If Virginia or Louisiana should profit by this then so be it. Californian land-use laws will have a net effect of -8 house seats against Texas. That is good. It should happen. If Texans will be poorer so Virginians will be richer, that is also good. May the American federal system reign forever. Allowing for states as experiments and letting them suffer their consequences is good. It is a machine for us to iterate on our present and future prosperity.
Side note: Now's a fantastic time get into industrial processes or oil & gas since all of the fake propaganda against buildings with computers in them has distracted people from facilities built on a daily basis that cause 1000x the pollution and noise of a datacenter.
You think the folks who are successfully organizing against datacenters can’t use the same techniques and support networks to do the same thing against other nuisance uses?
Well yeah nobody wants their local water supply to be either disintegrated into subatomic particles or polluted with every harmful substance known to man (whichever one they're supposed to do changes from day to day).
It's not just about water. It's about the noise, little to no benefit to the community besides a handful of jobs, air pollution where they're colocated gas turbines for power, and pushing up electricity prices. They are a net negative for most communities.
"Winning" in this context is simply slowing down permitting and construction until the capital bubble pops, at which point a great deal of these projects simply evaporate. And the bubble will pop eventually.
> This paper quantifies the environmental externalities associated with electricity consumption by data centers in the United States, focusing on damages from local air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using facility-level data for approximately 2,800 operational data centers in 2025, combined with electricity grid characteristics and emissions data, the analysis estimates pollution impacts through the AP4 integrated assessment model and applies the social cost of carbon for GHG valuation. Results indicate that data centers consume roughly 250 TWh of electricity—about 5–6% of U.S. generation—and generate approximately $25 billion in gross external damages (GED), with a range of $10–$33 billion. These damages are highly geographically concentrated, with Texas and Virginia accounting for 30% of the national total. While GED comprises about 5% of industry GDP, this ratio varies widely across states, exceeding GDP in some regions. Planned data center expansion could increase electricity demand and associated damages by up to 85% in the near term. Despite these environmental costs, preliminary comparisons suggest that the damages attributable to AI-related energy use are small relative to potential productivity gains. [My note: potential gains]
Has no one heard of the concept of industrial zoning? When you live next to an industrial zone you get all the consequences. I love how literally all these projects are on shuttered sites of various plants that were presumably louder and more polluting than these new data centers.
You don’t seem to know much about where these datacenters are being built. They are usually greenfield sites, often in relatively rural areas where there may not actually be any local zoning regulations. Or when they are on brownfield urban sites, they are using “temporary” gas turbines that are incredibly loud and break all air pollution laws, taking advantage of loopholes and a complete lack of enforcement by the current EPA.
This is not an excuse for residents to have lower quality of life for capital speculators "because it was industrial zoning". Try to make your case in a public hearing with a room full of residents, see how it goes. Long time politicians are getting fired over it, so natural consequences will help with this.
I live in Utah and we have refineries a few blocks away from residential neighborhoods and a literal strip mine visible from half of the Salt Lake valley.
The datacenter controversy has nothing to do with caring about the environment and is a complete scam that preys on low-information voters. It is a product of outside Chinese money being funneled into US politics to hobble the US in Artificial Intelligence.
> When experiments fail the constituents pay the price, not the experimenters.
Are you arguing that the leaders of a state, who were elected by the constituents, should not experiment and try make things better? By definition, some experiments will fail.
Virginia has more power infrastructure in place but said infrastructure is already seeing significant DC build out; I know little about power distribution in Louisiana but would be surprised if there was extensive spare capacity in the transmission lines and generation facilities. I'm surprised that the rust belt hasn't seen more uptake since they had all that manufacturing capacity but the backing power generation/distribution may have atrophied in the intervening years.
> I'm surprised that the rust belt hasn't seen more uptake
Oracle's doing something just outside the Milwaukee metro. I'd imagine there are others. Datacenter buildout is wildly unpopular around the Great Lakes, and that's not new. For Wisconsinites specifically, the whole thing has a whiff of Foxconn about it.
The problem is that the costs of Texas blowing natural gas carbon into the air are largely paid by wildfires in California, so we are going to need another mechanism to make sure that is felt in Texas as well.
This is a collection of "OpenAI will boldly act in the abstract to provide air coverage for Texas leadership." With data centers under construction one would think they would have examples of successes or projects in progress available for reference. They'd claim credit if they had it so the silence is telling.
Big tech has consistently valued profit and growth above good stewardship; the onus is entirely on OpenAI to demonstrate that any of these claims aren't fluff with the projects that are already greenlit. When OpenAI presents plans to the communities prior to/alongside city counsels and drops the NDAs then there will be merit to this but our expectations should be somewhere between "super deep kola borehole" and "upper mantle".
https://texas-connects.com/ is also running lots of commercials locally. But both this open letter _and_ the commercials intentionally skate around the resource needs.
> OpenAI will pay our own way and protect residential and small-business customers [...] OpenAI will work to support new power generation in Texas
Notice how this very intentionally doesn't say they will work to support generating as much or more power than they will use? Because if they could do that, they would just generate their own power. It doesn't matter if they "pay their own way", they are now competing with households.
Same with water, all of these projects want to leech on existing systems because they don't even want to entertain developing their own systems.
However, having worked inside Texas DCs for a long time now, I think it's just the burst that's the issue, not the concepts. Sadly they'll share our resources, but I think they should pay a premium on their energy compared to residential (but it's hard to reconcile this with other commercial ventures that do not).
How much does OpenAI actually control the way the data centers are built and deployed?
I don’t know much about the impact of their data centers compared to others, but there weren’t many (if any) concrete commitments in this letter. The promises all seem like areas that even an evil corporation could pay lip service to.
With the amount of cash OpenAI is splashing around they could easily write it into the contracts, but the current incentive structure prioritizes time between ground breaking and powered GPUs in racks. OpenAI has shown complete disinterest in the impact of AI writ large and will only reduce their community/infra impact to optimize that time to racked GPU along the Pareto frontier.
The AI companies are spending close to a trillion dollars building data centers. On top of that, they’re now promising they’ll handle all environmental and power needs. I believe them, they probably will do that, thats not even too expensive. They need to however recoup this investment somehow, which is the fundamental problem with a technology like AI.
The only plausible way to recoup 1T is to automate large swaths of human jobs so that the companies stop spending money on humans, and instead give money to them. This is probably why the public doesn’t want AI, because AI in the rules of current society is perfectly designed to disempower and ruin humans, but is not actually capable enough to ruin humans in a state of nature.
Large massive data-centers that makes this economics work is not actually a fact of life, in a less stable country they’re actually a liability. If a countries technical prowess comes from a data center then an adversary just needs to bomb it to knee cap that country. On the other hand, if a companies technical prowess comes from a thousands of well trained humans, well that’s actually not easy to get rid of. They’re not stationary, they’re adaptable, they can pick up new skills quicker and cheaper. Any king would much rather invest in humans and not AI.
But in a country like US, where it’s hard to even imagine such instability, AI is perfect at outcompeting humans and ruining them short term, and ruining the country long term. No wonder, this seems to be turning out to become the most negative reaction the public has ever had to the advent of new transformative technology. Unfortunately I don’t think it will work, the AI companies are just going to steamroll them, steal their jobs and dignity and then put them on UBI and pay themselves on the back as if they did a good thing.
This reminds of the times when companies made large public statements on clean energy and going carbon free during the Obama (and partially Biden) eras. The only difference here is now is a letter to a governor, which is signaling 1) companies believe the way to solve data centers is on a state basis and 2) if they don't do it, they can perhaps blame a lack of "guidance from local officials" versus any part on their own, they have done their due dilligence. I am curious to more see what states don't get any personal mailings, I think that's a better indication than anything actually written.
pittsburgh has many old power plants that are perfect for data center converts
when i go home and hear about this i'm conflicted. it brings short term economic prosperity. what's the cost if there's no commitment to clean energy in reality
the developers on these projects will do whatever it takes to simply get the project done
I only have one question is this legally binding in US in any way if not what's the point virtue signalling? Can openai make it's books public to ensure that it has the money to fulfill it's extra commitments.
Not legally binding, no. This is more of a lobbying attempt, Abbott just paused all new data center development in Texas until the state can audit them, they have an interconnection queue of about 474GW, ERCOT can't handle it that's more than 5x Texas's peak electricity demand.
Why can’t these idiots just mandate that you have to build out clean energy to power the data centers. It’s such a simple bit of legislation that they just will not do.
"Abbott is asking the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to ensure data center developers provide information on tax breaks they will receive; power use and generation; water use and cooling operations; efforts to reduce impacts on local communities; and ownership of the facility. Any projects that fail Abbott’s ordered “comprehensive verification and audit” should be denied connection to the grid, the governor said."
"“Our top priority is to protect Texans’ safety and quality of life,” said Governor Abbott. “Any project that fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the PUCT and ERCOT, and by state law, must be denied connection to the Texas grid. Simply put, Texans must come first.”"
While I would like this, my guess is it is hard to reconcile with all the other commercial ventures in the state (including datacenters) that aren't subject to such a requirement.
You don't seem to realize Texas has huge number clean energy build outs and has been for quite a few years. They lead in wind generation and commercial solar generation.
I'm not in the know on Texas politics, so I'm curious. Do Texas politicians publicly support clean energy? Or do they just keep their mouths shut and let it happen? Given that the current head of the Republican party seems completely against it and how rabid some of his followers are, I'm just wondering how they thread that needle?
People will run to point to the spate of new nuclear plans, but the point be made here is that nuclear regulation is so suffocating and costs so extreme that it's "effectively illegal" to build reactors.
I can tell you from second hand direct experience that the regulations are absolutely over the top, and then doubled for good measure. It almost makes aviation look like running a lemonade stand.
Plenty of solar and wind with batteries are available. Data centers and renewable energy are a match made in heaven. They can be in the middle of nowhere where land is cheap.
Because up until recently all the big hyperscalars were already committed to buying or building renewables to meet their energy demand. Then AI happened and they all collectively realized they needed to build as many datacenters as possible to fit as many GPUs as possible to chase the bubble. All those clean energy commitments got tossed by the wayside. Hell, half the time these companies fire people just to free up cashflow to buy more GPUs!
Honestly, that sounds kind of arbitrary. Why should companies that use electricity be required to also produce electricity? This is what the market is for, so other Companies can produce electricity for money and other Companies buy that electricity.
And to which companies would this apply? Only Datacenters? There are other energy intensive industries too, should this also apply to them? And what is the cutoff for that? Does every bigger 21st century company also need to be an electricity company?
It would be less arbitrary if all negative externalities would be taxed (for example, carbon tax or noise pollution tax) and maybe prioritize households on the public grid.
If Virginia or Louisiana should profit by this then so be it. Californian land-use laws will have a net effect of -8 house seats against Texas. That is good. It should happen. If Texans will be poorer so Virginians will be richer, that is also good. May the American federal system reign forever. Allowing for states as experiments and letting them suffer their consequences is good. It is a machine for us to iterate on our present and future prosperity.
Polling shows a fairly bipartisan opposition to data centers, so it could encourage more states to join in with pauses of their own.
Tracking at:
https://aidatacentermap.org/
https://www.datacenterbans.com/
https://www.datacenterwatch.org/
https://www.brockovichdatacenter.com/
Side note: Now's a fantastic time get into industrial processes or oil & gas since all of the fake propaganda against buildings with computers in them has distracted people from facilities built on a daily basis that cause 1000x the pollution and noise of a datacenter.
You think the folks who are successfully organizing against datacenters can’t use the same techniques and support networks to do the same thing against other nuisance uses?
Not really - China doesn't care about other nuisance issues.
Look at how the TikTok kids (who when nuts for the Palestinians) don't give a crud about the Cubans.
Well yeah nobody wants their local water supply to be either disintegrated into subatomic particles or polluted with every harmful substance known to man (whichever one they're supposed to do changes from day to day).
It's not just about water. It's about the noise, little to no benefit to the community besides a handful of jobs, air pollution where they're colocated gas turbines for power, and pushing up electricity prices. They are a net negative for most communities.
"Winning" in this context is simply slowing down permitting and construction until the capital bubble pops, at which point a great deal of these projects simply evaporate. And the bubble will pop eventually.
'Living in Hell': Data Center Neighbors Grapple With Noise, Air Pollution - https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2026-04-2... - April 28th, 2026
Measuring the Impact of Data Centers in the United States Economy: Monetary Damage from Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - https://www.nber.org/papers/w35100 | https://doi.org/10.3386/w35100
> This paper quantifies the environmental externalities associated with electricity consumption by data centers in the United States, focusing on damages from local air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using facility-level data for approximately 2,800 operational data centers in 2025, combined with electricity grid characteristics and emissions data, the analysis estimates pollution impacts through the AP4 integrated assessment model and applies the social cost of carbon for GHG valuation. Results indicate that data centers consume roughly 250 TWh of electricity—about 5–6% of U.S. generation—and generate approximately $25 billion in gross external damages (GED), with a range of $10–$33 billion. These damages are highly geographically concentrated, with Texas and Virginia accounting for 30% of the national total. While GED comprises about 5% of industry GDP, this ratio varies widely across states, exceeding GDP in some regions. Planned data center expansion could increase electricity demand and associated damages by up to 85% in the near term. Despite these environmental costs, preliminary comparisons suggest that the damages attributable to AI-related energy use are small relative to potential productivity gains. [My note: potential gains]
Health implications of the rapid rise of data centers in Virginia: an exploratory assessment - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.338... | https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2026.1648912
Has no one heard of the concept of industrial zoning? When you live next to an industrial zone you get all the consequences. I love how literally all these projects are on shuttered sites of various plants that were presumably louder and more polluting than these new data centers.
You don’t seem to know much about where these datacenters are being built. They are usually greenfield sites, often in relatively rural areas where there may not actually be any local zoning regulations. Or when they are on brownfield urban sites, they are using “temporary” gas turbines that are incredibly loud and break all air pollution laws, taking advantage of loopholes and a complete lack of enforcement by the current EPA.
This is not an excuse for residents to have lower quality of life for capital speculators "because it was industrial zoning". Try to make your case in a public hearing with a room full of residents, see how it goes. Long time politicians are getting fired over it, so natural consequences will help with this.
Data Center Disputes Fuel 33 Recall Efforts, Ballotpedia Finds - https://ballotpedia.org/Press_release_Data_Center_Disputes_F... - July 7th, 2026
Utah Senate President Loses Primary After Data Center Backlash - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/us/j-stuart-adams-utah-se... | https://archive.today/MMot6 - June 24th, 2026
I live in Utah and we have refineries a few blocks away from residential neighborhoods and a literal strip mine visible from half of the Salt Lake valley.
The datacenter controversy has nothing to do with caring about the environment and is a complete scam that preys on low-information voters. It is a product of outside Chinese money being funneled into US politics to hobble the US in Artificial Intelligence.
> refineries a few blocks away from residential neighborhoods
Seems like something that ought to be addressed as well, and should not be used as a justification for other lousy things.
> It is a product of outside Chinese money being funneled into US politics to hobble the US in Artificial Intelligence.
Please provide citations and evidence for this assertion. As it stands, this is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
> little to no benefit to the community besides a handful of jobs
NBER w35194 (Alvarez et al., May 2026) instruments for siting and finds the opposite: +6.2% establishments and +8.2% AGI at 25 years.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35194/w351...
When experiments fail the constituents pay the price, not the experimenters.
> When experiments fail the constituents pay the price, not the experimenters.
Are you arguing that the leaders of a state, who were elected by the constituents, should not experiment and try make things better? By definition, some experiments will fail.
The constituents elect the experimenters, and generally become the experimenters thereby.
Maybe they should consider voting.
Nevertheless, experiments are necessary. Political entrepreneurialism is necessary if you want anything to improve.
You can experiment on everyone, or you can experiment at the local level. One is obviously preferable over the other.
Nobody has all the answers.
This letter says nothing about Louisiana or Virginia, what exactly are you talking about?
I believe they're implying that if the data centers don't get built in Texas they will be built in Louisiana and Virginia.
Virginia has more power infrastructure in place but said infrastructure is already seeing significant DC build out; I know little about power distribution in Louisiana but would be surprised if there was extensive spare capacity in the transmission lines and generation facilities. I'm surprised that the rust belt hasn't seen more uptake since they had all that manufacturing capacity but the backing power generation/distribution may have atrophied in the intervening years.
> I'm surprised that the rust belt hasn't seen more uptake
Oracle's doing something just outside the Milwaukee metro. I'd imagine there are others. Datacenter buildout is wildly unpopular around the Great Lakes, and that's not new. For Wisconsinites specifically, the whole thing has a whiff of Foxconn about it.
For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_Tec...
This is delicious comedy.
The problem is that the costs of Texas blowing natural gas carbon into the air are largely paid by wildfires in California, so we are going to need another mechanism to make sure that is felt in Texas as well.
> It is a machine for us to iterate on our present and future prosperity.
The former middle class has entered the chat.
This is a collection of "OpenAI will boldly act in the abstract to provide air coverage for Texas leadership." With data centers under construction one would think they would have examples of successes or projects in progress available for reference. They'd claim credit if they had it so the silence is telling.
Big tech has consistently valued profit and growth above good stewardship; the onus is entirely on OpenAI to demonstrate that any of these claims aren't fluff with the projects that are already greenlit. When OpenAI presents plans to the communities prior to/alongside city counsels and drops the NDAs then there will be merit to this but our expectations should be somewhere between "super deep kola borehole" and "upper mantle".
Yeah if they were so committed to doing good, you'd think the billions of dollars they have spent would bear some evidence of that by now.
They must be "effective" "altruists".
The only way to do good is to first do all the bad and consolidate power, so you can then use all that power to do good, pinkie promise!
Anyone can access the letter PDF? I've been trying this link and it only timeout https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/oai_abbot-texas-letter_8-7-26.pdf
https://texas-connects.com/ is also running lots of commercials locally. But both this open letter _and_ the commercials intentionally skate around the resource needs.
> OpenAI will pay our own way and protect residential and small-business customers [...] OpenAI will work to support new power generation in Texas
Notice how this very intentionally doesn't say they will work to support generating as much or more power than they will use? Because if they could do that, they would just generate their own power. It doesn't matter if they "pay their own way", they are now competing with households.
Same with water, all of these projects want to leech on existing systems because they don't even want to entertain developing their own systems.
However, having worked inside Texas DCs for a long time now, I think it's just the burst that's the issue, not the concepts. Sadly they'll share our resources, but I think they should pay a premium on their energy compared to residential (but it's hard to reconcile this with other commercial ventures that do not).
How much does OpenAI actually control the way the data centers are built and deployed?
I don’t know much about the impact of their data centers compared to others, but there weren’t many (if any) concrete commitments in this letter. The promises all seem like areas that even an evil corporation could pay lip service to.
OpenAI et al can establish a Data Center PAC or contribute to one then lobby our political leaders like citizens (see Citzens United)
> How much does OpenAI actually control the way the data centers are built and deployed?
Assuming OAI is the sole tenant in these facilities, I'd say we are approaching 100% control.
With the amount of cash OpenAI is splashing around they could easily write it into the contracts, but the current incentive structure prioritizes time between ground breaking and powered GPUs in racks. OpenAI has shown complete disinterest in the impact of AI writ large and will only reduce their community/infra impact to optimize that time to racked GPU along the Pareto frontier.
The AI companies are spending close to a trillion dollars building data centers. On top of that, they’re now promising they’ll handle all environmental and power needs. I believe them, they probably will do that, thats not even too expensive. They need to however recoup this investment somehow, which is the fundamental problem with a technology like AI.
The only plausible way to recoup 1T is to automate large swaths of human jobs so that the companies stop spending money on humans, and instead give money to them. This is probably why the public doesn’t want AI, because AI in the rules of current society is perfectly designed to disempower and ruin humans, but is not actually capable enough to ruin humans in a state of nature.
Large massive data-centers that makes this economics work is not actually a fact of life, in a less stable country they’re actually a liability. If a countries technical prowess comes from a data center then an adversary just needs to bomb it to knee cap that country. On the other hand, if a companies technical prowess comes from a thousands of well trained humans, well that’s actually not easy to get rid of. They’re not stationary, they’re adaptable, they can pick up new skills quicker and cheaper. Any king would much rather invest in humans and not AI.
But in a country like US, where it’s hard to even imagine such instability, AI is perfect at outcompeting humans and ruining them short term, and ruining the country long term. No wonder, this seems to be turning out to become the most negative reaction the public has ever had to the advent of new transformative technology. Unfortunately I don’t think it will work, the AI companies are just going to steamroll them, steal their jobs and dignity and then put them on UBI and pay themselves on the back as if they did a good thing.
> OpenAI supports transparency and accountability
Just like it supported 'Open AI'?
This reminds of the times when companies made large public statements on clean energy and going carbon free during the Obama (and partially Biden) eras. The only difference here is now is a letter to a governor, which is signaling 1) companies believe the way to solve data centers is on a state basis and 2) if they don't do it, they can perhaps blame a lack of "guidance from local officials" versus any part on their own, they have done their due dilligence. I am curious to more see what states don't get any personal mailings, I think that's a better indication than anything actually written.
pittsburgh has many old power plants that are perfect for data center converts
when i go home and hear about this i'm conflicted. it brings short term economic prosperity. what's the cost if there's no commitment to clean energy in reality
the developers on these projects will do whatever it takes to simply get the project done
I only have one question is this legally binding in US in any way if not what's the point virtue signalling? Can openai make it's books public to ensure that it has the money to fulfill it's extra commitments.
Not legally binding, no. This is more of a lobbying attempt, Abbott just paused all new data center development in Texas until the state can audit them, they have an interconnection queue of about 474GW, ERCOT can't handle it that's more than 5x Texas's peak electricity demand.
That would be more half the entire grid load of the USA
Why can’t these idiots just mandate that you have to build out clean energy to power the data centers. It’s such a simple bit of legislation that they just will not do.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/03/texas-data-center-pr...
"Abbott is asking the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to ensure data center developers provide information on tax breaks they will receive; power use and generation; water use and cooling operations; efforts to reduce impacts on local communities; and ownership of the facility. Any projects that fail Abbott’s ordered “comprehensive verification and audit” should be denied connection to the grid, the governor said."
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comp...
"“Our top priority is to protect Texans’ safety and quality of life,” said Governor Abbott. “Any project that fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the PUCT and ERCOT, and by state law, must be denied connection to the Texas grid. Simply put, Texans must come first.”"
https://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/media-center/new...
"The Lone Star State generated the equivalent of 37% of its electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power in 2025"
Oil companies squash all kinds of clean energy regulation.
While I would like this, my guess is it is hard to reconcile with all the other commercial ventures in the state (including datacenters) that aren't subject to such a requirement.
This seems like a good idea to me. I wonder what the hold up is.
To answer your question: Texas. Running on a platform of clean energy is political suicide in half of America, particularly in the south.
You don't seem to realize Texas has huge number clean energy build outs and has been for quite a few years. They lead in wind generation and commercial solar generation.
Texas leads the nation in raw renewable energy production. Solar, wind, and nuclear are hardly maligned there.
I'm not in the know on Texas politics, so I'm curious. Do Texas politicians publicly support clean energy? Or do they just keep their mouths shut and let it happen? Given that the current head of the Republican party seems completely against it and how rabid some of his followers are, I'm just wondering how they thread that needle?
Clean energy development was doing well, was powering more than half our needs, and was creating more jobs than oil. Guess that wasn’t good enough.
Oh and it reduced our green house gas emissions. That was the catch.
(I got coal rolled just yesterday, in Tahoe. Who knew that was still a thing…)
Counterpoint: you're wrong
https://texas2036.org/news-analysis/gale-force-growth-texas-...
Because the federal government made it effectively illegal to build nuclear reactors, and there are no more rivers to be dammed.
People will run to point to the spate of new nuclear plans, but the point be made here is that nuclear regulation is so suffocating and costs so extreme that it's "effectively illegal" to build reactors.
Is it safety regulation that makes nuclear so hard, or is it just that we can't seem to do large projects of any kind any more?
I can tell you from second hand direct experience that the regulations are absolutely over the top, and then doubled for good measure. It almost makes aviation look like running a lemonade stand.
Musk can. Everyone else? Not so much.
Plenty of solar and wind with batteries are available. Data centers and renewable energy are a match made in heaven. They can be in the middle of nowhere where land is cheap.
Because up until recently all the big hyperscalars were already committed to buying or building renewables to meet their energy demand. Then AI happened and they all collectively realized they needed to build as many datacenters as possible to fit as many GPUs as possible to chase the bubble. All those clean energy commitments got tossed by the wayside. Hell, half the time these companies fire people just to free up cashflow to buy more GPUs!
Honestly, that sounds kind of arbitrary. Why should companies that use electricity be required to also produce electricity? This is what the market is for, so other Companies can produce electricity for money and other Companies buy that electricity.
And to which companies would this apply? Only Datacenters? There are other energy intensive industries too, should this also apply to them? And what is the cutoff for that? Does every bigger 21st century company also need to be an electricity company?
It would be less arbitrary if all negative externalities would be taxed (for example, carbon tax or noise pollution tax) and maybe prioritize households on the public grid.
Who cares how it works out as long as they come to the table with funded power generation for their constituent centers.
Yes, the cheque's in the post.
They’d do better with a bribe, Texas runs on corruption. I’m sure the campaign contribution checks are already written though
That's probably already happened. This is smoke and mirrors. Monorail...MoNoRail...MONORAIL!!!!!