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.
Ok but that’s pretty much what you’re saying. The plants are linked to increases in pollution and you’re like “well just because they always are and no one is stopping them doesn’t mean they need to be!”
It is more addressing what is happening on site versus part of a regional problem.
You’re likely to get more people to show up to a zoning board meeting by saying that this data center is going to increase air pollution. Then the data center rep is going to ensure that no or a small power plant able to act as a backup is going to be used. Everyone will be happy, but the data center still gets built because the pollution isn’t happening on site.
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.
You know that you can make a water cooled system where the water used to cool system doesn’t touch the inner machinery, right?
It is more efficient to run an internal system that doesn’t interface with the outside except through radiators. The radiators interface with the external water supply, usually causing the water to evaporate since it is a relatively cheap way to remove thermal energy from a system.
After all, if the water stayed liquid, they could find other ways to cool the water to be reused. The problem with data centers is that they are literally boiling away the local water supply.
You make a point; data centers are indeed boiling away fresh water reserves. But you’re also asking what the direct source of pollution is, in order to more effectively argue against the data centers
Because these data centers require energy and cooling, while also working with “razor-thin margins” of AI competition… they are reinvigorating coal and fossil fuels, through use of an existent infrastructure
But also, nobody asked for them to dump billions into this… though dumping the same amount of effort and capital into renewable energy (as well as curbing climate disaster), isn’t apparently as readily profitable
It’s hard to directly blame “increased pollution” on data centers, because that would be silly to allow such linear blame to be seen, in all the grift. And could also decrease overall profitability if the general public made the connection
The pollution comes from their use of existing infrastructure, while doubly, they could be building renewable infrastructure. It’s just not profitable in such a corporate world to do anything but scrape the remnants of a dying world
I’m making sure that the argument is going to be understood by lay people.
It is relatively easy to get people to rally against building a coal power plant in their community. My concern is that people are going to say not to build a data center because it is going to be powered by coal and the data center rep is going to say that a coal power plant isn’t going to be built on site.
That data center would still get built because there is going to be a performative meeting where planning officials ban building the power plant, but then a data center operator buys a coal power plant about to be decommissioned and decides to keep it going to fuel the data center without having to go through the planning hurdles of getting that plant built.
I’m just trying to make sure that the arguments make sense to people who aren’t thinking through it as much as you.
Many residents’ electricity bills are skyrocketing due to the predicted demand of data centers. It’s not as hard to convince people to oppose building more if they know it’s due to more data centers. The problem is convincing many that it’s the reason the bills are so high and not blaming windmill or solar power. The last part isn’t always easy.
Then don’t focus on the pollution, but the fresh water reserves being depleted. Ya got sound thoughts, to me; I wouldn’t try to complicate it (if I could help it)
Lay people lie where under scrutiny. Meet them somewheres in the middle, if you’re so determined. We’re uninformed, not incapable
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.
Of course not, no company is. That’s not viable yet.
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.
Ok but that’s pretty much what you’re saying. The plants are linked to increases in pollution and you’re like “well just because they always are and no one is stopping them doesn’t mean they need to be!”
It is more addressing what is happening on site versus part of a regional problem.
You’re likely to get more people to show up to a zoning board meeting by saying that this data center is going to increase air pollution. Then the data center rep is going to ensure that no or a small power plant able to act as a backup is going to be used. Everyone will be happy, but the data center still gets built because the pollution isn’t happening on site.
To second /u/Soup. Look at the average bitcoin mine in China. They’re largely coal powered.
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.
You know that you can make a water cooled system where the water used to cool system doesn’t touch the inner machinery, right?
It is more efficient to run an internal system that doesn’t interface with the outside except through radiators. The radiators interface with the external water supply, usually causing the water to evaporate since it is a relatively cheap way to remove thermal energy from a system.
After all, if the water stayed liquid, they could find other ways to cool the water to be reused. The problem with data centers is that they are literally boiling away the local water supply.
That goes for the piping. But it’s it true for the pumps? Are they using pumps that adhere to strict drinking water standards?
Why does it matter when they are going to boil off the water?
You make a point; data centers are indeed boiling away fresh water reserves. But you’re also asking what the direct source of pollution is, in order to more effectively argue against the data centers
Because these data centers require energy and cooling, while also working with “razor-thin margins” of AI competition… they are reinvigorating coal and fossil fuels, through use of an existent infrastructure
But also, nobody asked for them to dump billions into this… though dumping the same amount of effort and capital into renewable energy (as well as curbing climate disaster), isn’t apparently as readily profitable
It’s hard to directly blame “increased pollution” on data centers, because that would be silly to allow such linear blame to be seen, in all the grift. And could also decrease overall profitability if the general public made the connection
The pollution comes from their use of existing infrastructure, while doubly, they could be building renewable infrastructure. It’s just not profitable in such a corporate world to do anything but scrape the remnants of a dying world
Edit: Don’t forget to recycle!
I’m making sure that the argument is going to be understood by lay people.
It is relatively easy to get people to rally against building a coal power plant in their community. My concern is that people are going to say not to build a data center because it is going to be powered by coal and the data center rep is going to say that a coal power plant isn’t going to be built on site.
That data center would still get built because there is going to be a performative meeting where planning officials ban building the power plant, but then a data center operator buys a coal power plant about to be decommissioned and decides to keep it going to fuel the data center without having to go through the planning hurdles of getting that plant built.
I’m just trying to make sure that the arguments make sense to people who aren’t thinking through it as much as you.
Many residents’ electricity bills are skyrocketing due to the predicted demand of data centers. It’s not as hard to convince people to oppose building more if they know it’s due to more data centers. The problem is convincing many that it’s the reason the bills are so high and not blaming windmill or solar power. The last part isn’t always easy.
I completely agree, and it is a good idea to highlight that there will be increased utility bills by allowing for data center construction.
Then don’t focus on the pollution, but the fresh water reserves being depleted. Ya got sound thoughts, to me; I wouldn’t try to complicate it (if I could help it)
Lay people lie where under scrutiny. Meet them somewheres in the middle, if you’re so determined. We’re uninformed, not incapable
Exactly. There are good reasons to argue against building data centers, including impacting fresh water resources.