm (thus my "possibly many times that" remark doesn't apply) however theoretically they could provide hot water as a utility or (as you say) just dump it into the sewer. If located next to a river or the ocean they could conceivably dissipate it that way but I'm not aware of any examples. It's the sort of externality that could be solved with a well placed megaproject. A related question to my mind is why we're building such expensive strategic assets in the open rather than under a mountain.
DrewADesign 6mo ago
The city making money off of it doesn’t make the impact smaller. You can’t tax away the air pollution coming from a gas turbine running in a populated area.
- bitexploder 6mo ago
  That was my point. It doesn't all have to be taxes. It can also be agreed upon mitigation maintenance. Better filtration on gas turbines, etc. Green spaces to mitigate sound impact. I don't know, I am just wondering if there is a model that can be designed that makes a data center "balance" within its local environment instead of getting the opposite, tax incentives. Right now I agree, they get to socialize the costs and reap the benefits of building data centers to a large extent.
  - DrewADesign 6mo ago
    That all sounds nice in theory, but does the Lewiston municipal government have the resources and expertise to determine what countermeasures would be effective? Would it be left up to the company paying for the mitigations to decide what’s reasonable? I think we know how that would turn out. Even in heavily regulated states, industrial pollution still heavily impacts people in the vicinity. They usually accept it because so many of them work there. This place was estimated to employ 30 people. We don’t even know if problems like infrasound are reasonably avoidable or mitigated, and it’s not like they can make more water. Additionally, the way the industry has conducted itself over the past decade has been abhorrent. There’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t try to circumvent every last shred of mitigation knowing the city has comparatively minuscule resources to fight it. If we put them anywhere — and I’m not convinced we really need all of the data centers we have, let alone all the ones we’re building — they should not be in the middle of densely populated areas like Lewiston.
  - order-matters 6mo ago
    youre starting a good conversation but as per typical internet fashion you are being critiqued as though your direction of thought is being presented as some sort of final solution. i completely agree that we should be looking into modelling this in terms of what is possible to mitigate its impact and what does that look like with current technology and costs, and where would we need to develop new tech, and what would be the critical values to hit to consider mitigation a success
hermanzegerman 6mo ago
They lobbied for tax exemptions for 10 years or longer in most cases. Which probably is the useful lifespan, from most of the stuff in there

marcosdumay 6mo ago

> Data centers are a net negative wherever they are. They really shouldn't be. There is a need for them and they aren't inherently damaging. There's no reason they can't be placed under some environmental regulations that cancel all their negatives, at least on some places. And they would still pay taxes. But no, datacenter owners are using their connections to remove any regulation instead.

AgentK20 6mo ago
Unfortunately it’s a race to the bottom in most of America: If you pass such regulations locally or in your state, the data centers will simply choose to not build in your area of authority (county/state). Unless we were to pass sweeping, nation-wide regulations (which this administration is aggressively against because they believe we are in an AI arms race with China), those regulations/bans just drive the data centers elsewhere.
- bryanlarsen 6mo ago
  Maine obviously wouldn't have a problem with that, this law indicates they want them somewhere other than Maine. Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations.
  - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
    >Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations. So basically steal legitimacy from real environmentalists by applying their label to something that's not really motivated by environmentalism but can be construed that way? "They don't actually want what I'm selling so I'm gonna dress it up as something else, they'll never know" AreWeTheBaddies.jpg The other problem you're gonna have is that this isn't an original thought. You're at least 20yr late to the party. So, so, so much absolute garbage has sailed under the flag of environmentalism that the public is starting to be more critical (see for example the kerfuffle over wind turbines off Rhode Island) and it's not unforeseeable that eventually the environmentalists are gonna have some sort of purge or reformation or reversion to more traditional environmentalism and serving corporate interests in order to reclaim some lost respect/legitimacy. Trying to sail "obviously not primarily about the environment" stuff under the flag of environmentalism is only gonna hasten that.

Anechoic 6mo ago

noise pollution (it’s really worth watching Benn Jordan’s video on infrasound,) Noise from data centers is a real issue, but Benn's measurements and analysis are not great (speeding up the sample rate to demonstrate frequency effects is just wrong, among other issues).

jesse_ash 6mo ago
It was a bit misleading in terms of the audibility of infrasonic noise, but I think he did a good job of highlighting some of the effects of infrasonic noise on QoL/health with the study towards the end. IIRC, he also recorded some regular human-range noise that I would personally find disruptive to have to live with (though this was a fair bit closer to the data center than the claimed range of infrasonic noise's effects)

andrepd 6mo ago

> Though I’ve seen some astonishingly misinformed politicians offering big tax incentives for data centers My national government is currently giving massive tax breaks for one of these. It's going to be, after all, "the biggest foreign investment in the country ever"...

sershe 6mo ago

Doesn't this also apply to new housing? Strain on services per job created is probably even higher. The benefits are for someone currently not living here, just like data centers used for remote users. And if cheaper housing is available obnoxious poor people might move in. I think there should be a moratorium. Not in my backyard!

DrewADesign 6mo ago
I’m not sure who you’d expect to sway equating data centers to east coast urban housing during a giant, sustained housing crisis, but your obviously disingenuous argument is completely ridiculous.
- sershe 6mo ago
  At least my comment is not completely content free. How is it different? First, the gp comment says the data center is not good for existing residents - obviously true for housing too, which you didn't refute. Then it assumes statewide ban should be based on personal preference of local residents. That is just a definition of nimbyism. While in reality I am a YIMBY and the end was part sarcasm, I would genuinely prefer living next to a data center, rather than next to non immigrant poor in the US. I grew up lower middle class or poor by US standards, and also live in Seattle, lots of experience. So I say along with data centers we have a statewide ban on anyone who is lifetime net consumer of tax money anywhere near my backyard.

DrewADesign 6mo ago

This thread is obviously being brigaded. Wiped out like 30 upvotes on one comment in no time. If you need to silence people talking about your company or favorite toy, maybe you should re-examine your life choices. Pathetic. Is there some polymarket nonsense going on here?

will4274 6mo ago

- Datacenters don't use tons of water compared to just about any other business. - It's not really fair to blame datacenters for using the municipality's electricity and then blame them again for being loud and generating electricity instead of using the municipality's electricity. Any given datacenter is only doing one of these. - Presumably, the municipality's tax dollars benefit the people who live in the municipality in the form of better services