> and it increases electricity costs for the region

This doesn't need to be true. It would be both possible and reasonable to mandate subsidy by the datacenter as part of any deal so that costs don't go up for anyone else.

▲

tombert 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. If we charged twice as much money per kilowatt-hour for datacenter electricity compared to residential, it feels like the net revenue for electricity could be roughly the same to the power company, but then it wouldn't be nearly as annoying for the residents of the town having their prices spike way up.

Or, you know, the AI companies could actually supply their own power like I keep hearing tech bros mention is coming soon.

▲

fhdkweig 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Possible and reasonable don't guarantee anything with big businesses. Around 2008, Atlanta had a major drought, and as the local government asked the citizens to conserve water, Coca Cola was bottling up the local water and sending it out on trucks. When the citizens complained, the government said it would cost too many jobs to stop the bottling.

▲

BugsJustFindMe 2 days ago | parent [-]

You are engaging with a straw man that is literally the opposite of what I said. I said it would be possible and reasonable to mandate it, not intentionally look the other way, and not cross fingers and hope for beneficence.

▲

fhdkweig 2 days ago | parent [-]

It is the government that mandates things. Even in this article, it was the local council that sold them out.

▲

BugsJustFindMe 2 days ago | parent [-]

> it was the local council that sold them out

You're still not engaging with what I said. Please see that "this government chose not to mandate" has zero relevance to whether a government mandate would be possible or reasonable.

I said "[datacenters] don't need to [increase electricity costs for others]. It would be possible to mandate...".

I said that because the person I was responding to said "a datacenter increases electricity costs for the region".

It CAN increase electricity costs for the region. It does not NEED to increase electricity costs for the region. And PREVENTION of increasing electricity costs for the region CAN be done by government mandate instead of hoping for profiteers to do less profiteering.

What this particular city council did with this datacenter is neither an inherent property of datacenters nor of city councils.

▲

fhdkweig 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Please see that "there was no government mandate" is not the same as "a government mandate isn't possible".

I agree with this, a government mandate is absolutely possible. But I am also saying that they will never choose to do it.

	▲	tombert 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wonder if the best way, and something that might be more likely to pass, is something like "progressive pricing". Like the first N kilowatt hours are the regular price, and would cover the average case for most people (I don't know what the average amount of electricity used by a person is but the power companies absolutely know). Then the next M kilowatt hours are an increased price, and keep going as energy spikes up. I think this could work just because this is how income tax works. Somehow that managed to get passed by congress and state legislatures.
	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> I am also saying that they will never choose to do it If this article were posted when this campaign was just starting, this would be a top HN comment. Unfortunately, lazy nihilism runs deep in tech circles.
	▲	BugsJustFindMe 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well, maybe the next one will given that the one that didn't was just fired for it and now there's a lawsuit against the city and the developer.

▲

cucumber3732842 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You: "we should make this entity who's supposedly got the people's interest in mind extract concessions"

Them: "That entity seems to backstab the people every chance it gets"

You: "You're missing my point, the government could do it"

Perhaps you're missing the point. It's not that they can't. It's that they won't or they'll screw it up and defeat the point.

	▲	fhdkweig 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Thank you. At least someone understands what I was trying to day. You put that much better than I did.
	▲	BugsJustFindMe 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It seems like both of you have thoroughly missed the context of my subthread. If your goal is to point out that people make choices, well, you're in the wrong thread branch and want to instead reply to a different part of the same message that I replied to. Because I never said or implied that they don't. Quite the opposite in fact. Here is the context of my subthread, extracted, in two parts: Part 1, the framing. > "I don't know if [elected officials think a wrong thing about datacenters] or if it's kickbacks." You see, the kickbacks option is already there. We all already understand that it could be kickbacks. Therefore bringing it up further would just be silly. I certainly have no reason to say that kickbacks aren't a possibility. The only part we need to address is OP believing that [thing is wrong]. Part 2, the [thing]. > "I'm pro-progress, but a datacenter brings approximately nothing to the local economy. It doesn't employ any noteworthy number of people, it doesn't generate any real tax revenue, and it increases electricity costs for the region." That distills to: > "a datacenter brings approximately nothing to the local economy" That statement means either: A (haven't): datacenters have in the past only ever brought nothing (and therefore they will in the future only ever bring nothing) or B (can't): datacenters cannot bring anything other than nothing (and therefore they will in the future only ever bring nothing) And they're both wrong. A is wrong because past behavior does not imply future behavior. And B is wrong because in fact they can.