This is anticipating the arguments in front of the planning boards.
I get that a lot of data centers use coal and other polluting sources of power. The problem is how that gets represented when trying to create local opposition.
This is anticipating the arguments in front of the planning boards
Nope, it’s a poor attempt at playing Devil’s advocate.
Your starting point of assuming that your audience doesn’t know that extreme power consumption inevitably leads to increased pollution is condescending at best.
Especially in a country where the federal government has made renewable energy all but illegal while promoting fossil fuels at every opportunity.
Granted, that country is also the world’s number one importer, exporter, producer, and sponsor of disinformation, but STILL…
The profitability of a power plant is to some degree determined by its location. It costs more to move power farther. As renewables get cheaper, fossil fuel plant margins get lower, and in many cases, it’s enough to shut them down.
Now you can’t move a coal plant closer to the people who use electricity, but if you build a data center close to a coal plant, suddenly, it’s a viable business model.
Similar reason aluminum refineries are often built near power plants. Except aluminum actually helps people.
I’m more focusing on what the source of pollution is to make sure arguments are better made online to fight data centers.
The power required for data centers can be polluting, but building a data center in an area isn’t guaranteed to cause a drop in air quality since the builder could choose a different energy source to power the data center.
Except you’re missing the reality of the situation for the sake of theory. They pointed out quite rightly that these new data centres are not using clean energy and are, in fact, propping up old fossil-fuel plants which should be closing to make way for clean energy.
They could choose a lot of stuff, but since it’s a choice and not forced upon them they are jumping on the quicker options. Why wait for a bunch of renewable sources to be built when you could simply use the existing, shitty stuff and get your shit built quicker? Corporations don’t give a fuck about anything but money and they will let people fucking die if it would save them even 0.01% of their annual revenue. It wouldn’t the first or even the thousandth time it’s happened.
Corporations also misinterpret facts for their benefit.
I can easily see people make the argument that data centers affect air quality because they are powered by coal power plants and the data center rep is going to reply “we aren’t building a coal power plant at this data center site; that’s just opposition fear mongering” and now it becomes harder to get people to believe you on other issues.
You know that using water turns it into wastewater right? Whether it’s cooling computers or turning a turbine, the water is contaminated by metals as a direct result of the process.
How are they polluting?
They are wrecking the energy grid and messing with the water supply, but how are they polluting the water supply?
Here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8gy7lv448o
Also there are talks of re-opening old coal electric power plants to feed these data centers.
And I agree that coal power plants are very polluting. However, the pollution comes from the source of power.
Unless the AI is running on fairy dust, its energy use is very much a part of how sustainable it is.
It is important to anticipate the argument that they are getting the power from renewable sources.
But they aren’t. What they could be doing is irrelevant, none of the big ones are running 100% (or probably even 50%) green energy.
This is anticipating the arguments in front of the planning boards.
I get that a lot of data centers use coal and other polluting sources of power. The problem is how that gets represented when trying to create local opposition.
Nope, it’s a poor attempt at playing Devil’s advocate.
Your starting point of assuming that your audience doesn’t know that extreme power consumption inevitably leads to increased pollution is condescending at best.
Especially in a country where the federal government has made renewable energy all but illegal while promoting fossil fuels at every opportunity.
Granted, that country is also the world’s number one importer, exporter, producer, and sponsor of disinformation, but STILL…
Have you had to deal with mounting local opposition against development?
The profitability of a power plant is to some degree determined by its location. It costs more to move power farther. As renewables get cheaper, fossil fuel plant margins get lower, and in many cases, it’s enough to shut them down.
Now you can’t move a coal plant closer to the people who use electricity, but if you build a data center close to a coal plant, suddenly, it’s a viable business model.
Similar reason aluminum refineries are often built near power plants. Except aluminum actually helps people.
I’m more focusing on what the source of pollution is to make sure arguments are better made online to fight data centers.
The power required for data centers can be polluting, but building a data center in an area isn’t guaranteed to cause a drop in air quality since the builder could choose a different energy source to power the data center.
Except you’re missing the reality of the situation for the sake of theory. They pointed out quite rightly that these new data centres are not using clean energy and are, in fact, propping up old fossil-fuel plants which should be closing to make way for clean energy.
They could choose a lot of stuff, but since it’s a choice and not forced upon them they are jumping on the quicker options. Why wait for a bunch of renewable sources to be built when you could simply use the existing, shitty stuff and get your shit built quicker? Corporations don’t give a fuck about anything but money and they will let people fucking die if it would save them even 0.01% of their annual revenue. It wouldn’t the first or even the thousandth time it’s happened.
Corporations also misinterpret facts for their benefit.
I can easily see people make the argument that data centers affect air quality because they are powered by coal power plants and the data center rep is going to reply “we aren’t building a coal power plant at this data center site; that’s just opposition fear mongering” and now it becomes harder to get people to believe you on other issues.
https://www.sehn.org/sehn/2025/8/14/data-centers-and-the-water-crisis
You know that using water turns it into wastewater right? Whether it’s cooling computers or turning a turbine, the water is contaminated by metals as a direct result of the process.