I think this is because the demand is so extreme for datacenters now that companies are building them in a manner that disrupts the environment around them.
The newer ones are using on-site generators that are insanely loud and require multiples more power than datacenters have historically needed. For a rack with traditional servers with just RAM/CPU/Drives, 5kW is sufficient in most cases.<p>When you have racks that are full of 4U GPU systems that pull 3-6kW each, the power requirements per rack shoot up to 60kW+(with whole rack setups blowing past 100kW). So an AI datacenter requires over 20x the power compared to what they needed in the past. This either strains the power grid near the DC or they need to create on-site power to fulfill demand, which has noise and other concerns.<p>I work near a datacenter and you can't hear significant noise from the outside, maybe a slight humming sound but quieter than traffic. This is a DC that has been around for over a decade and uses power from the grid since most of the loads are non-GPU based.
Your dad's data centers are very different to the new GPU focused beasts.<p>The AI data centers consume a lot more power, and thus generate a lot more heat(equals cooling noise) per square meter.<p>This is the reason why it's a new problem right now.<p>Edit: autocorrect used breasts instead of beasts.
I agree that I don’t want a data center in my backyard either.<p>What’s missing from this strange conversation is discussion about how many data center proposals are near residential areas.<p>I tried to look for one in my state and a few surrounding areas and couldn’t find any. There was an amusing story about how data center protestors had to organize expensive bus trips to get the protesters out to the data center site because it was so remote.<p>There was another story about a small town without any major electricity or communication infrastructure coming together to impose a moratorium on data center construction. There were no plans to build data centers in their small town and no reason to consider it at all, but they felt so threatened that they needed to convene and put on a big show about banning it.<p>The social phenomenon of the data center construction protest movement is really fascinating. My assumption is that it will run its course and then be mostly dropped when the next current thing comes along.<p>There are some actual concerns about using natural gas instead of trying to utilize the optimal power sources or locations, but they’re mostly overshadowed by bogeyman complaints like thinking that a data center is going to end up in your backyard or water consumption that is negligible compared to golf courses and swimming pools.
> There were no plans to build data centers in their small town and no reason to consider it at all<p>You have to be fair on this though. The time to ban something is before they start talking about doing it, not after. Being ahead of the game is never a bad thing, especially when small towns are so easily exploited due to income and infrastructure. They just can't afford long legal battles.
My take is that people feel powerless to really do anything against these massive tech companies. This is the only tangible way they can fight back.
Yea, there's probably not one single issue that people are fed up with, but datacenters have become lightning rods that represent big tech's disproportionate power over us, job-displacing AI, and are a visible example of how municipalities that <i>we elect</i>--serve and prioritize companies from out of town over their voters.
Does a data center need to be an immediate neighbor to raise electricity rates or consume water capacity?
They're just awful to live near; the folks that are clamoring for more cheap tokens should try moving in next door to the token factory.
They probably would be awful to have a house next to, but which if the hyperscale data center proposals are near residential areas?<p>The really large data centers have to go into areas with a lot of land and utility connections. These are usually zoned commercial or industrial already.
There is a study from ASU that found they are awful to live within....1200ft of.
No one ever cared about DCs before now. I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.<p>Ironically, There’s enough issues with the DC buildout going on that even with 100% public opinion support it would still be significantly delayed. The behind the meter power generation isn’t going well. There’s only so many gas fired turbines on the market. And connecting a DC to an established grid isn’t like clicking a button in AWS no matter how much money you have.
> I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.<p>This comes cross as unbelievable, and at worst a fantastical statement, as someone who lives in Northern Virginia and is effectively watching the Datacenter battle unfold from the front lines, and dealing with the local politics and electricity costs rising at a precipitous rate.<p>Our electricity bill has doubled. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors want to erect “Statue of Liberty” sized power transmission lines, and those that want data centers are doing their damndest to somehow claim that they’re not responsible for the rise in the cost of utilities and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.<p>Part of the reason people care about Datacenters now is that they’re starting to litter the landscape, take resources from local municipalities, and raise costs for everyone involved, whereas previously there were not enough of them to really move the needle as being a problem.<p>Folks care because their bottom line is impacted in a time when it’s already hard to make ends meet every month due to rising costs of food, gas, and utilities, not because of some unnamed boogeyman in the form of a “nation state competitor”.
They're building a mass of DC's near me as well in northern IL (not quite as many as by you). I see a lot of weird stuff on social media - people inactive for years all of a sudden becoming super-activists and posting non-stop anti-DC content. Nearly identical content to what's being pushed by a bunch of faceless accounts named like "Water4All","Nature Reign" - something vaguely environmental sounding.<p>Talking points like:<p>"We should call data centers what they actually are: surveillance centers designed to put us all in a digital prison by 2030"<p>It's fishy. People aren't quite showing up and saying the same things at city council meetings, but the local city anti-DC group is full of people reposting this stuff. One clickbait article in particular, "there's no such thing as a closed loop system".<p>There's real concerns with the data centers. But, the opposition to them doesn't feel entirely organic (imo).
nyt is no fan of AI, but they cover this: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-data-centers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wVA.dGxT.KNRoAXHZ8TlN&smid=url-share" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...</a>
It's almost as if Russia or China wants to see America not succeed.
[delayed]
People seem pretty sour on big tech in general, maybe it's because, I don't know...<p>Data centers being directly tied to increases in our power bills.<p>Or CEOs talking about how they're going to get to fire everyone because of AI.<p>Or social media raising the political temperature.<p>Or all of them combined. Tech has never been so intolerable across the board.
I think its a proxy for general populist sentiment.<p>"These AI people are getting rich selling unicorn farts while I'm on the same pay and everything is more expensive, fuck them".
It’s more than one thing. Yes there’s definitely some populism and maybe some astroturfing from outside groups - but actual electricity costs are going up and the average consumer can’t really get anymore efficient, so they’re indirectly subsidizing this stuff. Computers and related hardware have gone up in price. And then you’ve got all of the “AI layoffs” that also result in real-world pain.<p>Ignore at your own peril.
But that would simply result in <i>Most Americans don't want AI Data Centers</i>, which isn't the same as NYMBYism. I think many Americans see the benefits of having access to unicorn farts and may even support having more data centers. Just <i>not</i> in my backyard, thank you.<p>(Ftr. the article doesn't have an opinion on whether Americans like AI, just my take.)
DCs have a tendency to destabilize the local grid and drive up grid rates <i>and</i> have ridiculous water consumption requirements, both largely externalized to the surrounding community, so it's more a matter of basic self-defense than any notional populist agenda.
The data center construction boom has precipitated a lot of inflation in electronics and related fields, because the data centers are buying out all of the silicon manufacturing and RAM manufacturing and etc, and all of this stuff is horribly supply-limited. And the people pushing for data center construction are proudly telling us that we need to support this so that we can put half of the population out of work, oh, and we just need a small trillion-dollar subsidy or five to pay for it all (because demand for AI isn't high enough to pay for all of it themselves).<p>There's no need to invent some malign foreign conspirator to generate unpopularity for this stuff. No, the AI companies are led by unpopular CEOs, who are making unpopular statements (almost cartoonishly so). And opposing a data center is the kind of action that regular people, upset about this sort of stuff, feel that they can actually meaningfully effect. So of course it was going to balloon like it has.
> No one ever cared about DCs before now.<p>Society hasn't felt the very real effects of data centers until recently. Power supply being short meant that residential customers have had to pick up the tab for heavy industrial users. We've started to learn just how bad all those dams we built are for the environment and many of them are tied to data center money. Elon Musk waltzed into Memphis and stood up a natural gas data center that has basically poisoned the surrounding area.<p>Maybe nation state actors are helping, that can always be true. It is also true that the American people are starting to realize they've been had many times over and are <i>just starting</i> to ask for a better deal. I think we should listen.
> I think there’s a lot of social media influence from nation state competitors going on to try and slow SOTA development in the US.<p>No sign of datacenter activity at the local 4-H club either. Am I so out of touch? No, it's the commie brainwashed American citizens who are wrong.
most americans say not in my backyard to more housing in their backyard too, but i digress.
The whole world is California, and the most important thing we can do is pack more and more people into the same space. People from here, people from there. We want more crowdedness, and everyhing that comes with it: crime, noise, pollution, lack of social cohesion. Everything. Every place must be like this, and everything must grow forever.
Negatives acknowledged, there are huge efficiency upsides to dense human living. Everything becomes smoother, faster, less wasteful. You get a society that leverages economies of scale for everything.
In some areas, density is appropriate, and in some areas it's not. I wish we could talk about housing density and "build more housing" as if there was not one universal solution that worked everywhere and for everyone. Dense urban living is not appropriate in a rural or suburban town. Single family homes are not appropriate in a high-demand urban area. Different people want different things, too. No matter how efficient and good for the environment it is, I don't want to live in a concrete honeycomb in the middle of a loud city.
We could also fit more people in if you crushed everyone, dehydrated them and stored they remains in huge compressed cubes. Efficiency is not all we want
America is so massive, these trillion dollar companies can surely build these out in the boonies with very few people around?<p>ETA: I would rather no data centers be built, but my point is if we have to, let’s minimize the number of people who are affected. Offer to move them if need be.
And ruin the boonies too? American norms and laws are not conducive to making nice places to live, but they've skated by having enough land and car-first infrastructure. With the huge increase in warehouses and data centers in residential areas over the past 5-10 years, I wonder if there will be an inflection point where it finally needs to be dealt with.
They need to hire IT, maintainence, and security to run the datacenters, and there aren't many qualified people in the boonies. Small towns are better targets, and honestly also just objectively less damaging to the environment.<p>None of this NIMBYism is about the datacenter itself, it's all a protest against AI making the economy really shitty for them.
Sounds like they should build the equivalent of a little mining town out in the boonies too and start working on the housing crisis simultaneously. “Move to Nowhere, USA, and get cheap, new housing and a good-paying job” would get them the talent they want.<p>EDIT: yes, I know mining towns had their own share of problems (I’ve heard “16 tons” too), but knowing the hazards of the past, I think we can figure out a more equitable structure with this kind of setup.
<i>> “Move to Nowhere, USA, and get cheap, new housing and a good-paying job”</i><p>These opportunities already exist but are rarely taken up upon. More of them means more jobs unfilled.<p>When those mining towns were the way of the world people moved around a lot more. While census data only started being collected from the 1950s onward, it is estimated that ~40% of the population would move in a given year around the turn of the century. Even in the 1950s, when we started collecting concrete data, 30% of the population would move in a given year. Now only around 7% of the population will move in a given year.<p>Nowadays there is an expectation that you can stay put. If you watch housing discussions closely you'll notice the theme is always "I cannot afford a house where I am currently located", not "I cannot afford a house anywhere in the world". Attitudes about living arrangements have changed as compared to the past and the AI companies are not about to change it any time soon.
Even then they can wind up in the proverbial backyard. I don't know much about data center staffing needs and zoning laws but those would seem relevant spatial constraints and considerations.
I wonder the same thing. It could be that getting transition grid interconnects and redundant fiber paths is much faster in more suburban areas vs rural areas.
I agree with you, but even then it's still going to be someone's backyard
We could in a vacuum, but they require human labor and human labor isn't found in the boonies.<p>It's the age old problem. The people in the cities cry that there are no jobs and the rural businesses cry that they can't find anyone to hire, with no great resolution as the businesses cannot afford to move into the city and the people don't want to travel to the boonies.<p>However, in this case, these data centers are so well capitalized that they can afford to move them into the cities right beside where the workers are located.
I propose we build one under Sam Altman's house.
Not on my planet, burn them all down!
Unbelievable. What's next, NIMBYs for sewage and effluent? Where does it end exactly?
.. and are completely ignored. The mighty nimby seems to be very nimble as soon as economic interests are involved. Very strange.. i thought he was the mighty preventer of all things changing. Especially the plotholes.. eh potholes and buses and rail..
It seems downright dishonest to focus so much on Loudon County VA, which is DC's major tech hub and has the highest median income of any county in the US. It is definitely dishonest to not mention any demographic or historical details.