Hacker News
points by lenerdenator 1 day ago | 0 comments
I think that tech companies are often insanely greedy when it comes to building these data centers. They're asking for tax breaks they don't need and putting strain on local electrical grids that they expect other people to pay for, all while bringing little in the way of permanent employment increases to the areas where they're built. It's wrong.

That being said, water isn't like electricity, land, or a given year's tax revenues. It exists in a cycle and can be reused. It can be piped in from a potable water source, and you could probably develop a cooling loop that would return it back to the civic supply in potable form.

Other than somebody not wanting to because "b-b-b-b-but what about the shareholders!?", why not build that loop, put its components into mass production, and let economies of scale start cutting the cost while having less impact upon local water districts?

[–] barney54 1 day ago
Why do you assume there is any real impact on local water districts? The evidence isn't strong there is much of an impact.
[–] lenerdenator 1 day ago
> Data centers cannot just use any kind of water either; it has to be clean enough to ensure the equipment and pipes are not damaged. Tapping into public drinking water is both easier and cheaper than paying the cost of treatment themselves. That means data centers end up competing with communities over their potable water supply.

Makes sense.

[–] profdevloper 1 day ago
So provide tiered pricing for these larger consumers that would offset the additional pressure on existing infrastructure. If the infrastructure doesn't exist -- allow these datacenter companies to invest and build out the infrastructure that would also benefit other customers in that water district.
[–] TFNA 1 day ago
When industry is negotiating with local government to open a facility, often one of the stipulations is that the facility will pay no more than local residents for access to utilities (in fact, the industry may even demand a lower, privileged rate). If the local government did what you suggested, the industry would just go elsewhere. Modern industries are overall not very interested in paying more in order to build out infrastructure to benefit the community beyond their own site.
[–] lenerdenator 18 hours ago
And therein lies the problem. We need to break the industry of this mindset.
[–] shimman 1 day ago
What is the issue here? Local populations don't want to use their communities to satiate the greed of a multi trillion dollar corporation.

They can afford to pay whatever the rates, they just want the public to give them more corporate welfare so they can get greedier while inflicting a surveillance state upon the masses.

[–] TFNA 1 day ago
The issue is that even if one community puts up resistance, the corporation will eventually find some other local government that plays ball. In the end, someone or another still gets screwed.