> It is more cost efficient

Depends. Getting a grid connection, and all the equipment to connect and step down with negotiating prices is not always fun. Especially as there is a limited amount of power on the grid. its not a free lunch and takes time.

Its far easier to just slap shitty local generators on and live off the crappy noisy electricity they provide.

▲

RetroTechie 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's ironic when data center operators, who I'd expect to be experts on calculating complex cost/benefit scenarios, check for & arrange what's needed, sidestep better solutions because there's a bunch of requirements attached.

Reads to me as going for a quick & dirty fix.

	▲	toast0 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From what I've read, it's mostly about time. Attaching to the grid, at the powers desired, in the locations desired involves years of waiting beyond construction. Onsite genetation can be built within the overall construction timeline. Maybe poor site selection, but I'm sure there's a cost optimization there. And my understanding is that there's not a whole lot of excess grid capacity around the country at the moment. Utilities are spending a lot of resources on changing the mix of generation and wildfire mitigation and don't have a lot of resources for adding generation capacity beyond what is immediately needed or increasing interconnection capacity. This is different than the data center boom in the .com era; site selection was different, the grid situation was different, and the data centers being built were smaller loads.