598
‘Irresponsible’: backlash as Utah approves datacenter twice the size of Manhattan
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
598 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
84816 readers
4024 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not all data centres are evil and the issue is nuanced. This one sounds pretty evil though.
9GW is totally insane and they're building a gas plant for it instead of renewables (although there's some solar too). It's closed loop so the water use fears once it's running are probably a bit overblown, but the construction itself is going to be ecologically insane. The thing is basically a data city, 162 square km is even larger than a lot of cities and involves building an entire power plant and new energy infrastructure. Building it is a full megaproject and even just noise pollution and the construction impacts will mess with bird migration etc. Obviously the whole thing isn't going to be full of data centre, some of that space is empty but still.
It's also going to have the US military as a major client so... Pretty high up there on the evil scale IMO.
I wouldn't say it's nuanced really.
It's either those involved with planning the construction are aware of and scale to account for the impact of the ecosystem and population surrounding their project, or they don't and plot a gigantic building with no environmental accountability. You can do an environmental impact assessment and follow it or you can choose to ignore it or half ass it; it's pretty cut and dry to me.
That's fair. The nuance that people lose is more that people are often painting them all with the same brush. Protesting any datacenter regardless of impact.
It becomes something like: "datacenters are evil and are a symbol of techno fascist distopia! If they build a datacenter in my city, the taps will run dry and Elon Musk will use it to make ai porn of my children!" Even if it's a small solar powered closed loop that provides VPS, storage and web hosting for nerds and small businesses.
I also do think there's also a scale of evil there. Some environmental impacts are not immediately obvious and might not be known about during planning. Some were built a long time ago with older tech and are a bit shitty but have a plan to transition to be more sustainable, etc.
The world is full of "alright but a little bit shit." It's not all perfect angels and mustache twirling villains.
I don't want to detract too much from the real villains though. Nobody needs a 9GW datacity for military ai.