Comment by ETH_start
18 hours ago
Most of the concerns are massively overblown. For instance, new regulations require data centers to bring their own power, so they're not drawing on the grid. They are deployed off-grid. With respect to water, the new trend is closed-loop water cooling, or using treated waste water, so that it doesn't have any continual draw on the local water supply. And even the legacy data center water cooling systems that draws on local water supply consumes less than 3% of what U.S. gulf courses consume. Every industry uses water. This idea that this industry is especially bad as a consequence of that is simply ignorant.
>If they just pay the full actual costs of what they are doing, most people would be fine with it.
I'm skeptical that this would have any impact at all. Considering how much less data centers pollute than other industries, relative to the economic value they generate, and the disproportionate amount of hostility they receive, I don't see any kind of empirical basis for the anti-data center movement. Most of those complaining about data centers don't even know about the new 'Bring Your Own Power Supply' regulations, meaning that this is just a pretense for their opposition, not the motivation for it.
>>For instance, new regulations require data centers to bring their own power, so they're not drawing on the grid. They are deployed off-grid.
I see no national regulation of actual usage (the proposed Hawley-Warren act would require only reporting. And even if some national legislation/regulation did materialize, off-grid power generation is a trend because of insufficient grid supply and throughput, and regulating grid usage does NOT solve the problems of off-grid power gen, which right now typically involves massive diesel or NatGas generators which are the actual source of massive noise and air pollution.
>>With respect to water, the new trend is closed-loop water cooling, or using treated waste water
Yes closed-loop water cooling is obviously better and it is good to see that trend. That does NOT solve the problem of massive water usage required for 5+ years of construction, e.g., in this town [0]
>>relative to the economic value they generate Right now, that economic value is massively negative [1], possibly the greatest bonfire of money in human history. It MAY generate positive return, but just as with mini-/personal computers and the internet, end up being just the table stakes to run a business.
>>see any kind of empirical basis for the anti-data center movement Start with the entirely plausible likely results of damaging society as social media has done — the exact mechanisms couldn't be predicted at the time, but certainly resulted in harm. AI is even more massively unpredictable, and in an already unstable society, there is little reason to not worry. I say that as a frequent and avid AI user who does find value in it. I absolutely cannot say fears are unfounded.
>>don't even know about the new 'Bring Your Own Power Supply' regulations Those regulations are 1) at best, nascent, 2) are definitely incomplete, and 3) do not address the problems of bringing your own power, which is exactly what has trashed neighborhoods around data centers bringing their own power [2]; i.e., BYOP is part of the problem against which people are protesting. That is totally legitimate protest reasons; go read about it instead of pontificating from ignorance and false hypotheticals.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/data-center-used...
[1] https://isaiprofitable.com/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk...
Most of these critisms would apply to ANY major industrial build out.
You can't bemoan America becoming an import nation that doesn't produce valuable goods/services that the world wants, and then sabotage every industrial build out that can fix that problem.
As for value, I was only talking about the product — in the GDP sense — that a data center outputs.
While bubble industries can lead to companies running loss leaders, the realities of the AI industry show enormous underlying supply side and demand side development.
The cost per token has declined at an exponential rate while LLM performance has skyrocketed. AI is also the fastest adopted good or service in human history. That is the most objective judge of whether it adds value to people's lives.
As for the risks, yes any new industry introduces new risks and so the temptation is to clamp down. But taking fewer visible risks can increase your total risk. We are already under constant threat from deterioration: aging, depreciation and decay. Entropy is the default. Action is what pushes back against it.
>>sabotage every industrial build out
Very few people are actually sabotaging industrial buildout (there are a few who want to end that, but most do not); they are only insisting that what CAN be done to mitigate the ill effects IS done.
And this happens even in totalitarian China when pollution gets bad.
It isn't that hard, and it doesn't even cost that much overall, but it doesn't make the MBA bean-counters happy because it doesn't optimize for their criteria - dumping every cost possible on someone else.
* Pay for upgrades needed for the roads on which you quadruple the tonnage/day * Pay for the upgrades to the grid you need to triple the power delivery to your site * If you are going to do on-site generation, use the technology to contain or scrub your pollution and silence the noise * Don't build on endangered species' habitats
Most of all, be public, don't try to make deals with officials behind people's backs. If you actually have a societal benefit to sell that outweighs the risks and burdens, sell it, and get people behind you.
But making deals and building in secret makes it obvious that YOU have no confidence in your ability to convince anyone of the benefits to anyone but you. No wonder people push back.
>>only talking about the product — in the GDP sense — that a data center output
Although I get value for my $20 Claude subscription, I'm really getting only value that VCs are putting money in my pocket. Until token costs decline far further and actual profit is produced, here's the real situation:
Two economists are walking in a forest and they come across a pile of shit.
The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."
"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"