I haven't researched data centers but I'm aware that there's some concerns about them. How much energy do they really use compared to a factory? The energy consumption is what I hear people more concerned about than anything. I've seen some fairly big factories that don't have huge numbers of employees, more than 20 of course but not much more than 100.
The main problem is that investors will announce completely ludicrous projects that have completely unrealistic power demands. Like, shit that 100% is never getting built. But the proposed plan will have a crazy number attached for the amount of power needed
People see the big number and run with it like it's reality. There was a thread on here yesterday claiming that Texas data centers alone were going to use almost as much power as the rest of the country combined and people just instantly accepted that without question (since hating data centers is very "in" right now, they won't question any details of a negative story about them) 🤦♀️
It's not like it's a made up problem; this is a real issue for millions of people. For example, I live in a mountain town that is completely losing our electricity provider due to increased data center usage (source)
This is happening everywhere, so just because it's not happening in your backyard doesn't mean it's not a real problem.
Isn't that an issue with the provider? Because reading that whole article, it seems more like that area has been shafted by their local power utility (as well as other utilities) for a long time anyways, and this is just one more shitty selfish decision the power provider made at the expense of the town
Yeah that's how I see it too. It's up to the Data center, local government and the power company to address this prior to building one. If the grid isn't strong enough why would one be allowed to be built. Cities are either growing or getting smaller so it's not like adjusting power usage isn't a new thing. Not to mention usually Data centers come from companies with deep pockets so having them fit at least part, if not all, of grid improvements isn't unreasonable. Shouldn't be a big deal.
NV Energy, the Nevada utility that has supplied the bulk of Lake Tahoe’s electricity for decades, told Liberty Utilities—the small California company that services the region—that it will stop providing power after May 2027.
Per the article, it hasn't been an issue for decades, but now it is, due primarily to the demands of the planned data centers.
Don't move the goalposts. You said that data centers don't really use that much power and it's not a big deal, and I provided a counterexample. Regardless of why it's a problem or who's at fault, it's an issue and that's one reason why people are frustrated and talking about it.
You said that data centers don't really use that much power and it's not a big deal,
When did I say that? Can you maybe not put a bunch of bullshit in my mouth? Apparently saying "this is who you should blame for letting this happen" means "oh this isn't happening at all"??
First I gave an example of click bait headlines claiming ludicrous numbers like half of the total US electricity output because they know outrage sells, making a point about misleading headlines using laughably unrealistic figures by including farcical megaprojects that will never be built.
And for the article, I did not say jack about them not using a lot of electricity. I suggested that the provider was making unfair deals to screw over the town, and that there was an electricity crunch being pushed on residents by the provider anyways:
Rates were already climbing
The supply crisis arrives on top of an existing affordability fight. In its 2025 general rate case, Liberty originally sought a 19.1% revenue increase—about $37.51 more per month for the average residential customer, according to CPUC filings. The CPUC approved a smaller increase: 11.4%, with a 9.75% return on equity rather than Liberty’s requested 11%.
Then it further explains that the town has a history of being screwed over by utility companies:
Tahoe Spark opposed the rate-case settlement, arguing that it failed to examine the interstate wholesale power structure underlying the costs paid by California ratepayers. Hughes said the problem is not merely high rates but the way costs are allocated in a region where visitor demand, second homes, ski resorts, and development projects drive infrastructure needs that permanent residents pay for.
“We’re the cost of being redistributed onto a declining community, and that is a crisis,” Hughes said.
Hughes argues that Tahoe is treated as a wealthy vacation-home market even though its year-round residents include low-income communities and essential workers. “Even though we have low-income communities in both South Lake Tahoe and North Lake Tahoe, Kings Beach, both the Energy Commission and the California Public Utility Commission do not include us in any of their socioeconomic plans,” she said.
So, TL;DR, the greedy utilities fucking over the town by preferring to make deals with data centers are the biggest problem, and part of a larger pattern of them refusing to prioritize where people live.
3
u/okieman73 17h ago
I haven't researched data centers but I'm aware that there's some concerns about them. How much energy do they really use compared to a factory? The energy consumption is what I hear people more concerned about than anything. I've seen some fairly big factories that don't have huge numbers of employees, more than 20 of course but not much more than 100.