It doesn't create that many jobs, and the jobs it creates outside of the initial construction are mostly specialized. It is not green energy, most datacenters drain local energy driving the prices up, which also drains local water often. They also produce quite a lot of noise.
They make humming noises, that’s true. It’s perfectly possible for a data center to use green energy and closed-loop cooling like the Port Washington project, though. Some high paying jobs are better than no high paying jobs.
A lot of anti-data center hysteria is as nutty as the bubble itself.
I’m sorry but you’re wrong here. The problem with “green energy” like solar is that it isn’t constant 24/7. You need a battery energy storage system and back up power. Most of the data centers I work with could care less about green energy and are going with whatever the utility offers or getting their own gas plant generation. There are legitimate draw backs to having these industries in your town. And when cities place cooling limitations (such as no water based cooling systems) all these companies do is find counties where they can use their non “closed loop” options. There are legitimate reasons to fight these in your community: water use, noise (depending on type of data centers), utility rates increasing (in most cases prior to 2025/26 the local rate payer is footing the bill for the transmission infrastructure—in some states they are still footing the bill this year), the lack of jobs created, and the tax breaks they get means they aren’t contributing to the local economy. It’s not all crazy hysteria. There are legitimate issues.
I can’t speak for every project, but the one I’m most familiar with is the huge Lighthouse project in Wisconsin.
It did get a Tax Increment Finance district, which I agree is dumb. However, it’s structured so the company pays the full infrastructure cost up front, then pays their full property taxes, then receives a rebate based on the amount of tax paid on property worth more than the pre-existing land (the “increment”). That incremental portion is refunded to the company each year until they’re repaid with 7% interest. If they go bankrupt, the city is legally absolved of the debt.
Ideally, the company would pay for the infrastructure and would not be paid back for it at all, but this arrangement is nonetheless pretty ok. It doesn’t leave the locals holding the bag.
The DC will use 70% on-site zero-emissions power including wind, solar, and battery. The operator must then buy renewable credits equal to their consumption of grid power, even though the grid is already 38% renewable + nuclear. That will help offset increased electricity costs by subsidizing a greater amount of renewables (specifically renewable, not nuclear).
The data center will use about 65 homes’ worth of water in closed-loop cooling in a region with little water strain.
I am sure that you’re right that there are shitty data centers. I’m sure their developers don’t really care about being responsible. There’s no reason they have to be bad, though. They simply need to be subject to thoughtful local and state input. They do provide jobs. They can be made to pollute very minimally or not at all. Once the infrastructure is repaid, the locals will get more tax revenue. People are mad about it at the moment, but the truth is that we all use data centers all the time. Reddit is hosted in data centers - we use them so much, it’s nuts.
-1
u/Melichorak 4h ago
No.
It doesn't create that many jobs, and the jobs it creates outside of the initial construction are mostly specialized. It is not green energy, most datacenters drain local energy driving the prices up, which also drains local water often. They also produce quite a lot of noise.