I think this is because the demand is so extreme for datacenters now that companies are building them in a manner that disrupts the environment around them.
The newer ones are using on-site generators that are insanely loud and require multiples more power than datacenters have historically needed. For a rack with traditional servers with just RAM/CPU/Drives, 5kW is sufficient in most cases.
When you have racks that are full of 4U GPU systems that pull 3-6kW each, the power requirements per rack shoot up to 60kW+(with whole rack setups blowing past 100kW). So an AI datacenter requires over 20x the power compared to what they needed in the past. This either strains the power grid near the DC or they need to create on-site power to fulfill demand, which has noise and other concerns.
I work near a datacenter and you can't hear significant noise from the outside, maybe a slight humming sound but quieter than traffic. This is a DC that has been around for over a decade and uses power from the grid since most of the loads are non-GPU based.
In Nashville they messed up by trying to build one next to the zoo, a beloved and popular attraction (higher attendance than our NFL franchise). The public outcry was swift and effective, new zoning rules were passed last night. https://nashvillebanner.com/2026/07/21/nashville-data-center...
From reading the article, it sounds like one of the three items passed was an extension of a moratorium on data center building specifically for the area around the zoo. Another item involves eminent domain for the city to buy the land next to the zoo for use as city office space instead. So it pretty directly impacts the zoo's situation.
Site selection also isn't very thoughtful. A lot of pre-AI datacenters were placed a good distance away from places where people live, but time to operation seems to be the overwhelming priority now which is pushing them to build right in the middle of or next to developed areas.
That's what they should do. Datacenters don't need to be in anyone's backyard. The US has vast amounts of unused land as well as urban brownfields that are sitting empty. Put them there.
Speculation isn't a dirty word and both can be true.
Demand is very high today and exceeds capacity. Builders think demand will continue to grow. This seems plainly correct. Firms may differ in how high demand will go, but it is still more than today.
You are trying to pick a fight with a post that isn't making the point you assume it is. All that guy is saying is that there is a rush to build them, which is objectively true.
Whether or not the datacenters return on the investment is a different question.
There's a demand for data centers, but maybe not a demand for actual usages of the data centers. That's the distinction I think they were trying to make by pointing to existing data centers not even being used to full capacity in-house (and being rented out instead).
Yes, the AI Datacenters are much worse for the environment. xAI is using methane-turbines to power theirs, and they are allowed to pollute your communities because they bribed the Trump admin.
I have some degree of sympathy for data centers, and anyone else that needs power, only because of how broken our regulatory state is on approving new transmission.
To be clear, it's not just data centers that have this problem. Journalists have been spilling digital ink on this topic as it relates to solar and wind farms as well. It's also part of the thing that'd hold back rapid deployment of nuclear.
If there's a strong enough economic incentive then yeah people are going to try to optimize around broken government.
Lol. A data center is no more than a industrial bread bakery (oddly specific i know). The entire anti-data US center is ran by China. EG. You can run a rack of servers in your closet. China is doing a great job.
I can attest for the smells better. Now, I'm left wondering which smells worse, an AI datacenter or a large beer brewery. As a kid, we had a Mrs. Baird's bread bakery which was in the heart of town that students would take field trips to see (which is no longer there and is now apartments). On the other side of town is a Budweiser plant, and it's infamous for being so odorific but it is located way the hell out there.
What bakery are you thinking of that pulls the equivalent of a mid sized nuclear power plant? Because you’re off by an order of magnitude I think. (2.2MW maybe)
Lol the entire pro-data US center is ran by elon musk and the other cronies that bribed the Trump admin to let them violate the clean air act. They use gullible losers that will swallow their propaganda whole and promise them "AGI."
I agree that I don’t want a data center in my backyard either.
What’s missing from this strange conversation is discussion about how many data center proposals are near residential areas.
I tried to look for one in my state and a few surrounding areas and couldn’t find any. There was an amusing story about how data center protestors had to organize expensive bus trips to get the protesters out to the data center site because it was so remote.
There was another story about a small town without any major electricity or communication infrastructure coming together to impose a moratorium on data center construction. There were no plans to build data centers in their small town and no reason to consider it at all, but they felt so threatened that they needed to convene and put on a big show about banning it.
The social phenomenon of the data center construction protest movement is really fascinating. My assumption is that it will run its course and then be mostly dropped when the next current thing comes along.
There are some actual concerns about using natural gas instead of trying to utilize the optimal power sources or locations, but they’re mostly overshadowed by bogeyman complaints like thinking that a data center is going to end up in your backyard or water consumption that is negligible compared to golf courses and swimming pools.
> There were no plans to build data centers in their small town and no reason to consider it at all
You have to be fair on this though. The time to ban something is before they start talking about doing it, not after. Being ahead of the game is never a bad thing, especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure. They just can't afford long legal battles.
I'd like to add some extra strong emphasis/support to your post:
>Being ahead of the game is never a bad thing, especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure. They just can't afford long legal battles.
It's not merely "never a bad thing", for certain tools like zoning it is, at least in the jurisdictions I know of, required to be well ahead and consistently enforced. It's not something towns are allowed to do retroactively, if you have no proper legal town plan/zoning setup in place as well as various ordinances like noise then by default the only controls are the relatively weak state ones. There are many things a government is allowed to do if it's part of an overall plan that applies to all equally, but not if it's "we just don't like those guys specifically", and the best way to demonstrate that is to be making no special moves around a given arrival at all but rather to have it all setup.
Of course, there are as you suggest lots of other good reasons to be ahead too. It's a lot easier to consider things thoroughly and get community agreement when there isn't massive time pressure or lobbying going on and emotions aren't running high. It's easier to get some expert consultation at reasonable prices (in some cases there may even be community members with the skills and willingness to volunteer if it's not a time crush), to enact longer term infrastructure plans, to get any state approval if needed, etc etc. But there are legally serious hard lines as well and if towns are caught napping they may just not be able to use them at all.
The interesting thing about the anecdote wasn't the timing. It was that there was no reason to build a data center there but they felt compelled to make it their top priority.
> especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure.
Small, remote towns without electricity or data connections are not easily exploited for data centers.
I might believe that if the protests weren't being organized on Facebook and then posted to YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.
It's more like garbage dumps. People don't want to moderate their production of garbage, they just don't want any consequences of it to be too close to their house.
"I see you're complaining about society and yet you participate in society! Very interesting! I am very smart."
This is not a good or reasoned take. People organize where the other people are because that's how you get the most people. It is nor hypocrisy to use Facebook as a platform to organize protests against other tech companies. Just as it is not hypocrisy to criticize the society you live within.
This is a very stupid observation made by people who can't be bothered to consider the realities of life away from their keyboard.
Yea, there's probably not one single issue that people are fed up with, but datacenters have become lightning rods that represent big tech's disproportionate power over us, job-displacing AI, and are a visible example of how municipalities that we elect--serve and prioritize companies from out of town over their voters.
It's easy for politicians to support a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody will really oppose it, and it's a safe way to appear to be "fighting for the community."
And on the flip side, I live in Fairfax County, VA and there are data centers EVERYWHERE. Especially if I cross into Ashburn (home of AOL and stuff) - literally mixed in with large townhome developments.
And the current plan - building a data center in Canaan Valley - is a whopper... 785 MW natural gas power plant on site with diesel generator backups (solely for the data center, not sold back to grid), 500+ acres of land, 2 million sqft initial building space, air quality impact assessment by the state is heavily redacted, $4 billion price tag.
All right next to one of DC's most popular outdoor/skiing recreation areas. The DC would loom over the two towns that support the entire region.
This is such an obvious concern that it's hard to understand how the GP didn't think of it as well. Clearly, people don't always consider all the things and get focused in on so they can't see the forest for the trees.
If you look at Elk Grove Village, Illinois as their budget there after declaring they would become the AI Datacenter Capital of the World -- there is an obvious answer:
Suburbs cannot continue to pay for their infrastructure without drastically increasing taxes or finding new sources of income.
> There was an amusing story about how data center protestors had to organize expensive bus trips to get the protesters out to the data center site because it was so remote.
hating datacenters is one of the few bipartisan issues facing the country so buckle up buttercup.
you're horrifically misinformed and several datacenter projects near residential homes have already been prevented. Do a bit more research before rearing your incorrect brain into these issues please.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""
I hear and understand those, but why isn't it a regulation or requirements issue?
Ambient noise must be contained, excess heat must be mitigated, free hot water must be provided to nearby buildings. etc. Also this is a city's opportunity to do something like assess penalty tax points. (ie, datacenter usage tax, just like we do to hotels)
> but why isn't it a regulation or requirements issue?
It's America. They don't do regulations there.
The more serious answer is that this political movement is leading to more strict regulation being enacted, it just wasn't in place because of reason #1 and the problems being much less severe.
Additionally, the tech industry is notoriously hostile to any kind of regulation. Especially now with AI. Just look at how many people in this thread will insist that it's "Chinese Propaganda", despite clear evidence that this is just a response to the actual problems datacenters cause. One news crew interviewing people with jet turbine noise will do more than a million of Beijing's finest trolls.
> I hear and understand those, but why isn't it a regulation or requirements issue?
It's a waste of time and money for each town and county to come up with those requirements. If your community puts any limits on the datacenter builder they'll just build it somewhere else, so you might as well save the effort and just say they can't do it.
the US is a republic of states. By design it wastes time and money to allow disagreement, variety, and self-determination of states.
> they'll just build it somewhere else
Why should we have rights to say they cannot do it somewhere else? It's not a moral issue, it's a tragedy of commons issue or unpriced externality issue.
isn't that their freedom to? And the right/freedom of those who democratically created the low regulation environment?
I do not understand this idea that someone from one place should have their preferences taking precedence the preferences, rights and freedoms of folks who actually live in another place.
The main caveat being the boundary lines, but i think that's very much an edge case.
Why is that a problem? It might raise the temp within a few hundred feet of the chillers by 0.5-1F which is substantially less than an urban heat island temp delta vs surrounding rural land.
A sane municipality will require sound mitigation on generators, chillers, and other loud equipment. Sure, there are shitty places that don’t take care of their citizens that will let you run natural gas turbines to generate power, but it’s possible to contain the bad effects of data centers with local and state regulations.
I’ll take a data center that evaporates water to replace the iron casting foundry in my neighborhood any day.
There's also a lot of people lashing out without knowing anything about data centers because they think AI is loser shit, and data centers have become a rallying point.
Your edit really illustrates what's wrong with all of this. We can't even get computers to reasonably assume what we're trying to say. But somehow the ultra rich have decided to devote all global resources to doing bad autocorrect for everything everywhere and calling it AI.
No one ever cared about DCs before now. I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.
Ironically, There’s enough issues with the DC buildout going on that even with 100% public opinion support it would still be significantly delayed. The behind the meter power generation isn’t going well. There’s only so many gas fired turbines on the market. And connecting a DC to an established grid isn’t like clicking a button in AWS no matter how much money you have.
> I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.
This comes cross as unbelievable, and at worst a fantastical statement, as someone who lives in Northern Virginia and is effectively watching the Datacenter battle unfold from the front lines, and dealing with the local politics and electricity costs rising at a precipitous rate.
Our electricity bill has doubled. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors want to erect “Statue of Liberty” sized power transmission lines, and those that want data centers are doing their damndest to somehow claim that they’re not responsible for the rise in the cost of utilities and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.
Part of the reason people care about Datacenters now is that they’re starting to litter the landscape, take resources from local municipalities, and raise costs for everyone involved, whereas previously there were not enough of them to really move the needle as being a problem.
Folks care because their bottom line is impacted in a time when it’s already hard to make ends meet every month due to rising costs of food, gas, and utilities, not because of some unnamed boogeyman in the form of a “nation state competitor”.
They're building a mass of DC's near me as well in northern IL (not quite as many as by you). I see a lot of weird stuff on social media - people inactive for years all of a sudden becoming super-activists and posting non-stop anti-DC content. Nearly identical content to what's being pushed by a bunch of faceless accounts named like "Water4All","Nature Reign" - something vaguely environmental sounding.
Talking points like:
"We should call data centers what they actually are: surveillance centers designed to put us all in a digital prison by 2030"
It's fishy. People aren't quite showing up and saying the same things at city council meetings, but the local city anti-DC group is full of people reposting this stuff. One clickbait article in particular, "there's no such thing as a closed loop system".
There's real concerns with the data centers. But, the opposition to them doesn't feel entirely organic (imo).
Yeah, but the thing is - those guys aren't using the majority of data center capacity out there.
The Anti-DC crowd doesn't appreciate that the surveillance state is coming with our without all these DC's being built. That is going to get hosted some where, some way. The fix is regulatory and political.
> Folks care because their bottom line is impacted in a time when it’s already hard to make ends meet every month due to rising costs of food, gas, and utilities, not because of some unnamed boogeyman in the form of a “nation state competitor”
While agreeing with where you're coming from, including this, it is also worth nothing that there is truth to what you're rejecting as well. Our longstanding unsolved domestic problems are fertile ground for nation state competitors to foment discontent, gain oppositional mindshare, and ultimately harm our overall position. The elites seem to think these problems can just be ignored or swept under the rug, when in reality the frustration grows until it boils over into highly destructive self-owns. We're already seeing this actively play out on a grand scale with general politics, but it can certainly happen in more specific ways that target things like data centers.
To be industrially competitive we need to fix our longstanding domestic problems that fall on individuals, rather than merely ignoring them. In the case of data centers - lack of effective environmental regulations around air and sound pollution, complete inability for municipalities to regulate the operations of something after it's been built, and a shortage of infrastructure that's now been privatized for use by the highest bidder.
Plus that general affordability crisis you touched upon, of course. Nobody likes the feeling that an appendage of a trillion dollar company can come to their city, wave around the promise of everything-bubble money, and make it so their own individual voice is meaningless.
Exactly. Russia has been doing it for decades and it would be foolish to assume China didn't learn from them. Thomas Rid's "Active Measures" covers this in detail, and it's somewhat maddening to read, because it details how much of the civil strife we've experienced that was exacerbated by their actions.
Blaming Russia (and China) in most cases is a cheap cop out to try to deflect, hide and minimize the actual grievances of people living in USA.
Yes, there's propaganda and most of it doesn't reach the Americans. It's downright insulting to claim their hurts are something that countries on the other side of the world invented.
This isn't true. People were starting to mobilize against crypto datacenters in the late 2010s and early 2020s^[1][2], long before the current AI-fueled building frenzy.
> I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.
It's fairly well documented that this is happening to some degree, but as above, foreign agents didn't conjure the anti-datacenter movement out of nothing. It's a fact that if the average crypto or AI datacenter moves in next door to you, there's a good chance it's going to crash your quality of life and the value of your property, and all in service of making a few fantastically rich guys even richer. Also, they are the same guys building a machine that they claim is going to destroy your livelihood. You don't need foreign agents to engineer a backlash here.
Not saying these are correct and are proof, but this isn't some fringe concern from the MAGA crowd or something. It would also be a logical response on China's part to the US working to block them from getting GPUs, processor tech, etc.
It’s more than one thing. Yes there’s definitely some populism and maybe some astroturfing from outside groups - but actual electricity costs are going up and the average consumer can’t really get anymore efficient, so they’re indirectly subsidizing this stuff. Computers and related hardware have gone up in price. And then you’ve got all of the “AI layoffs” that also result in real-world pain.
But that would simply result in Most Americans don't want AI Data Centers, which isn't the same as NYMBYism. I think many Americans see the benefits of having access to unicorn farts and may even support having more data centers. Just not in my backyard, thank you.
(Ftr. the article doesn't have an opinion on whether Americans like AI, just my take.)
DCs have a tendency to destabilize the local grid and drive up grid rates and have ridiculous water consumption requirements, both largely externalized to the surrounding community, so it's more a matter of basic self-defense than any notional populist agenda.
Society hasn't felt the very real effects of data centers until recently. Power supply being short meant that residential customers have had to pick up the tab for heavy industrial users. We've started to learn just how bad all those dams we built are for the environment and many of them are tied to data center money. Elon Musk waltzed into Memphis and stood up a natural gas data center that has basically poisoned the surrounding area.
Maybe nation state actors are helping, that can always be true. It is also true that the American people are starting to realize they've been had many times over and are just starting to ask for a better deal. I think we should listen.
The data center construction boom has precipitated a lot of inflation in electronics and related fields, because the data centers are buying out all of the silicon manufacturing and RAM manufacturing and etc, and all of this stuff is horribly supply-limited. And the people pushing for data center construction are proudly telling us that we need to support this so that we can put half of the population out of work, oh, and we just need a small trillion-dollar subsidy or five to pay for it all (because demand for AI isn't high enough to pay for all of it themselves).
There's no need to invent some malign foreign conspirator to generate unpopularity for this stuff. No, the AI companies are led by unpopular CEOs, who are making unpopular statements (almost cartoonishly so). And opposing a data center is the kind of action that regular people, upset about this sort of stuff, feel that they can actually meaningfully effect. So of course it was going to balloon like it has.
Wow it's almost like modern datacenters use way more power due to GPU consumption. Emit way more pollution. Use way more land. Make way more noise. Produce slop instead of functioning products. Do yall use your brain before chiming in and misinforming everyone?
They probably would be awful to have a house next to, but which if the hyperscale data center proposals are near residential areas?
The really large data centers have to go into areas with a lot of land and utility connections. These are usually zoned commercial or industrial already.
I heard about one in northern virginia which seems to be the front lines in this debate. It has onsite power generation which seems to be going 24/7 which is positively awful if you have to live next to that.
The whole world is California, and the most important thing we can do is pack more and more people into the same space. People from here, people from there. We want more crowdedness, and everyhing that comes with it: crime, noise, pollution, lack of social cohesion. Everything. Every place must be like this, and everything must grow forever.
Negatives acknowledged, there are huge efficiency upsides to dense human living. Everything becomes smoother, faster, less wasteful. You get a society that leverages economies of scale for everything.
In some areas, density is appropriate, and in some areas it's not. I wish we could talk about housing density and "build more housing" as if there was not one universal solution that worked everywhere and for everyone. Dense urban living is not appropriate in a rural or suburban town. Single family homes are not appropriate in a high-demand urban area. Different people want different things, too. No matter how efficient and good for the environment it is, I don't want to live in a concrete honeycomb in the middle of a loud city.
> I don't want to live in a concrete honeycomb in the middle of a loud city.
Yes, this is the crux. Loud, smelly, concrete cities suck. And you’re right that density alone would lead to this.
What we’d ideally want is cities that can be dense without being loud, smelly, and dangerous. These cities exist: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Zurich, Utrecht, Freiburg, etc.
We can’t do this in the US because we can’t remove the source of the noise/danger/stink/concrete problem: cars.
And that’s the catch 22: In the US everyone gets around by car, so density becomes undesirable. We can’t densify because density + cars is bad, and we can’t reduce cars because it’s not dense enough for public transit to get better.
Individuals get stuck in a prisoner’s dilemma where driving is safer, more comfortable, and faster than transit. So every individual with the means to drive chooses to drive. Public transit becomes branded as something for poor people. The concrete honeycomb fills up. The downtown becomes a noisy disaster. People can no longer imagine that good cities are possible.
The only difference between a rural or suburban town and the sprawl of a city is time, really. Lots of modern urban areas used to be suburban or essentially rural.
Anyway if you densify cities you can slow down the sprawl and maybe keep suburbs actually smaller? a few more ten story apartment blocks downtown might house the people who have to live in your area and commute.
This is a theoretical ideal, where we ignore people's desire to own large tracts of land and live in quiet places. A mega-city where all the humans human, and then massive tracts of untouched wilderness shy of any industry that has to be there.
This is also why communist countries had stuff like dense housing in deeply rural areas, and why most people were shuffled into cities. Big houses and properties do nothing for the state and just encumber society. Way easier if everyone just lives in their tightly packed central shoe box.
We could also fit more people in if you crushed everyone, dehydrated them and stored they remains in huge compressed cubes. Efficiency is not all we want
America is so massive, these trillion dollar companies can surely build these out in the boonies with very few people around?
ETA: I would rather no data centers be built, but my point is if we have to, let’s minimize the number of people who are affected. Offer to move them if need be.
And ruin the boonies too? American norms and laws are not conducive to making nice places to live, but they've skated by having enough land and car-first infrastructure. With the huge increase in warehouses and data centers in residential areas over the past 5-10 years, I wonder if there will be an inflection point where it finally needs to be dealt with.
They need to hire IT, maintainence, and security to run the datacenters, and there aren't many qualified people in the boonies. Small towns are better targets, and honestly also just objectively less damaging to the environment.
None of this NIMBYism is about the datacenter itself, it's all a protest against AI making the economy really shitty for them.
You need on the order of 15 permanent onsite employees to run a datacenter; 5 each for 24/7 coverage of security, building maintenance, and tech. You probably don't really need 24/7 onsite for building maintenance or tech. Traveling employees or (probably traveling) contractors can handle projects that exceed the local scope.
Should be able to locally source security and building maintenance, if the pay is good. These are skills that are needed everywhere. The onsite tech can likely be sourced locally too: first and foremost, they're remote hands ... knowledgeable remote hands are nicer, but the mandatory skills are: read and follow directions, notice and report unusual circumstances, lift and manipulate heavy objects. It's not rocket surgery.
If you put your datacenter in the near boonies, say 30 minutes away from the nearest suburb, you can usually still find the big lots you need, and people can commute from there: a 30 minute commute with no traffic isn't too awful. Of course, you'll have neighbors on large lots who didn't think through that living out on the boonies with no zoning meant noisy neighbors could move in. :P
I don't consider 30 minutes away from town the "boonies", that's more like a normal commute. The boonies would be like a 3 hour drive in the Sonora desert.
While most people wouldn't hesitate to travel 30 minutes out of town, the generally don't ever think to see if jobs exist 30 minutes out of town, and thus won't find the work there. When looking for work they search within the city they live in, not the next town over with a name they might not even know. This is a real problem for a lot of businesses that exist 30 minutes out of town.
In fairness, the companies behind these data centres are well known and have endless marketing budgets, so they can likely find a way to close that gap where the typical rural-based business cannot, but at the same time why take the risk when you can just as easily build the datacenter right beside the person you want to hire?
Sounds like they should build the equivalent of a little mining town out in the boonies too and start working on the housing crisis simultaneously. “Move to Nowhere, USA, and get cheap, new housing and a good-paying job” would get them the talent they want.
EDIT: yes, I know mining towns had their own share of problems (I’ve heard “16 tons” too), but knowing the hazards of the past, I think we can figure out a more equitable structure with this kind of setup.
Mining towns used to work in the days when one parent worked full-time and one parent raised kids full-time, and job security, unions, and pensions were a thing.
In modern times, both parents often have career ambitions, and the modern capitalist economy and housing pricing has greedily recalibrated to every family needing two incomes. So you're not going to have many families willing to move to the boonies unless you (at the bare minimum) hand out doubly-high salaries.
Very likely that's not enough though, as it's also a massive financial risk to them if you can just lay them off after the next earnings report with no pension to continue supporting them. Most modern families would rather stay where jobs are slightly more likely to exist.
> “Move to Nowhere, USA, and get cheap, new housing and a good-paying job”
These types of opportunities already exist but are rarely taken up upon. More of them means more jobs unfilled.
When those mining towns were the way of the world people moved around a lot more. It was no big deal to pack your bags and move there. While census data only started being collected from the 1950s onward, it is estimated that ~40% of the population would move in a given year at the hight of the mining booms. Even in the 1950s, when we started collecting concrete data, around 30% of the population would move in a given year. Now only around 8% of the population will move in a given year.
Nowadays there is an expectation that you can stay put. For example, if you watch housing affordability discussions closely you'll notice the theme is always "I cannot afford a house where I am currently located", not "I cannot afford a house anywhere in the world". Attitudes about living arrangements have changed as compared to the past and the AI companies are not about to change it back any time soon. They have to work with people they want to hire, and that means putting the work where the people are already found.
Even then they can wind up in the proverbial backyard. I don't know much about data center staffing needs and zoning laws but those would seem relevant spatial constraints and considerations.
I wonder the same thing. It could be that getting transition grid interconnects and redundant fiber paths is much faster in more suburban areas vs rural areas.
A lot of the big companies are massively allergic to building infrastructure, even when they get government grants to do it. Look at how badly the broadband rollout was bungled. Shot their own foot at this point.
We could in a vacuum, but they require human labor and human labor isn't found in the boonies.
It's the age old problem. The people in the cities cry that there are no jobs and the rural businesses cry that they can't find anyone to hire, with no great resolution as the businesses cannot afford to move into the city and the people don't want to travel to the boonies.
However, in this case, these data centers are so well capitalized that they can afford to move them into the cities right beside where the workers are located.
I would flip my bitch switch if a datacenter was stood up near me, where I could hear it. I am on 5 acres in rural Michigan surrounded by peace and quiet. I specifically came here for this reason. At the same time, I understand that we need datacenters. And tbh, Michigan is under-served in this space (ex, most of my queries thru the Cloudflare network have to go to Chicago first), and I wish we had more. But not close to residential areas. Not on top of valuable farmland.
My wacky idea was that datacenters should be built on EPA superfund sites. It becomes a win-win. Datacenter gets land that humans cannot occupy, helps/funds partial cleanup, slaps a big ass concrete building down on top of the rest of the mess and kills two birds with one stone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites
Also thoughts of mine recently: why are we not doing subterranean datacenters, why are we not doing tall/skinny skyscraper like datacenters (versus enormous sprawling warehouse-style).
And the owner class has already trotted out the old Red Scare “If you don’t like datacenters, you’re just doing what China wants” bullshit has a defense.
I find what people want from the data center build-out is pretty reasonable:
1. Don't build loud machines across the street from someone's house.
2. Don't drive up water/electricity bills by pulling from the municipal grid.
3. Don't burn the earth with CO2.
4. Don't facilitate techno-fascist surveillance.
5. Pay a lot of taxes.
But, when I see people complain about data centers, I usually see a spiral of rage-bait based on mis-framing, conjecture and repeating stuff others simply made up to get everyone mad. The online discussion tone is reaching a shrieking pink-froth level.
What I'm finding in my lazy research on the subject is that recent and planned datacenters
1. Are exceedingly rarely built where anyone can hear them. But, occasionally are. Thus ragebait articles.
2. Pull from muni grids for small scale centers. But, the hyperscalers are independent.
3. Hyperscalers are burning way too much natural gas. That's bad. But, not using nearly as much water as people think. That's good.
4. Techno-fascist surveillance doesn't need 1000s of datacenters. Just a handful off in the corner is plenty.
5. Datacenters usually are paying a lot of taxes. I think this drives the majority of the push from politicians. And, there's a minority from corruption.
Frankly, the biggest issue folks should be pushing for is to require hyperscalers build out solar power instead of natural gas. That will be a hard fight because it requires more up-front time and investment. From there, ensuring small scale centers don't affect people's bills is a good fight. But, passing laws to ban datacenters seems performative compared to passing laws to regulate their power and water impact.
Just require them to also pay for a new local power plant with the capacity to cover them before they get building permits, honestly. Maybe say they can't qualify for tax breaks too?
.. and are completely ignored. The mighty nimby seems to be very nimble as soon as economic interests are involved. Very strange.. i thought he was the mighty preventer of all things changing. Especially the plotholes.. eh potholes and buses and rail..
The other day I was talking with two friends—one programmer, one musician, both of fairly conservative political persuasion—and the topic of “AI data centers” came up. I said something to the effect of, “y'know, all that talk about how they just use all up all the water from wherever they're built is total propaganda nonsense, right?” and both were genuinely taken aback by this statement. As far as they were concerned, “AI data centers” were something a Captain Planet villain would build, just absolute ecological disasters, inherently. I'm relatively neutral when it comes to this stuff but man, the propaganda against “AI data centers” really works!
I love the idea of a Captain Planet villain having some underling crunch the numbers to choose the optimal place to build dozens of AI data centers such that there's just enough water available for them to use, but then by using said water, it conveniently destroys any and all local ecologies and human communities in the process, cackling all the while—it's so completely divorced from reality that it makes perfect sense why anyone in this mediabrained modern hellscape we live in today would believe that to be the case.
I don't know what agenda you're going with, but it isn't reality. They're destroying water tables. I'll leave this link here for you to read if you're brave enough to step outside your Captain Planet cartoon narrative and have an actual look at the water consumption problem.
Why am I supposed to take a janky-ass web visualization, completely devoid of citations as far as I can tell, and which was, itself, almost certainly vibecoded, at face value, as a valid argument?
It seems downright dishonest to focus so much on Loudon County VA, which is DC's major tech hub and has the highest median income of any county in the US. It is definitely dishonest to not mention any demographic or historical details.
You definitely do not want a sewage treatment plant in your backyard. But hey, you got a cheaper home price so that the rich guys can pump their crap to your backyard from miles away.
IMO NIMB should be illegal, so long as the builder meets standards. Maybe those standards should rise to include ambient noise requirements, heat dissipation, capital contributions to water/electricity supply, additional tax burden points (for land use without, maybe?).
But I also feel there needs to be an assertion that if you own the land it's your property and you're free to do most things with it, safely and politely. This is about property rights and freedoms.
Your property rights stop where my ears are. Or I have the freedom to not listen to your gas turbine. Or however one wishes to flip that on its head. Whether you own the property or not, that property isn’t in a vacuum.
Your property rights end when corporations, who get sick of your obstinance, simply place some strategic election donations and soon enough you’re up against eminent domain.
That is all covered by my point about regulations rising to the task. Did you read the whole comment?
The point is you should be allowed to have a gas turbine (or whatever generator meets the requirements), if it meets emissions, noise, and heat regulations.
Good luck upgrading your home’s electrical service to charge an EV, only to be told it’s impossible because the nearby data center has already consumed all the available grid capacity.
Happened to family of mine. Not in the US though. They charge their EV with a 3kW charger now.
That is an invested capital issue. If it's not worth building a plant, they wont. The supply will fall until the prices rise enough to incentivize new plants. If the elec prices rise enough the datacenters will find alternate solutions .
It seems like people are some how railing against basic economics?
Like if we dont like it we have a marketplace of alternatives, the opportunity to invest in new supply, and the choice to not consume said energy if the price is too high...
When you have racks that are full of 4U GPU systems that pull 3-6kW each, the power requirements per rack shoot up to 60kW+(with whole rack setups blowing past 100kW). So an AI datacenter requires over 20x the power compared to what they needed in the past. This either strains the power grid near the DC or they need to create on-site power to fulfill demand, which has noise and other concerns.
I work near a datacenter and you can't hear significant noise from the outside, maybe a slight humming sound but quieter than traffic. This is a DC that has been around for over a decade and uses power from the grid since most of the loads are non-GPU based.
Point to _any_ analysis that says the current building boom is anything but speculation.
xAI is renting out their DC space. I think I read that Google is, too.
DC buildout is purely a gold rush. A play to be the one left standing after all the weaker players die.
You’re probably thinking of Meta. Google renting GPUs is a less recent phenomenon, to say the least.
Demand is very high today and exceeds capacity. Builders think demand will continue to grow. This seems plainly correct. Firms may differ in how high demand will go, but it is still more than today.
Whether or not the datacenters return on the investment is a different question.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/16/elon-musk... https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/data-centers/elon-musk-... https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1014655584252361
To be clear, it's not just data centers that have this problem. Journalists have been spilling digital ink on this topic as it relates to solar and wind farms as well. It's also part of the thing that'd hold back rapid deployment of nuclear.
If there's a strong enough economic incentive then yeah people are going to try to optimize around broken government.
What’s missing from this strange conversation is discussion about how many data center proposals are near residential areas.
I tried to look for one in my state and a few surrounding areas and couldn’t find any. There was an amusing story about how data center protestors had to organize expensive bus trips to get the protesters out to the data center site because it was so remote.
There was another story about a small town without any major electricity or communication infrastructure coming together to impose a moratorium on data center construction. There were no plans to build data centers in their small town and no reason to consider it at all, but they felt so threatened that they needed to convene and put on a big show about banning it.
The social phenomenon of the data center construction protest movement is really fascinating. My assumption is that it will run its course and then be mostly dropped when the next current thing comes along.
There are some actual concerns about using natural gas instead of trying to utilize the optimal power sources or locations, but they’re mostly overshadowed by bogeyman complaints like thinking that a data center is going to end up in your backyard or water consumption that is negligible compared to golf courses and swimming pools.
You have to be fair on this though. The time to ban something is before they start talking about doing it, not after. Being ahead of the game is never a bad thing, especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure. They just can't afford long legal battles.
>Being ahead of the game is never a bad thing, especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure. They just can't afford long legal battles.
It's not merely "never a bad thing", for certain tools like zoning it is, at least in the jurisdictions I know of, required to be well ahead and consistently enforced. It's not something towns are allowed to do retroactively, if you have no proper legal town plan/zoning setup in place as well as various ordinances like noise then by default the only controls are the relatively weak state ones. There are many things a government is allowed to do if it's part of an overall plan that applies to all equally, but not if it's "we just don't like those guys specifically", and the best way to demonstrate that is to be making no special moves around a given arrival at all but rather to have it all setup.
Of course, there are as you suggest lots of other good reasons to be ahead too. It's a lot easier to consider things thoroughly and get community agreement when there isn't massive time pressure or lobbying going on and emotions aren't running high. It's easier to get some expert consultation at reasonable prices (in some cases there may even be community members with the skills and willingness to volunteer if it's not a time crush), to enact longer term infrastructure plans, to get any state approval if needed, etc etc. But there are legally serious hard lines as well and if towns are caught napping they may just not be able to use them at all.
> especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure.
Small, remote towns without electricity or data connections are not easily exploited for data centers.
What bothers me is clearing forests, sometimes even protected forests with the idea that they'll ask for forgiveness instead of permission.
It's more like garbage dumps. People don't want to moderate their production of garbage, they just don't want any consequences of it to be too close to their house.
This is not a good or reasoned take. People organize where the other people are because that's how you get the most people. It is nor hypocrisy to use Facebook as a platform to organize protests against other tech companies. Just as it is not hypocrisy to criticize the society you live within.
This is a very stupid observation made by people who can't be bothered to consider the realities of life away from their keyboard.
They should buy land in middle of nowhere, many miles from any closest town, no less than 5. And they should build and provide their own electricity.
I don't see any other solution to make everyone coexist in peace.
Imagine it was your house a mile from such a monster. Eyesore, noisy.
And the current plan - building a data center in Canaan Valley - is a whopper... 785 MW natural gas power plant on site with diesel generator backups (solely for the data center, not sold back to grid), 500+ acres of land, 2 million sqft initial building space, air quality impact assessment by the state is heavily redacted, $4 billion price tag.
All right next to one of DC's most popular outdoor/skiing recreation areas. The DC would loom over the two towns that support the entire region.
Suburbs cannot continue to pay for their infrastructure without drastically increasing taxes or finding new sources of income.
How did they get in?
hating datacenters is one of the few bipartisan issues facing the country so buckle up buttercup.
you're horrifically misinformed and several datacenter projects near residential homes have already been prevented. Do a bit more research before rearing your incorrect brain into these issues please.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""
The AI data centers consume a lot more power, and thus generate a lot more heat(equals cooling noise) per square meter.
This is the reason why it's a new problem right now.
Edit: autocorrect used breasts instead of beasts.
Ambient noise must be contained, excess heat must be mitigated, free hot water must be provided to nearby buildings. etc. Also this is a city's opportunity to do something like assess penalty tax points. (ie, datacenter usage tax, just like we do to hotels)
It's America. They don't do regulations there.
The more serious answer is that this political movement is leading to more strict regulation being enacted, it just wasn't in place because of reason #1 and the problems being much less severe.
Additionally, the tech industry is notoriously hostile to any kind of regulation. Especially now with AI. Just look at how many people in this thread will insist that it's "Chinese Propaganda", despite clear evidence that this is just a response to the actual problems datacenters cause. One news crew interviewing people with jet turbine noise will do more than a million of Beijing's finest trolls.
It's a waste of time and money for each town and county to come up with those requirements. If your community puts any limits on the datacenter builder they'll just build it somewhere else, so you might as well save the effort and just say they can't do it.
> they'll just build it somewhere else
Why should we have rights to say they cannot do it somewhere else? It's not a moral issue, it's a tragedy of commons issue or unpriced externality issue.
I do not understand this idea that someone from one place should have their preferences taking precedence the preferences, rights and freedoms of folks who actually live in another place.
The main caveat being the boundary lines, but i think that's very much an edge case.
A sane municipality will require sound mitigation on generators, chillers, and other loud equipment. Sure, there are shitty places that don’t take care of their citizens that will let you run natural gas turbines to generate power, but it’s possible to contain the bad effects of data centers with local and state regulations.
I’ll take a data center that evaporates water to replace the iron casting foundry in my neighborhood any day.
The power usage is massive, and that's still a very much limited resource for which everyone competes for.
Adding to your edit: Would you feel the same about adding an AI data center on top of the iron casting foundry you already have to deal with?
Ironically, There’s enough issues with the DC buildout going on that even with 100% public opinion support it would still be significantly delayed. The behind the meter power generation isn’t going well. There’s only so many gas fired turbines on the market. And connecting a DC to an established grid isn’t like clicking a button in AWS no matter how much money you have.
This comes cross as unbelievable, and at worst a fantastical statement, as someone who lives in Northern Virginia and is effectively watching the Datacenter battle unfold from the front lines, and dealing with the local politics and electricity costs rising at a precipitous rate.
Our electricity bill has doubled. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors want to erect “Statue of Liberty” sized power transmission lines, and those that want data centers are doing their damndest to somehow claim that they’re not responsible for the rise in the cost of utilities and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.
Part of the reason people care about Datacenters now is that they’re starting to litter the landscape, take resources from local municipalities, and raise costs for everyone involved, whereas previously there were not enough of them to really move the needle as being a problem.
Folks care because their bottom line is impacted in a time when it’s already hard to make ends meet every month due to rising costs of food, gas, and utilities, not because of some unnamed boogeyman in the form of a “nation state competitor”.
Talking points like:
"We should call data centers what they actually are: surveillance centers designed to put us all in a digital prison by 2030"
It's fishy. People aren't quite showing up and saying the same things at city council meetings, but the local city anti-DC group is full of people reposting this stuff. One clickbait article in particular, "there's no such thing as a closed loop system".
There's real concerns with the data centers. But, the opposition to them doesn't feel entirely organic (imo).
The story never questions if they are right, simply tried to smear the argument based on the sources.
I mean, isnt that what Karp, Thiel are openly saying and one of the things Antropic doom trolls about?
The Anti-DC crowd doesn't appreciate that the surveillance state is coming with our without all these DC's being built. That is going to get hosted some where, some way. The fix is regulatory and political.
You can read some of the recent reporting here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
While agreeing with where you're coming from, including this, it is also worth nothing that there is truth to what you're rejecting as well. Our longstanding unsolved domestic problems are fertile ground for nation state competitors to foment discontent, gain oppositional mindshare, and ultimately harm our overall position. The elites seem to think these problems can just be ignored or swept under the rug, when in reality the frustration grows until it boils over into highly destructive self-owns. We're already seeing this actively play out on a grand scale with general politics, but it can certainly happen in more specific ways that target things like data centers.
To be industrially competitive we need to fix our longstanding domestic problems that fall on individuals, rather than merely ignoring them. In the case of data centers - lack of effective environmental regulations around air and sound pollution, complete inability for municipalities to regulate the operations of something after it's been built, and a shortage of infrastructure that's now been privatized for use by the highest bidder.
Plus that general affordability crisis you touched upon, of course. Nobody likes the feeling that an appendage of a trillion dollar company can come to their city, wave around the promise of everything-bubble money, and make it so their own individual voice is meaningless.
https://www.amazon.com/Active-Measures-History-Disinformatio...
Yes, there's propaganda and most of it doesn't reach the Americans. It's downright insulting to claim their hurts are something that countries on the other side of the world invented.
This is not what I said at all. Try to hold more one idea in your head at once.
This isn't true. People were starting to mobilize against crypto datacenters in the late 2010s and early 2020s^[1][2], long before the current AI-fueled building frenzy.
> I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.
It's fairly well documented that this is happening to some degree, but as above, foreign agents didn't conjure the anti-datacenter movement out of nothing. It's a fact that if the average crypto or AI datacenter moves in next door to you, there's a good chance it's going to crash your quality of life and the value of your property, and all in service of making a few fantastically rich guys even richer. Also, they are the same guys building a machine that they claim is going to destroy your livelihood. You don't need foreign agents to engineer a backlash here.
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/bitcoins-intensive-energy-dem... [2] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/09/texas-hood-county-cr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/husband-code-pink-founder-nevil...
Previous coverage of Singham, who coincidentally is married to a co-founder of Code Pink:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-...
Not saying these are correct and are proof, but this isn't some fringe concern from the MAGA crowd or something. It would also be a logical response on China's part to the US working to block them from getting GPUs, processor tech, etc.
Data centers being directly tied to increases in our power bills.
Or CEOs talking about how they're going to get to fire everyone because of AI.
Or social media raising the political temperature.
Or all of them combined. Tech has never been so intolerable across the board.
"These AI people are getting rich selling unicorn farts while I'm on the same pay and everything is more expensive, fuck them".
Ignore at your own peril.
(Ftr. the article doesn't have an opinion on whether Americans like AI, just my take.)
Weirdly, it sounds like populist sentiment.
Society hasn't felt the very real effects of data centers until recently. Power supply being short meant that residential customers have had to pick up the tab for heavy industrial users. We've started to learn just how bad all those dams we built are for the environment and many of them are tied to data center money. Elon Musk waltzed into Memphis and stood up a natural gas data center that has basically poisoned the surrounding area.
Maybe nation state actors are helping, that can always be true. It is also true that the American people are starting to realize they've been had many times over and are just starting to ask for a better deal. I think we should listen.
There's no need to invent some malign foreign conspirator to generate unpopularity for this stuff. No, the AI companies are led by unpopular CEOs, who are making unpopular statements (almost cartoonishly so). And opposing a data center is the kind of action that regular people, upset about this sort of stuff, feel that they can actually meaningfully effect. So of course it was going to balloon like it has.
No sign of datacenter activity at the local 4-H club either. Am I so out of touch? No, it's the commie brainwashed American citizens who are wrong.
The really large data centers have to go into areas with a lot of land and utility connections. These are usually zoned commercial or industrial already.
Why did you?
Yes, this is the crux. Loud, smelly, concrete cities suck. And you’re right that density alone would lead to this.
What we’d ideally want is cities that can be dense without being loud, smelly, and dangerous. These cities exist: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Zurich, Utrecht, Freiburg, etc.
We can’t do this in the US because we can’t remove the source of the noise/danger/stink/concrete problem: cars.
And that’s the catch 22: In the US everyone gets around by car, so density becomes undesirable. We can’t densify because density + cars is bad, and we can’t reduce cars because it’s not dense enough for public transit to get better.
Individuals get stuck in a prisoner’s dilemma where driving is safer, more comfortable, and faster than transit. So every individual with the means to drive chooses to drive. Public transit becomes branded as something for poor people. The concrete honeycomb fills up. The downtown becomes a noisy disaster. People can no longer imagine that good cities are possible.
Anyway if you densify cities you can slow down the sprawl and maybe keep suburbs actually smaller? a few more ten story apartment blocks downtown might house the people who have to live in your area and commute.
This is also why communist countries had stuff like dense housing in deeply rural areas, and why most people were shuffled into cities. Big houses and properties do nothing for the state and just encumber society. Way easier if everyone just lives in their tightly packed central shoe box.
ETA: I would rather no data centers be built, but my point is if we have to, let’s minimize the number of people who are affected. Offer to move them if need be.
None of this NIMBYism is about the datacenter itself, it's all a protest against AI making the economy really shitty for them.
Should be able to locally source security and building maintenance, if the pay is good. These are skills that are needed everywhere. The onsite tech can likely be sourced locally too: first and foremost, they're remote hands ... knowledgeable remote hands are nicer, but the mandatory skills are: read and follow directions, notice and report unusual circumstances, lift and manipulate heavy objects. It's not rocket surgery.
If you put your datacenter in the near boonies, say 30 minutes away from the nearest suburb, you can usually still find the big lots you need, and people can commute from there: a 30 minute commute with no traffic isn't too awful. Of course, you'll have neighbors on large lots who didn't think through that living out on the boonies with no zoning meant noisy neighbors could move in. :P
In fairness, the companies behind these data centres are well known and have endless marketing budgets, so they can likely find a way to close that gap where the typical rural-based business cannot, but at the same time why take the risk when you can just as easily build the datacenter right beside the person you want to hire?
EDIT: yes, I know mining towns had their own share of problems (I’ve heard “16 tons” too), but knowing the hazards of the past, I think we can figure out a more equitable structure with this kind of setup.
In modern times, both parents often have career ambitions, and the modern capitalist economy and housing pricing has greedily recalibrated to every family needing two incomes. So you're not going to have many families willing to move to the boonies unless you (at the bare minimum) hand out doubly-high salaries.
Very likely that's not enough though, as it's also a massive financial risk to them if you can just lay them off after the next earnings report with no pension to continue supporting them. Most modern families would rather stay where jobs are slightly more likely to exist.
These types of opportunities already exist but are rarely taken up upon. More of them means more jobs unfilled.
When those mining towns were the way of the world people moved around a lot more. It was no big deal to pack your bags and move there. While census data only started being collected from the 1950s onward, it is estimated that ~40% of the population would move in a given year at the hight of the mining booms. Even in the 1950s, when we started collecting concrete data, around 30% of the population would move in a given year. Now only around 8% of the population will move in a given year.
Nowadays there is an expectation that you can stay put. For example, if you watch housing affordability discussions closely you'll notice the theme is always "I cannot afford a house where I am currently located", not "I cannot afford a house anywhere in the world". Attitudes about living arrangements have changed as compared to the past and the AI companies are not about to change it back any time soon. They have to work with people they want to hire, and that means putting the work where the people are already found.
It's the age old problem. The people in the cities cry that there are no jobs and the rural businesses cry that they can't find anyone to hire, with no great resolution as the businesses cannot afford to move into the city and the people don't want to travel to the boonies.
However, in this case, these data centers are so well capitalized that they can afford to move them into the cities right beside where the workers are located.
My wacky idea was that datacenters should be built on EPA superfund sites. It becomes a win-win. Datacenter gets land that humans cannot occupy, helps/funds partial cleanup, slaps a big ass concrete building down on top of the rest of the mess and kills two birds with one stone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites
Also thoughts of mine recently: why are we not doing subterranean datacenters, why are we not doing tall/skinny skyscraper like datacenters (versus enormous sprawling warehouse-style).
1. Don't build loud machines across the street from someone's house. 2. Don't drive up water/electricity bills by pulling from the municipal grid. 3. Don't burn the earth with CO2. 4. Don't facilitate techno-fascist surveillance. 5. Pay a lot of taxes.
But, when I see people complain about data centers, I usually see a spiral of rage-bait based on mis-framing, conjecture and repeating stuff others simply made up to get everyone mad. The online discussion tone is reaching a shrieking pink-froth level.
What I'm finding in my lazy research on the subject is that recent and planned datacenters
1. Are exceedingly rarely built where anyone can hear them. But, occasionally are. Thus ragebait articles. 2. Pull from muni grids for small scale centers. But, the hyperscalers are independent. 3. Hyperscalers are burning way too much natural gas. That's bad. But, not using nearly as much water as people think. That's good. 4. Techno-fascist surveillance doesn't need 1000s of datacenters. Just a handful off in the corner is plenty. 5. Datacenters usually are paying a lot of taxes. I think this drives the majority of the push from politicians. And, there's a minority from corruption.
Frankly, the biggest issue folks should be pushing for is to require hyperscalers build out solar power instead of natural gas. That will be a hard fight because it requires more up-front time and investment. From there, ensuring small scale centers don't affect people's bills is a good fight. But, passing laws to ban datacenters seems performative compared to passing laws to regulate their power and water impact.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-water-usage
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-ai-impacts-data-cent...
But I also feel there needs to be an assertion that if you own the land it's your property and you're free to do most things with it, safely and politely. This is about property rights and freedoms.
Your property rights stop where my ears are. Or I have the freedom to not listen to your gas turbine. Or however one wishes to flip that on its head. Whether you own the property or not, that property isn’t in a vacuum.
The point is you should be allowed to have a gas turbine (or whatever generator meets the requirements), if it meets emissions, noise, and heat regulations.
Happened to family of mine. Not in the US though. They charge their EV with a 3kW charger now.
It seems like people are some how railing against basic economics?
Like if we dont like it we have a marketplace of alternatives, the opportunity to invest in new supply, and the choice to not consume said energy if the price is too high...