The power supply concern is real, but it's also "just" a regulatory issue. The UK has some expectations of paying for impact on the upstream power network, but

The power supply concern is real, but it's also "just" a regulatory issue. The UK has some expectations of paying for impact on the upstream power network, but the requirements are not nearly sufficient to deal with a massive increased demand. Fixing regulations for that to require demonstrating commercial arrangements to fund additional supply to mitigate cost would address that, however, and that'd be a broader social good: Start out with the assumption that anything energy intensive must cover its externalities. Then you can selectively drop those requirements for things you consider sufficiently beneficial to justify socialising the cost. More general-purpose regulations would be better, but local authorities can already to a large extend address this as part of the process of granting (or not) planning permission. Regarding the water issue, it is real in places where it is insufficiently regulated - it's cheaper to dump the water many places. But it absolutely can be closed loop, and you can get district heating out of it. You just need to make the demands. > Let's not forget that some of this is a proxy issue for the downstream impacts of AI, spam, job destruction, community disruption, etc. Absolutely. But I also think that peoples real concerns will get harmed from going after data centres with arguments that are easy to dismiss instead of directing the criticism against the real issues.