The AI industry can argue about opportunity and investment. But if communities are expected to host enormous power consumers, they will need to see some tangible benefits, writes Kathryn Samson.
I find it more than a bit bonkers that at the same time the UK Government is publishing documents stating we will have a 5bn litre / day shortfall in available water, we are building houses of cards propped up by the Treasury which have done away with the 5% risk retention rule and are liable to suffer imminent cascade failure before they even need to consume our non-existent water resources. How is it that data - centres will be provided with clean water when 97% of UK rivers are hideously polluted and we cannot even provide it to our population and the creatures we share this land with ? We are killing ourselves and all around us softly in persuit of a mirage, in what will soon be a desert.
All evidence seems to support the opinion that the whole infrastructure of the UK is under enormous pressure for the failure of successive governments. On top of that it is clear that data centres put a massive strain on almost all local facilities. Yet the apparent benefits of these enormous technical behemoth cannot yet be clarified.
The news that the first glimmer of some planning sense is emerging in Scotland is good - however Scotland does not need 24 Hyperscale AI Data centres. This is driven by a degree of ‘Klondike-like’ fervour by land owners, and City based investors all, trying to get ahead and reap massive rewards on their investments. There is no community or local benefit whatsoever. And the scale of water & power consumption is such that it could wreak havoc - not just to ecology - but to the water and power networks which support our houses, villages, and towns. So - Ministers (in Scotland and South of the Border) how many data centres do we need (?? one or two at most ??) and who makes that decision? Do you leave it to the market (ie. The TechBro Barons) or do you do some real planning instead of abrogating your responsibilities?
AI data centres bring minimal prosperity to locals.. that is mythical. They destroy landscapes; use power and local resources wastefully; potentially cause noise pollution; and make profits for foreign companies thru deals for the govt.
"in one Rockland County, NY case, a new JPMorgan data center expansion drew scrutiny over millions in tax incentives centered on a single permanent job created"
You'd be better off building a nuclear power plant - at least it gives back electricity.. (71% of the US public questioned were opposed to AI data centres being built in their backyard - less popular than a nuclear power station). Musk built his Colossus centre in a poor black neighbourhood without consultation and ignoring Clean Air)..
I find it more than a bit bonkers that at the same time the UK Government is publishing documents stating we will have a 5bn litre / day shortfall in available water, we are building houses of cards propped up by the Treasury which have done away with the 5% risk retention rule and are liable to suffer imminent cascade failure before they even need to consume our non-existent water resources. How is it that data - centres will be provided with clean water when 97% of UK rivers are hideously polluted and we cannot even provide it to our population and the creatures we share this land with ? We are killing ourselves and all around us softly in persuit of a mirage, in what will soon be a desert.
All evidence seems to support the opinion that the whole infrastructure of the UK is under enormous pressure for the failure of successive governments. On top of that it is clear that data centres put a massive strain on almost all local facilities. Yet the apparent benefits of these enormous technical behemoth cannot yet be clarified.
The news that the first glimmer of some planning sense is emerging in Scotland is good - however Scotland does not need 24 Hyperscale AI Data centres. This is driven by a degree of ‘Klondike-like’ fervour by land owners, and City based investors all, trying to get ahead and reap massive rewards on their investments. There is no community or local benefit whatsoever. And the scale of water & power consumption is such that it could wreak havoc - not just to ecology - but to the water and power networks which support our houses, villages, and towns. So - Ministers (in Scotland and South of the Border) how many data centres do we need (?? one or two at most ??) and who makes that decision? Do you leave it to the market (ie. The TechBro Barons) or do you do some real planning instead of abrogating your responsibilities?
We dont want water guzzling AI data centres here, not one.
AI data centres bring minimal prosperity to locals.. that is mythical. They destroy landscapes; use power and local resources wastefully; potentially cause noise pollution; and make profits for foreign companies thru deals for the govt.
"in one Rockland County, NY case, a new JPMorgan data center expansion drew scrutiny over millions in tax incentives centered on a single permanent job created"
More on employment effects:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-evidence-on-data-center-employment-effects/
You'd be better off building a nuclear power plant - at least it gives back electricity.. (71% of the US public questioned were opposed to AI data centres being built in their backyard - less popular than a nuclear power station). Musk built his Colossus centre in a poor black neighbourhood without consultation and ignoring Clean Air)..
There's a huge one planned near Dunbar