| ▲ | fleventynine a day ago |
| I think there's room for win-win solutions here; the cost of placating the locals is a rounding error compared to the cost of these data centers. 1. Local governments can require that if the data center peak load is 1.0GW, they must provision transmission and generation capacity for the local region of 1.2GW; the extra power can be given to the neighbors at substantial discount. 2. Construct a public swimming complex nearby, heated with waste data center heat. 3. Local governments can enforce strict limits on environmental noise at the property boundary. I've personally stood right next to a 150MW-class datacenter and experienced sound levels less than traffic from a typical suburban 4-lane street; making the datacenter quieter than any other industrial use is a choice the builder can make if they have the right incentives. Setup directional microphones around the perimeter, and fine them $25,000 per minute per dB above the agreed threshold. Distribute the fines to the neighbors. Failure to pay promptly means the sheriff shuts down the power. All of these options are far cheaper than launching the data center into space... |
|
| ▲ | adriand a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| None of these mitigations (although they’re good ideas) address what I think is the real issue here, which is that people don’t like AI. And why would they, when the dish being served by AI CEOs is job loss with a side of extinction risk. I think many data centre opponents understand that being opposed to AI is not sufficient to halt a local project, so it is noise, water use and power consumption that they latch onto - although, in jurisdictions without plentiful water and clean power, those two reasons are quite valid. In my own local community, there’s vocal opposition to a proposed data centre that is next to Lake Ontario, 500 metres from the nearest residential neighbourhood, on a brownfield site with 500 megawatts of clean power capacity. None of that makes a difference to those opposed. |
| |
| ▲ | antonymoose a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In my area (South Carolina) - the opposition seems hyper fixated on “water use” with little or no conversation around electrical usage or even equitable utility rates. AI itself largely absent from the discourse. | | |
| ▲ | dmitriy_ko a day ago | parent [-] | | Data centers use miniscular amount of water. Data center water use is a fake issue. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I've long suspected that monied interests are seeding social media with weak arguments about water as a distraction, and people mindlessly re-share that as part of their identity. Then the other half can come along and "correct" them while the main issue of power is forgotten. Social media gets engagement, and capital gets its data centers. It's the same tired distraction pattern we've seen for a long time now in politics, and they keep rolling it out because it works. | | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What makes their actions mindless, exactly? Is the implication that what they've read is easily falsifiable by the average person? One of the fundamentals to society-scale problem solving is not to dismiss the masses as morons, as much as we often enjoy doing that. You must accept who society is composed of, or else you, by definition, can't fix their problems. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent [-] | | Social media fosters that kind of behavior. Plus, people usually don't look into issues before deciding which "side" to be on, and more importantly don't examine if the sides are a manufactured false dichotomy, as they often are. |
| |
| ▲ | gustavus a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suspect rather foreign actors seed some of the anti data center narrative in order to try and reduce American capability to compete in the space, just like the Soviets did with nuclear in the 60-80s. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent [-] | | If they wanted to do that, they'd pick stronger arguments for starters. But either way, social media updoots and shares aren't going to change anything with capital's plans, so it'd be weird for a foreign power to think that it would. | | |
| ▲ | robocat a day ago | parent | next [-] | | updoots == upvotes (slang from reddit) | |
| ▲ | gustavus a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | They don't need strong arguments they need emotionally resonent ones, "AI is using all your water" is a more primal, plus doesn't matter they just flood with a thousand different arguments. And updoots might not but plenty of people now are protesting and pushing against allowing data centers to be built near them so it is working. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent [-] | | Like everything else, it's only a matter of time before capital gets its way. Democracy is illusory in case you haven't noticed. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eddyg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a great data-backed resource to refute made-up claims about data centers: https://www.andymasley.com/visuals/ai-prompt-footprint/ | | |
| ▲ | archagon a day ago | parent [-] | | Nobody's gonna change their mind about AI wastefulness from an obviously AI-generated infographic. The author should have realized this with about 5 seconds of thought. The medium is the message. |
| |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Many communities are water limited. Many communities limit housing construction permits to available sewer hookups. Many communities are carrying expensive bonds that citizens are paying off to fund water expansion projects. I do not want one penny of infrastructure that I have paid for in order to grow/better my community going to subsidize infrastructure for datacenters. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Jordan-117 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe it's semantics, but I feel like local QoL concerns (mainly noise and electric bills, plus an overblown focus on water) are the primary driver for in-community resistance. Shoving AI into everything is annoying, and there's real ideological opposition amongst a lot of online tastemakers, but not enough to motivate John Q. Public to show up to county zoning meetings. If hyperscalers were tactful enough to limit impacts on their neighbors, I think opposition would be a much more niche issue. | |
| ▲ | galaxyLogic a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > with a side of extinction risk. My proposal would be to require data-centers to provide enough clean energy to power themselves for years to come. That would help humanity survive. Plus it would lower energy costs when there is more power-generaion available. Lowering your power-bill would make people love AI. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | That addresses the extinction risk caused by climate change, but not the extinction risk caused by an AI's turning out vastly more capable than expected, then the lab's losing control over it. |
| |
| ▲ | 0xy a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI is not leading to job losses. | | |
| ▲ | fleventynine a day ago | parent [-] | | It's pretty clear to me that coding agents are a significant cause of the current glut of comp-sci graduates unable to find their first job... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dozerly a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All of these options require “extra” money to be spent, which even if it logically makes sense, will not happen when it’s shown companies can buy local politicians and continue anyway |
|
| ▲ | sm-silversight a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Politics in the US reliably fail to arrive at reasonable conclusions like this. I don't know why. |
|
| ▲ | rileymat2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With low pitched data center noise does the decibel level tell the whole story? I thought it carried better and penetrated better than the db level would indicate. |
| |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | What about fan noise is low pitched? I generally agree that I would not like to live across the street from a datacenter. Having worked inside of dozens of them, I could not care less if I lived half a mile from one. Most people who live within such a distance currently do not have a clue. At that point I would not even worry about the noise from the backup generators. | | |
| ▲ | esseph a day ago | parent [-] | | It's the gas turbine generators at the massive DCs causing the big issue. There are dozens of them. Not your typical historical DC/colo or even 5yr ago hyperscaler DC. | | |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | These sorts of things done remotely close to residential areas are very rare in the grand scheme. And I agree these specific projects are a major problem. It’s just not representative of the bigger picture when there are a dozen horrible projects against say 1000 total. The hyperbole is what gets my mom terrified of moving to a city that might allow a datacenter to be built 8 miles away from the place she was looking at. | | |
| ▲ | danaris a day ago | parent [-] | | > These sorts of things done remotely close to residential areas are very rare in the grand scheme. I'm sure that will be a great consolation to the thousands of people who have to live near them. "Don't worry, your situation is very rare! That's why we don't have to do anything about it." |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wahern a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | mukbangpervert a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's inaccurate to claim that the opposition is "completely irrational". One _extremely_ rational and common reason that people oppose these projects is that they can bid-up the energy cost in their regions, meaning that one of the residents biggest monthly bills gets bigger. A second one goes around pollution and noise, particularly when the AI DataCenter is using "portable" gas turbines or similar. Solutions are hard, but possible... so long as the decision makers are able to recognize that much of the opposition is quite rational, and that the deals struck need to accommodate the legitimate and rational concerns, while avoiding getting hung up by true nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | ijk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The portable gas turbine is a somewhat separate issue, in that it's highly illegal but if you have more money than god you can just pay off the fines and the judges. It's relatively easy to avoid being that egregious about it if you're a little bit patient on construction permits and power contracts. NIMBY opposition to datacenter construction is orthogonal to that, except insofar as in both cases the construction will gravitate toward places that won't or can't object to the construction. | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In theory, rising energy prices would encourage more investment in capacity increases, that would then real a new equilibrium and so on. In theory of course, energy markets are so distorted now who knows. Having AI data centers bring their own power or power investments is probably going to be necessary. | |
| ▲ | consensus1 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Residential electricity rates don't get "bid up" like that. Increases typically must be approved by the government and have to be justified by expenses rather than market prices. Ashburn VA, which has more data centers than anywhere else, actually pays below US average rates. | | |
| ▲ | annzabelle a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Growing up near Ashburn makes every anti data center argument feel like crazy land. From my perspective when I lived there, they were somewhat ugly large boxes that paid county tax and raised land value. I never noticed any kind of noise from them, though they were largely on industrially zoned land right by the airport. Also gave us single digit ping. Electricity rates are below the national average. Now that I'm an adult I have several friends employed in the industry, mostly in cooling system automation. | | |
| ▲ | mukbangpervert a day ago | parent [-] | | A few things you might want to consider: 1) your example pays very substantial tax. (property taxes, plus, recently, tax on electricity use) 2) your example primarily used undesirable land. 3) your example grew slowly, allowing the power company to add capacity without a big challenge matching demand. 4) your example is in a heavily connected part of the grid, so it didn't need all of that added power generation to be local. All of these factors led to datacenters being viewed favorably by Loudon County for most of this century.... but many (and sometimes all) of those factors aren't there for other projects. For example, there are a lot of projects where the datacenter is not paying any property tax or sales/use tax at all. Heck, even in Loudon County, they're changing regulations to pump the brakes because the hyperscale datacenters are growing electric demand a bit too quickly for them to manage without adding a little friction. Your anecdote about "it was good in this one county, from 1995 through 2025" cannot be reasonably extended to believe that all of these projects have similar tradeoffs. (And I'm not even getting into the reality that "this datacenter will let me use AOL" will, of course, be viewed differently than "this datacenter will help my employer remove my job.") | | |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | The only reason Loudon county became datacenter alley is due to where the transatlantic cables landed. And Washington DC being next door. It’s basically the OG networking effect. You put equipment there because everyone else had equipment there. The rest just grew with it. It had nothing to do with power infrastructure. If anything, datacenters created the power infrastructure in the area. Agreed on the tax abatement stuff. Those should be outright illegal regardless of industry. | | |
| ▲ | mukbangpervert a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree that datacenters showed up because a ton of fibre was already there. I was talking about reasons that the general public of Loudon County has had a positive view toward datacenters -- not why datacenters chose the county (that's a different list entirely). Notably, that the datacenters showed up in a way that offered almost no material downsides to the locals... and that this differs markedly from what many towns face today. | |
| ▲ | annzabelle a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's actually because of DARPANET/ARPANET and other early computer research that was military or intelligence funded. It led to a concentration of networking in the region that led to MAE-East and it's all spiraled from there. The transatlantic cables were an aftereffect of everything else. I'm pretty sure they actually come ashore in Virginia Beach and New Jersey, both a solid 4 hour drive away. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This might be true in the US (which is obviously what the article is about) but it isn’t everywhere. Data centre impact is a concern here in New Zealand and we have a poor track record of handling the impact of large users of electricity. Case in point - the aluminium smelter that has manipulated the entire country power prices (and various other things) via threats. | |
| ▲ | tzs a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which market do you mean when talking about "market prices"? I'm pretty sure the utility where I am has been able to get rate increases approved partly based on rising prices they have to pay to buy power on the wholesale market when they do not have enough capacity of their own to cover all their customers. |
|
| |
| ▲ | annzabelle a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I grew up right by Ashburn, Virginia, which has the largest concentration of hyperscale data centers in the world. I rarely heard of organized opposition to them until they became a politically charged issue and associated with white collar layoffs. I never once noticed significant noise from any of them - they are nearly all on the opposite side of a wide road from the nearest housing, and the road is louder than the data center. There is enough electric supply in the region that they almost never run the gas turbine generators. As a way of growing the industrial tax base of an area, they are one of the least dirty ways to use industrially zoned land, though they don't produce as many long term jobs. There is a big data center construction and design industry in that region, and it did pull Amazon to open HQ2 nearby, but those are both first mover effects. | | |
| ▲ | galaxyLogic a day ago | parent [-] | | Data-centers should be required to provide their own clean energy plus some extra for the community. That would also create clean-energy jobs. | | |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | Why? If you want this policy make it for the entire grid, not some random consumer. Electricity should function as a common carrier like any other utility. If you want to pay for the watts you get the watts regardless of who you happen to be. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dozerly a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Spoken like someone that will not have a data center built near them at their expense in the near future | | |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | Literally have lived within 1500 feet of a datacenter. Zero of my my non techie friends ever knew. It’s a non-issue. It’s like complaining about a vacant but well maintained warehouse next door. If you mean living next door to a power plant? Absolutely. But that is a different topic. | | |
| ▲ | dozerly a day ago | parent [-] | | Well, because of lack of infrastructure a lot of these data centers are power plants as well, and will continue to be without larger scale buildout of energy infrastructure. It’s not a non-issue right now. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The noise issue is not irrational. But, they should establish objective criteria for noise (at various distances, frequencies and frequency variation) Issues around the cost of infrastructure upgrades being spread over all rate payers are not universal, and can be corrected. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent [-] | | > The noise issue is not irrational. It’s quite the thing to say it’s irrational whilst acknowledging you are insensitive to sounds. |
| |
| ▲ | robocat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > minority of people ultra sensitive to noise misophonia can be severely disabling. Good overview: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/misophonia-beyond-sensory-s... I've personally had a friend with misophonia (about subsonics) commit suicide (making it difficult to find out from them what was cause or correlation). | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's probably worth taking a step away and looking at your position when you find yourself starting with the political argument tropes (sounds like, "my opponents are simply crazy and stupid"). | |
| ▲ | austin-cheney a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I oppose the data centers because they drive up utility costs and contribute to the instability of the local electrical grid. I get pain from them and no benefits. I really don’t want most of the unprofitable AI foolishness that is being forced on us. | | |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | What instability has been attributed towards datacenter - or even any - large 24x7 predictable load industrial consumers of electricity in your area? The exact opposite is typically true, so this is surprising to me! | | |
| ▲ | austin-cheney a day ago | parent [-] | | Grid instability, which includes an increasing frequency of brown outs. It’s the primary reason residential owners are heavily investing in solar panels. If you don’t know where I live how can you know if my claim is true or not? | | |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent [-] | | Because I have been monitoring this as a weird interest of mine now for 20 years or more. To the point of absurdity. I would be very surprised to hear of a location in the US that is experiencing grid instability due to recent increases in industrial scale electric usage. I 100% refute your claim that grid instability is the primary reason folks in the US are installing solar. You will be still seen as a crazy prepper type if you call a company and tell them you don’t care about the financials penciling out, and only want it for potential blackouts. Assuming you are not in California of course - which I assume not since none of those instability problems have to do with industry so it’s not relevant to this discussion. Generally speaking - if you want to live in a place with a stable grid, you will seek out a spot that has heavy industry in the region. These energy consumers stabilize the grid for residential folks. Especially datacenters since those tend to come with emergency backup and are the first to fall off the grid on a voluntary basis during peak usage events. I’m sure somewhere in the US exists where this is true since basically everything is true at a micro scale. I just do not see it as a wide scale issue. | | |
| ▲ | austin-cheney a day ago | parent [-] | | I cannot speak for why everyone in the US buys solar. I can only speak for my local community. If you want to find locations of grid instability focus on growth, both residential and industrial, that is radically out of scale compared to larger geographic averages. Otherwise, it seems like you are measuring using the wrong trends. What’s crazy is that the grid instability was there before the explosion of data centers and the primary revenue generator of the much larger geographic region is energy transport/production. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | GlacierFox a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | kylehotchkiss a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The engineer style snap to solution with no interest in the actual reasons many Americans are opposed to AI is one of the reasons Americans are opposed to AI |