One of the issues that comes up is that the "we're building a data center..." and then power in the area scales up to meet the anticipated demand.
And then the data centers scale back how much they need or decide to not build there and now the local ratepayers are on the hook for the increased capacity that the utilities built out.
The data center would be much more welcome (there are still issues) if they were to make sure that the locals aren't going to pay for unneeded power capacity.
For others who don't know, this is detailed in this podcast. A change in the way new power generation is funded is starting to happen so the datacenters are more responsible for the costs of the added power plants so they cannot just pull out willy nilly, but in lieu of that, existing customers have had to pay for the power plants in spite of not benefiting in the slightest
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/19/nx-s1-5649814/ai-data-center-...
Sounds like you have never lived next to a datacenter where one was shoved in to your infra and jacking up your electricity cost and polluting your air and water.
What if some one put a running car with the exhaust pointed into your living area without your knowledge and with nothing you can do about it? That's what these datacenters are.
Might as well deal with that as the new normal and get along with the show.
Data centers are scarcely more than four walls, AC and a shit ton of equipment inside. By the time you finish building one power plant, 700 data centers have already popped up.
Okay then that’s the new normal. Build out more generation. Do what China is doing with literally 100% redundancy from the baseload. Data centers are also not decentralized like you’re saying, the vast majority of these are large facilities that take significant time and resources to build.
Around 50 were built last year and between 80-100 are under construction right now, not 700 overnight. With about 6 GW consumption or about 24 GW of solar if you consider 25% operation time. The US installs about 30 GW of solar per year currently so you can offset that pretty easily with just one year of just solar power buildout. We need to step up our game- China is building out 300 GW of solar every year.
700 was an exaggeration for dramatic effect, but 50 built in one year is still an astounding number.
> Do what China is doing
The massive build-up they have is mostly renewables. Surely, you see the problems with that, right? Georgia is a red state, so it's political suicide to even hint at proposing that. Don't even mention nuclear, Vogtle took three thousand years to get somewhere.
There's also the very important question of what benefit it will bring to the people living (and voting) nearby. A datacenter isn't exactly a massive job centre. I very much doubt they pay any significant taxes. The utilities companies get a fat paycheck and that's about it.
The massive build-up they have is mostly renewables. Surely, you see the problems with that, right? Georgia is a red state, so it's political suicide to even hint at proposing that.
Large scale solar power generation has more than doubled in Georgia since 2020:
Texas is number 2, behind only California. Solar power is popular in sunny states even if they're "red," though the most heated political rhetoric doesn't reflect that.
Huh, I didn't realize how far the build up had gone.
Your second link is interesting, though, because it shows solar in Georgia took a nosedive in 2025. I've got a feeling that that year's data is much more representative of what it will look like in the next two or three decades than any historical trend might be.
I still really dont see how solar or wind power the future needs at all. surely nuclear is the only solution longer time. obviously it has to be made safe but why are wasting so much time and money on solar and wind that are demonstably not good for the environments they go into. at scale that is going to be felt because no, actually deserts are not "just empty spaces doing nothing" they have a huge knock on effect when changed either life within them, or how they feed the surrounding non-desert environments. Why is nuclear still the bogeyman when the sun is a nuclear event. cut out the middle man. surely.
There’s movement around nuclear but it takes 10-15 years to build one plant and that’s for plants that are already tested. 15-20 for something new or experimental. Even China with all its rapid construction can’t build one in less than 8. We’re not offsetting anything with nuclear anytime soon. Solar plants take 3-6 months to get up and running.
A combination of solar/renewables with nuclear is the best strategy over the long term.
Opposition to increasing electricity generation is wild. It’s regressive and frankly a recipe for disaster. Why don’t you direct your ire at someone more deserving like the current administration that’s opposing renewable energy.
I'm not against generating more electricity, I am against generating unnecessary emissions using obsolete combustion based mechanisms, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
The current administration is enforcing the use of these obsolete technologies, and the likes of Elon Musk are using things like gas turbines in clear contravention of the law in places like Tennessee to satisfy power demand for a thing no one really wants anyway, except the already wealthy who see it as an opportunity to eliminate labor costs and make everyone more pliable and stupid than they already are.
It's worth noting that the same people profiting off the current AI bubble, are the same people donating a lot of time and money to elect and maintain this regime. Have you never heard of the network state? It is rather late in the day to play the fool.
Instead of banning datacenters, maybe:
Must be Zero Water (you can fill up like a pool and then have normal water use)
May have purple pipe water for community reuse
Must be Zero Emissions
Maximum decibels at property boundary
Must be zoned datacenter/industrial
Maximum kWh/acre, kWh/m^2 and/or bring your own energy with approval
Why ban data centers. The push should be to build out more electricity generation capability.
One of the issues that comes up is that the "we're building a data center..." and then power in the area scales up to meet the anticipated demand.
And then the data centers scale back how much they need or decide to not build there and now the local ratepayers are on the hook for the increased capacity that the utilities built out.
The data center would be much more welcome (there are still issues) if they were to make sure that the locals aren't going to pay for unneeded power capacity.
For others who don't know, this is detailed in this podcast. A change in the way new power generation is funded is starting to happen so the datacenters are more responsible for the costs of the added power plants so they cannot just pull out willy nilly, but in lieu of that, existing customers have had to pay for the power plants in spite of not benefiting in the slightest https://www.npr.org/2025/12/19/nx-s1-5649814/ai-data-center-...
Sounds like you have never lived next to a datacenter where one was shoved in to your infra and jacking up your electricity cost and polluting your air and water.
What if some one put a running car with the exhaust pointed into your living area without your knowledge and with nothing you can do about it? That's what these datacenters are.
Might as well deal with that as the new normal and get along with the show.
What exhaust exactly is coming out of servers and GPUs?
The power plants and gas turbines next to the data center.
So NIMBY type opposition to power generation.
The jet engines producing power in the parking lot
Data centers are scarcely more than four walls, AC and a shit ton of equipment inside. By the time you finish building one power plant, 700 data centers have already popped up.
Okay then that’s the new normal. Build out more generation. Do what China is doing with literally 100% redundancy from the baseload. Data centers are also not decentralized like you’re saying, the vast majority of these are large facilities that take significant time and resources to build.
Around 50 were built last year and between 80-100 are under construction right now, not 700 overnight. With about 6 GW consumption or about 24 GW of solar if you consider 25% operation time. The US installs about 30 GW of solar per year currently so you can offset that pretty easily with just one year of just solar power buildout. We need to step up our game- China is building out 300 GW of solar every year.
700 was an exaggeration for dramatic effect, but 50 built in one year is still an astounding number.
> Do what China is doing
The massive build-up they have is mostly renewables. Surely, you see the problems with that, right? Georgia is a red state, so it's political suicide to even hint at proposing that. Don't even mention nuclear, Vogtle took three thousand years to get somewhere.
There's also the very important question of what benefit it will bring to the people living (and voting) nearby. A datacenter isn't exactly a massive job centre. I very much doubt they pay any significant taxes. The utilities companies get a fat paycheck and that's about it.
The massive build-up they have is mostly renewables. Surely, you see the problems with that, right? Georgia is a red state, so it's political suicide to even hint at proposing that.
Large scale solar power generation has more than doubled in Georgia since 2020:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=1...
Georgia is ranked 7th in the US for solar power capacity:
https://seia.org/solar-state-by-state/
Texas is number 2, behind only California. Solar power is popular in sunny states even if they're "red," though the most heated political rhetoric doesn't reflect that.
Huh, I didn't realize how far the build up had gone.
Your second link is interesting, though, because it shows solar in Georgia took a nosedive in 2025. I've got a feeling that that year's data is much more representative of what it will look like in the next two or three decades than any historical trend might be.
I still really dont see how solar or wind power the future needs at all. surely nuclear is the only solution longer time. obviously it has to be made safe but why are wasting so much time and money on solar and wind that are demonstably not good for the environments they go into. at scale that is going to be felt because no, actually deserts are not "just empty spaces doing nothing" they have a huge knock on effect when changed either life within them, or how they feed the surrounding non-desert environments. Why is nuclear still the bogeyman when the sun is a nuclear event. cut out the middle man. surely.
There’s movement around nuclear but it takes 10-15 years to build one plant and that’s for plants that are already tested. 15-20 for something new or experimental. Even China with all its rapid construction can’t build one in less than 8. We’re not offsetting anything with nuclear anytime soon. Solar plants take 3-6 months to get up and running.
A combination of solar/renewables with nuclear is the best strategy over the long term.
Because we need air to breathe and water to drink more than we need pictures of garfield with giant tits
Nothing is happening to the air and water. They need electricity and we have clean ways of generating those.
Electricity generation causes emissions, which enter the air. Cooling consumes water, as does power generation.
We are not generating this power using renewable energy. Have you looked out the window lately at what is actually happening?
Opposition to increasing electricity generation is wild. It’s regressive and frankly a recipe for disaster. Why don’t you direct your ire at someone more deserving like the current administration that’s opposing renewable energy.
I'm not against generating more electricity, I am against generating unnecessary emissions using obsolete combustion based mechanisms, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
The current administration is enforcing the use of these obsolete technologies, and the likes of Elon Musk are using things like gas turbines in clear contravention of the law in places like Tennessee to satisfy power demand for a thing no one really wants anyway, except the already wealthy who see it as an opportunity to eliminate labor costs and make everyone more pliable and stupid than they already are.
It's worth noting that the same people profiting off the current AI bubble, are the same people donating a lot of time and money to elect and maintain this regime. Have you never heard of the network state? It is rather late in the day to play the fool.
https://www.selc.org/press-release/musks-xai-explores-anothe...
It's federally illegal to regulate AI in any way
According to what? A proposed moratorium on state AI regulation was overwhelmingly rejected back in July 2025:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/7/senate-strikes-ai-mor...
[flagged]
The aren't regulating AI but datacenters and energy. The fact that AI happens to depend on these is accidental.
You do not kn any way understand how the American legal system works. Please visit your nearest elementary school for a refresher before voting.
The executive order you’re referring to has no power to override land use decisions of data center siting or moratoriums.