this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
885 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
87302 readers
3424 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looking at the actual numbers (less than 1%) other commentors are posting as opposed to clickbait headlines, I'm not seeing the issue.
Note that the negative impact of these facilities are, by designed, concentrated on the communities that get stuck with them. The overall percentage has to be considered in the context of them focusing that impact into relatively small, super dense footprints.
Also, the percentage is higher than 1%, and in the US is about 5%. This reflects the current situation that the AI companies lament is just too constrained on them, with ambitions of getting to 20% if circumstances allow them to build up the way they want. So it's already somewhat significant, especially with the way it gets concentrated, and further they want to bump it up at least four fold beyond what they've managed to do so far.
In anticipation of that, energy strategies that planned to be more tame and grow by renewables got pushed aside in favor of more natural gas, and especially portable power generation which tends to be more polluting.
I'm exhausted of all this. The data centers have been so pervasive that some communities have been thinking about rationing electricity to get around the requirements. That's... a dystopia future if Ive ever seen one.
The politicians of those communities have failed their constituents.
When a data center permit is applied for, it should be weighed against the state of the grid. If there's not enough production, it should not be allowed unless they also build a bunch of electricity production capacity, which needs to come online first.
There are instances where this could actually be a net benefit for the grid. Right now in my country, power prices go negative at peak sunlight hours in the summer because we have nothing to do with all that electricity. If you produce solar, gotta disconnect from the grid at those points. A reliable consumer working 24/7 would help even things out for the consumption side of the grid math.
Not that I want them in my country, we have a very dirty grid (shale plants, yay) and live far enough north that solar only works for about 7-8 months a year. But somewhere more moderate in terms of solar availability, it would be fine. Here we need more consumption in the summer and less in the winter.
Sure, but have they failed their own bank accounts? Need to ask the important questions...
Hyperbole is hyperbole. I refuse to fall for bullshit just because it's aligned with my views and opinions.
I personally think it's bullshit that these things are happening to begin with, not that people are ringing the alarm to our new reality. The latter is just us doing our part to fix this.