Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

scienceaim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#131

Post by WarmWash »

autoexec wrote: post #127
WarmWash wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read these or did you just post them to illustrate my point? Like the only real datacenter centric point made in all three is that you can detect air being a couple degrees warmer within 1,700ft of a datacenter. The rollingstone article is crazy, because it's actually just about agricultural runoff which is poisoning a well Amazon uses for cooling. My point here isn't that datacenters have zero impact, my poi…

> The rollingstone article is crazy, because it's actually just about agricultural runoff which is poisoning a well Amazon uses for cooling. Did you actually read that article? The issue isn't that amazon is the source of the nitrates, the problem is that the data center is concentrating them and pushing them into the aquifer. Saying that the data center isn't responsible is like arguing that desalination plants don'…

I don't see how you can make the case that Amazon is responsible for cleaning up farmer's waste...

The water utility and the farmers need to solve the problem, not Amazon. If the farmers are dumping shit in water, they can pay to remove it.

The whole article is the bad faith desperate reaching I'm talking about. What's the takeaway? "Datacenters are bad because they make it harder for polluters to dilute/hide their pollution levels"?

Don't get yourself in a knot trying to defend this, because like I said, it's incredibly shaky and bad faith compared to "AI is going to take jobs and I don't want to be destitute"

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#132

Post by autoexec »

WarmWash wrote: post #131
autoexec wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rollingstone article is crazy, because it's actually just about agricultural runoff which is poisoning a well Amazon uses for cooling. Did you actually read that article? The issue isn't that amazon is the source of the nitrates, the problem is that the data center is concentrating them and pushing them into the aquifer. Saying that the data center isn't responsible is like arguing that desalination plants don'…

I don't see how you can make the case that Amazon is responsible for cleaning up farmer's waste... The water utility and the farmers need to solve the problem, not Amazon. If the farmers are dumping shit in water, they can pay to remove it. The whole article is the bad faith desperate reaching I'm talking about. What's the takeaway? "Datacenters are bad because they make it harder for polluters to dilute/hide their p…

> If the farmers are dumping shit in water, they can pay to remove it.

Amazon isn't responsible for causing it, they're responsible for having made the existing problem much much worse. Amazon didn't start the fire, but they poured millions of gallons of gasoline all over it and as a direct result that fire spread farther and faster than it would have.

As for who is paying to remove it, Amazon's currently paying out $20.5 million in settlements with the residents. Those whose drinking water is now polluted well above legal limits will get a new source of clean drinking water.

> it's incredibly shaky and bad faith compared to "AI is going to take jobs and I don't want to be destitute"

The environmental harms are measurable and real and happening right now. The idea that AI is going to take our jobs is entirely theoretical. Right now, AI hasn't even managed to successfully take over even extremely basic jobs that children often perform like taking drive thru orders at fast food restaurants. There have been attempts to use AI for such menial tasks, but they have been plagued by embarrassing failures. It's a lot more reasonable to be worried about the environmental harms of AI data centers than AI putting people out of work.

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#133

Post by fintechjock »

autoexec wrote: post #102
fintechjock wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they harming consumers? I would think that consumers would vastly benefit from cheaper software, nearly unlimited cloud storage, lower property taxes. Heck, the next generation of data centers are looking like they will actually be net energy producers. Consumers might not know that they benefit from data centers, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t

> How are they harming consumers? Consumers like breathing ( https://spectrum.ieee.org/data-centers-pollution ) and drinking clean water ( https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/data-center-accused-m... ). The noise is loud enough to cause hearing damage, and the smell and light pollution isn't helping consumers either.

Those are residents, not consumers across the US

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#134

Post by fintechjock »

j_w wrote: post #105
fintechjock wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they harming consumers? I would think that consumers would vastly benefit from cheaper software, nearly unlimited cloud storage, lower property taxes. Heck, the next generation of data centers are looking like they will actually be net energy producers. Consumers might not know that they benefit from data centers, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t

> consumers would vastly benefit from cheaper software, nearly unlimited cloud storage, lower property taxes. What data centers are bringing cheaper software, unlimited cloud storage (for free?), or lower local property taxes?

Cheaper software – all of them

Nearly unlimited cloud storage - AWS / Google / etc. Data centers are the Cloud

Lower property taxes - data centers increase the property tax base, creating tax compression, which shift property tax from consumer –> company. I'm in Texas, so can only be sure that is true here. I have not looked at all other states.

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#135

Post by fintechjock »

wat10000 wrote: post #119
fintechjock wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, for the average HN consumer But a new iPhone Pro is $154 cheaper than it was in 2020 when adjusted for inflation, and that is probably all the average consumer really cares about

High margin products are often the last to be impacted at retail because the seller has some cushion. And the impacts are only just getting started. We see the MacBook Neo with a somewhat sad 8GB RAM, most likely due to this. We'll see a combination of just plain higher prices (Steam Deck and Switch 2 have both gone up) and shrinkflation in the form of lower specs.

Interesting, thanks!

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#136

Post by WarmWash »

autoexec wrote: post #132
WarmWash wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you can make the case that Amazon is responsible for cleaning up farmer's waste... The water utility and the farmers need to solve the problem, not Amazon. If the farmers are dumping shit in water, they can pay to remove it. The whole article is the bad faith desperate reaching I'm talking about. What's the takeaway? "Datacenters are bad because they make it harder for polluters to dilute/hide their p…

> If the farmers are dumping shit in water, they can pay to remove it. Amazon isn't responsible for causing it, they're responsible for having made the existing problem much much worse. Amazon didn't start the fire, but they poured millions of gallons of gasoline all over it and as a direct result that fire spread farther and faster than it would have. As for who is paying to remove it, Amazon's currently paying out…

>Datacenters are bad because they make it harder for polluters to dilute/hide their pollution levels

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#137

Post by fintechjock »

kube-system wrote: post #98
fintechjock wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they harming consumers? I would think that consumers would vastly benefit from cheaper software, nearly unlimited cloud storage, lower property taxes. Heck, the next generation of data centers are looking like they will actually be net energy producers. Consumers might not know that they benefit from data centers, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t

The data centers being built due to the AI bubble are predominately increasing costs for public utilities. Many localities are having to make significant investments to keep the lights on and increasing rates for everyone. If half of these datacenters go out of business next year, it will get even worse when mom and pop will be left with the bill for these projects.

I don't see a widespread issue in keeping the lights on, outside of the Lake Tahoe fubar.

Considering utility rates, I would happily pay more for utilities in the short term to have 30+ years of lower property taxes. The data centers property taxes would go to paying for that buildout, and over time it's a great deal for consumers. That said, I'm in Texas so the property tax issue is more prevalent than it would be in New York.

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#138

Post by fintechjock »

runtime_terror wrote: post #109
fintechjock wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you estimate is the annual electricity spend for those living next to data centers and those who don’t?

Not sure how to answer this. It's pretty well documented that datacenters (esp the AI variety) are offloading grid expenses to customers as higher baseline costs. The issue is that these DCs are not paying for the cost of the necessary grid upgrades but are instead having the power cos pass these costs off to all consumers as base increases.

Found something. Not very exact data, but Virginia has the highest concentration of data centers per capita, but average electric bills: https://www.electricchoice.com/average-electric-bills/

I agree with your take on tradeoffs when it comes to DCs that are built with tax abatements, which are a terrible deal for consumers. Those that are not receiving tax benefits will make up for short-term energy prices with long-term property tax benefits, that will eventually pay back the grid upgrades and fund even more upgrades in the future.

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#139

Post by autoexec »

WarmWash wrote: post #136
autoexec wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the farmers are dumping shit in water, they can pay to remove it. Amazon isn't responsible for causing it, they're responsible for having made the existing problem much much worse. Amazon didn't start the fire, but they poured millions of gallons of gasoline all over it and as a direct result that fire spread farther and faster than it would have. As for who is paying to remove it, Amazon's currently paying out…

>Datacenters are bad because they make it harder for polluters to dilute/hide their pollution levels

I really don't disagree that the agriculture industry has pollution problems they need to address. It's just also true that one of the environmental problems data centers can cause is making existing problems with water quality much much worse. That's also a major problem. Maybe Amazon knew about it before they built their data center. Maybe they didn't. Each community where data centers pop up gives us more information about the harms they cause, but we're learning those lessons the hard way. It's smart that NY and other places are being cautious. The fact that we have plenty of other environmental problems to deal with makes it all the more important that we're careful about introducing new ones.

Re: New York just passed a one-year temporary ban on data centers

#140

Post by kube-system »

fintechjock wrote: post #137
kube-system wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data centers being built due to the AI bubble are predominately increasing costs for public utilities. Many localities are having to make significant investments to keep the lights on and increasing rates for everyone. If half of these datacenters go out of business next year, it will get even worse when mom and pop will be left with the bill for these projects.

I don't see a widespread issue in keeping the lights on, outside of the Lake Tahoe fubar. Considering utility rates, I would happily pay more for utilities in the short term to have 30+ years of lower property taxes. The data centers property taxes would go to paying for that buildout, and over time it's a great deal for consumers. That said, I'm in Texas so the property tax issue is more prevalent than it would be i…

Lake Tahoe might be the only area literally with issues keeping the lights on, but many more are facing rate hikes and debt spending to build out infrastructure and keep up with increases in demand for utilities.

The prevailing idea is that we're currently in a bubble, especially when it comes to AI hyperscalers, and that the tax revenue will decline when the bubble pops.

Also, not all localities have updated their public utility regs to appropriately assign the costs of infrastructure projects to these new projects. Many, like NoVA have just recently added new utility rate classes specifically for data centers to attempt to do that. In other places, these costs are often are being split among the existing utility customers.

Post reply on HN