The proposal for large monetary deposits is interesting.

BBC News

Data centres could pay hundreds of millions in deposits f...

The regulator said a fee of between £237,500 to £712,500 per megawatt should be charged for upcoming projects.

This thread is to give an airing to the increasing tension between data centres and the wider public, society and infrastructure.

I do not understand why data centres are said to need to consume large quantities of drinking water. I believe it is just for cooling. But no power station uses drinking water for that. Why can data centres not use a closed loop of coolant and reject heat via heat exchangers into a river or the sea, like a power plant? If it is just cost then surely these tech bro squillionaires should be made to foot the bill, rather than devouring the precious drinking water of the citizens.

Or am I missing something?

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I do not understand why data centres are said to need to consume large quantities of drinking water. I believe it is just for cooling. But no power station uses drinking water for that. Why can data centres not use a closed loop of coolant and reject heat via heat exchangers into a river or the sea, like a power plant? If it is just cost then surely these tech bro squillionaires should be made to foot the bill, rather than devouring the precious drinking water of the citizens.

Or am I missing something?

Partly, it's that so many tech companies are choosing desert locations for their data centers, where any water use will take from water used by people. There are no rivers or seas, just underground aquifers which are already under siege from municipalities and agriculture. Here's a good article on the reasons for this flocking to the desert, which seems counterintuitive at first.

MIT Technology Review

The data center boom in the desert

The AI race is transforming northwestern Nevada into one of the world's largest data-center markets—and sparking fears of water strains in the nation’s driest state.

39 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Partly, it's that so many tech companies are choosing desert locations for their data centers, where any water use will take from water used by people. There are no rivers or seas, just underground aquifers which are already under siege from municipalities and agriculture. Here's a good article on the reasons for this flocking to the desert, which seems counterintuitive at first.

MIT Technology Review

The data center boom in the desert

The AI race is transforming northwestern Nevada into one of the world's largest data-center markets—and sparking fears of water strains in the nation’s driest state.

I must confess I got bored with this tedious article before it got to any explanation of why deserts are preferred. And I don’t really buy it, because there are plans for over a dozen of these bloody things in Scotland! I read an article about them in the FT.

But at least the part I read did - eventually - get round to confirming the water is indeed for cooling and the net consumption is due to the use of evaporative cooling towers. Which raises the obvious question of why allow them to use this wasteful method instead of some kind of non-evaporative heat exchange. And if nothing else works in the desert, then refuse them permission to build there!

Edited July 29Jul 29 by exchemist

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

I must confess I got bored with this tedious article before it got to any explanation of why deserts are preferred. And I don’t really buy it, because there are plans for over a dozen of these bloody things in Scotland! I read an article about them in the FT.

But at least the part I read did - eventually - get round to confirming the water is indeed for cooling and the net consumption is due to the use of evaporative cooling towers. Which raises the obvious question of why allow them to use this wasteful method instead of some kind of non-evaporative heat exchange. And if nothing else works in the desert, then refuse them permission to build there!

I think it says that the water is also needed for the increased 24/7 energy required to operate the data centres (not sure if the energy power stations also need drinking quality water...)

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

I do not understand why data centres are said to need to consume large quantities of drinking water. I believe it is just for cooling. But no power station uses drinking water for that. Why can data centres not use a closed loop of coolant and reject heat via heat exchangers into a river or the sea, like a power plant? If it is just cost then surely these tech bro squillionaires should be made to foot the bill, rather than devouring the precious drinking water of the citizens.

Or am I missing something?

In the case of Utah most of the available water during a large part of the year is underground, which is generally all potable. Data centers CAN use a closed loop system and generate energy through means that don't require water usage. The problem is those are more expensive than just buying up all of a cheap resource (especially one like water which is probably way undervalued) and using it. It is almost always cheaper to make a mess and leave it than it is to clean it up or keep from making that mess to begin with.

7 hours ago, npts2020 said:

In the case of Utah most of the available water during a large part of the year is underground, which is generally all potable. Data centers CAN use a closed loop system and generate energy through means that don't require water usage. The problem is those are more expensive than just buying up all of a cheap resource (especially one like water which is probably way undervalued) and using it. It is almost always cheaper to make a mess and leave it than it is to clean it up or keep from making that mess to begin with.

Hmm. I wonder if it is far-fetched to suggest the tech bros are using the (bogus?) sense of urgency they have created around AI to persuade the authorities to give them what they want quickly, instead of insisting their data centres should be resource-neutral.

10 hours ago, npts2020 said:

In the case of Utah most of the available water during a large part of the year is underground, which is generally all potable. Data centers CAN use a closed loop system and generate energy through means that don't require water usage. The problem is those are more expensive than just buying up all of a cheap resource (especially one like water which is probably way undervalued) and using it. It is almost always cheaper to make a mess and leave it than it is to clean it up or keep from making that mess to begin with.

There’s an attitude of having money meaning you can do whatever you want, i.e. responsibility is for other people (which has become more rampant in the US with Trump being in charge and participating) so why do what’s best for all? You can just buy a few politicians, which is the cheaper option.

And then the politicians try to sell locals on the notion that the data center will create jobs for them. That was peddled briefly here, until people started researching a bit and learned that data centers (once the flurry of construction and temp work is over) average 30-50 FT employees. IOW, far fewer than other businesses of similar size.

One proposal I saw in New Mexico was especially outrageous, as the company had vowed to install its own power source, which turned out to be NG fueled generators. Middle of a sun-drenched desert but, no, solar/batteries is too expensive.

IMO the biggest part of the problem is the widespread acting as if everything in life should be digitized and assuming there is no practical limit to storage.

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Which raises the obvious question of why allow them to use this wasteful method instead of some kind of non-evaporative heat exchange. And if nothing else works in the desert, then refuse them permission to build there!

Well, some do require closed-loop systems, though I guess not so much in desert areas. Issue is higher cost, lower efficiency, especially in, say, deserts. An additional issues seems to be that coolants used in water-free systems are harder maintain and can lead to more toxic leaks. Usually that is a problem when data cenres close and someone has to clean them up.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

One proposal I saw in New Mexico was especially outrageous, as the company had vowed to install its own power source, which turned out to be NG fueled generators. Middle of a sun-drenched desert but, no, solar/batteries is too expensive.

One argument I heard is that that this gives them more flexibility to address fluctuating power demands (for the given cost that is). Which is why the claim that AI is going to solve our energy and climate change problem doubly ironic.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well, some do require closed-loop systems, though I guess not so much in desert areas. Issue is higher cost, lower efficiency, especially in, say, deserts.

Having designed industrial cooling systems for large industrial facilities in temperate, sub-tropical, tropical, and (hot) desert environments over the years, I think I'm safe in saying that there is no problem in either the technical or the economic feasibility of closed loop water cooling systems (and/or propane-based refrigeration) exhausting their waste heat to the local environment via air-cooled heat exchangers.

Only the accountants take issue with the extra few per cent on the CAPEX and overheads.

And some of those extras are often exaggerated or even illusory when conformance with present/anticipated environmental protection requirements are considered.

38 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Having designed industrial cooling systems for large industrial facilities in temperate, sub-tropical, tropical, and (hot) desert environments over the years, I think I'm safe in saying that there is no problem in either the technical or the economic feasibility of closed loop water cooling systems (and/or propane-based refrigeration) exhausting their waste heat to the local environment via air-cooled heat exchangers.

Only the accountants take issue with the extra few per cent on the CAPEX and overheads.

And some of those extras are often exaggerated or even illusory when conformance with present/anticipated environmental protection requirements are considered.

Right. So it's all ballocks and they should damned well stump up the extra.

58 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Right. So it's all ballocks and they should damned well stump up the extra.

Exactly!!

5 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Only the accountants take issue with the extra few per cent on the CAPEX and overheads.

And some of those extras are often exaggerated or even illusory when conformance with present/anticipated environmental protection requirements are considered.

That is very good to know. So it is about optimizing the margins? I assume as everyone and their dog wants to be hyperscalers it is getting competitive?

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is very good to know. So it is about optimizing the margins? I assume as everyone and their dog wants to be hyperscalers it is getting competitive?

Ii's exactly the same as the flaring of associated gas around various parts of the globe. Unless the bastards see the sword of Damocles dangling by a thread over their heads, they will just take the piss (please excuse my French).

I found myself wanting to upvote everyone. To the OP - it seems reasonable and even normal for a proposed industry expansion with high energy or water or other requirements to cooperate in planning processes, including potentially to have to contribute to the expansions of the services and infrastructure they require.

For an industry promoting intelligence as their product there seems to be a distinct shortage. It seems to me the same imperatives and considerations that are making RE the most built new energy around the world apply to data centres - cost, convenience, time to build.

Being the cynical sort that I am I suspect partisan elements within politics see them as disruptive to the RE growth trajectory as well as a raised finger to environmentalism (as most visible proxy for broader community concerns and calls for regulation - and a partisan button to press). Massive growth of data centres are presenting an opportunity for partisan politics to dictate what energy choices that new demand should use.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

One argument I heard is that that this gives them more flexibility to address fluctuating power demands (for the given cost that is). Which is why the claim that AI is going to solve our energy and climate change problem doubly ironic.

Indeed. Sorta funny given the breathless claims of AI and smart microgrids that can take renewable energy and set up base power and peak use management. They should be leading on this. As several here noted, there's a regressive partisan political dynamic that seeks to give a black eye to RE.

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I found myself wanting to upvote everyone. To the OP - it seems reasonable and even normal for a proposed industry expansion with high energy or water or other requirements to cooperate in planning processes, including potentially to have to contribute to the expansions of the services and infrastructure they require.

For an industry promoting intelligence as their product there seems to be a distinct shortage. It seems to me the same imperatives and considerations that are making RE the most built new energy around the world apply to data centres - cost, convenience, time to build.

Being the cynical sort that I am I suspect partisan elements within politics see them as disruptive to the RE growth trajectory as well as a raised finger to environmentalism (as most visible proxy for broader community concerns and calls for regulation - and a partisan button to press). Massive growth of data centres are presenting an opportunity for partisan politics to dictate what energy choices that new demand should use.

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

To the OP

That would be me.

If you are saying there are many beefs around the planning process I would agree wholeheartedly. The planning process in the UK is a joke, which is sad considering the importance of the subject.

The comments by others about ulterior motives and/or disregards should be noted.

No one however, seems to want to question the need for all these data centres.

I see the situation as organisations wanting to secure their long term business prospects rather than satisfying a societal need.

Once they have persuaded unwary lay users that they (the users) don't need to store their data locally they have a free ticket to long term business.

Yet we are suffering more and more hacks, outages, and other nonsense due to outsourcing data storage and flinging it halfway round the globe and back, just to buy a cup of coffee.

The latest insanity in the UK is that we are having digital telephones forced on us, using the already redundant 'information superhighway' (Fibre).

With this invocation, writ large,

After conversion you should (must ?) keep a fully charged mobile phone in case you need to make an emergency call in case of outages of the internet.

I am seriously old fashioned in that I expect 'progress' to mean the user enjoys facilities she didn't have before, rather than looses them whilst paying higher prices to increase the profits of already over rich companies.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by studiot

1 hour ago, studiot said:

No one however, seems to want to question the need for all these data centres.

For me it's not a lack of willingness to question it, but instead an acceptance of the fact that suggestions of turning back are unachievable and pollyanish. I acknowledge this sounds defeatist, but it's also almost certainly the most realistic stance.

The toothpaste is already out of the tube. It's not going back in.

Instead, the focus needs to be on regulating and updating the way power is supplied and the manner in which water is used to cool them.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

That would be me.

If you are saying there are many beefs around the planning process I would agree wholeheartedly. The planning process in the UK is a joke, which is sad considering the importance of the subject.

The comments by others about ulterior motives and/or disregards should be noted.

No one however, seems to want to question the need for all these data centres.

I see the situation as organisations wanting to secure their long term business prospects rather than satisfying a societal need.

Once they have persuaded unwary lay users that they (the users) don't need to store their data locally they have a free ticket to long term business.

Yet we are suffering more and more hacks, outages, and other nonsense due to outsourcing data storage and flinging it halfway round the globe and back, just to buy a cup of coffee.

The latest insanity in the UK is that we are having digital telephones forced on us, using the already redundant 'information superhighway' (Fibre).

With this invocation, writ large,

After conversion you should (must ?) keep a fully charged mobile phone in case you need to make an emergency call in case of outages of the internet.

I am seriously old fashioned in that I expect 'progress' to mean the user enjoys facilities she didn't have before, rather than looses them whilst paying higher prices to increase the profits of already over rich companies.

Welcome to the Enshittocene, then.

But you have a point: it feels in some ways like going back to the 1970s, in which we used to speak of "producer mentality". This was the notion that organisations were run to optimise things for the producer rather than for the consumer. So you had to wait 6 weeks to have a telephone installed, because that suited the monopoly telecoms provider.

In the 1980s and 90s, deregulation and the encouragement of free market competition for a while gave consumers back some power, as buyers who could shop around for better service. Things got immeasurably better for consumers. But with the internet era we have seen a handful of powerful corporations, almost all American, wrest back market power by advantages of scale and by suppressing incipient competition (often by buying it) to snuff it out before it can scale up and provide alternative for consumers. Basically, the anti-monopoly (anti-trust) regulations have not kept up with businesses based on control of intangibles like data. So consumer power is now too weak to force these businesses to put their customers first. Indeed, it is a moot point who actually are the customers now. Is it the users? Or is it, rather, the advertisers?

So it's back to producer mentality.

We need politicians willing to regulate these businesses toughly, instead of being held in thrall by "jam tomorrow" promises of AI advantage, much of which I suspect is self-serving horseshit.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by exchemist

19 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Ii's exactly the same as the flaring of associated gas around various parts of the globe. Unless the bastards see the sword of Damocles dangling by a thread over their heads, they will just take the piss (please excuse my French).

If costs can be externalized it is considered a smart business decision. Regulatory framework should limit that, but often doesn't, or does it too late.

17 hours ago, TheVat said:

Indeed. Sorta funny given the breathless claims of AI and smart microgrids that can take renewable energy and set up base power and peak use management. They should be leading on this. As several here noted, there's a regressive partisan political dynamic that seeks to give a black eye to RE.

Well, there is an argument that additional LNG generators could bolster existing energy infrastructure and because of the huge capacities of data centres to absorb excess and regulate demand it can be a net boon, as you mentioned. A bit of an issue here is the significant added consumption (and emissions) that this causes.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

For me it's not a lack of willingness to question it, but instead an acceptance of the fact that suggestions of turning back are unachievable and pollyanish. I acknowledge this sounds defeatist, but it's also almost certainly the most realistic stance.

The toothpaste is already out of the tube. It's not going back in.

I think one issue is that there is a big push to get even more of the paste out and it is not entirely clear to me that it makes sense. There is an urgency that almost seems to be designed to throw caution into the wind. Economically it seems to be precarious at best, and at least based on my reading it seems that the bubble will have to pop eventually. It is reminiscent of the dot com bubble. I may be wrong, but I don't think that that bubble had also such ecological and physical infrastructure impact as the current situation.

The main argument I have seen for the need for massive investment now relates to national security. But even if being just slightly ahead would create an advantage in protecting and/or initiating cyber attacks at scale, the companies are not under direct control of the respective governments (other than in autocratic countries, including China). But even with some of the regulations in place it does seem that there is going to be a lot of trust put into those companies to secure cybersafety.

And of course, if USA wins the race (whatever it means) it could also spell disaster for its enemies, such as apparently Greenland and Canada.

So following that logic, the massive investment are basically a race to weaponization, like in the early days of nuclear ambitions. Only this time not in a nationally coordinate way but via massive investment into, I would say dubious characters.

I think we really need to design a better toothpaste dispenser.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

even if being just slightly ahead would create an advantage in protecting and/or initiating cyber attacks at scale, the companies are not under direct control of the respective governments (other than in autocratic countries, including China).

Actually, the US falls into that list already as a few times already the Trump administration has forced OpenAI, Anthropic, and one more whose name I can’t remember right now to halt release of their models until they have a green light. That’s a fundamentally new type of federal involvement which follows on the heels of the government taking ownership stakes in companies like intel and nvidia

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

the massive investment are basically a race to weaponization, like in the early days of nuclear ambitions.

This is the correct framing IMO. It’s a new Cold War

In parallel, there’s also trillions of dollars to be made so massive market pressures get added atop. Some are calling this a new Industrial Revolution whereas others think that framing is too small and consider this like the discovery of fire.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

If costs can be externalized it is considered a smart business decision. Regulatory framework should limit that, but often doesn't, or does it too late.

Tell me about it. I've been working with the Federal Government on that one off and on for over 15 years. (It's why I relocated from Lagos to Abuja)

Over the weekend I talked to an engineer who knows way more about things like data centers than I do and his perspective if that that the issue with water use is likely overblown as most newer centers are using closed-loop system of some sort (it could be regionally different), but also that other types of industries are using more water without the associated backlash.

There are certainly concerns, but from a pure engineering perspective, it does not seem to be that different than any other industry as such. The issue is likely more related to the technology itself, and there are issues with it, that look very different, depending on in which industry you are in.

On 7/31/2026 at 5:41 PM, iNow said:

Some are calling this a new Industrial Revolution whereas others think that framing is too small and consider this like the discovery of fire.

Given the economic scale, I think the industrial revolution might be justified, though fire is a different matter. Unless they actually realize some of the use cases they envision. But over the years I got quite disillusioned at the gap between what the tech elite tells us to what they really deliver. Maybe this time it really is different, but I honestly cannot see the scale yet.