Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too much of a good thing is a horrible thing when it comes to data centers.

What is the horrible thing?

Good thread on this here

Fairfax solution these days is to hire more construction workers to keep people employed (data centers, casino?!) rather than creating more permanent jobs. So, it is build, build, build. Unfortunately, it isn’t repurposing enough old developed land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too much of a good thing is a horrible thing when it comes to data centers.

What is the horrible thing?

Good thread on this here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too much of a good thing is a horrible thing when it comes to data centers.

What is the horrible thing?

They are using a ton of electricity and worsening climate change in a time when the grid hasn't been adapted to be sustainable yet. Also, they are forcing many people to use AI and participate in this worsening of our environment without our consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not put the data centers in places where they can be powered by electricity from renewable sources (e.g. Texas wind and solar, geothermal in Iceland, etc.)? Also, why don’t utilities charge the companies a high rate, rather than passing it on to regional consumers?

Proximity to existing data centers and fiber networks is one of the most significant factors that determines placement for new data centers. Information typically needs to bounce around through multiple different company data centers before it gets to the end user. Lower latency is very important.

That's wrong. We can centrally plan our way out of this mess with just a few decades of government studies on the optimal locations. We will need to select a committee first to choose the selection criteria.

DP. I'm not sure why you're saying that's wrong. That's exactly how the internet and hosted services work.

The Fairfax County BOS would like to decide where data centers are built. That way they could choose the optimal locations that wouldn't impact communities. The end result would be no data centers because everyone will have some objection.

However, if someone wanted to put up a new federal building, the BOS couldn't jump at the opportunity fast enough.

Data centers take a significant amount of property. Fairfax County may have but a handful of qualified sites.

Fairfax County has plenty of underutilized business parks and commercial buildings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too much of a good thing is a horrible thing when it comes to data centers.

What is the horrible thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too much of a good thing is a horrible thing when it comes to data centers.

What is the horrible thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not put the data centers in places where they can be powered by electricity from renewable sources (e.g. Texas wind and solar, geothermal in Iceland, etc.)? Also, why don’t utilities charge the companies a high rate, rather than passing it on to regional consumers?

Proximity to existing data centers and fiber networks is one of the most significant factors that determines placement for new data centers. Information typically needs to bounce around through multiple different company data centers before it gets to the end user. Lower latency is very important.

That's wrong. We can centrally plan our way out of this mess with just a few decades of government studies on the optimal locations. We will need to select a committee first to choose the selection criteria.

DP. I'm not sure why you're saying that's wrong. That's exactly how the internet and hosted services work.

The Fairfax County BOS would like to decide where data centers are built. That way they could choose the optimal locations that wouldn't impact communities. The end result would be no data centers because everyone will have some objection.

However, if someone wanted to put up a new federal building, the BOS couldn't jump at the opportunity fast enough.

Data centers take a significant amount of property. Fairfax County may have but a handful of qualified sites.

Anonymous wrote:I recently visited Harper’s Ferry and drove from there back through Loudoun County to Dulles. North-western Loudoun County has (or had), for my money, some of the most beautiful countryside in the region, but it is apparently disappearing amidst an onslaught of cookie cutter subdivisions, presumably to house those working at the nearby data centers. I’d love to see a breakdown of employees of the data centers as - per the dynamics of the demographics of Loudoun County - I’d wager that they are overwhelmingly H-1Bs etc.. If so, I think there are valid questions to be raised about who this “development” is benefiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not put the data centers in places where they can be powered by electricity from renewable sources (e.g. Texas wind and solar, geothermal in Iceland, etc.)? Also, why don’t utilities charge the companies a high rate, rather than passing it on to regional consumers?

Proximity to existing data centers and fiber networks is one of the most significant factors that determines placement for new data centers. Information typically needs to bounce around through multiple different company data centers before it gets to the end user. Lower latency is very important.

That's wrong. We can centrally plan our way out of this mess with just a few decades of government studies on the optimal locations. We will need to select a committee first to choose the selection criteria.

DP. I'm not sure why you're saying that's wrong. That's exactly how the internet and hosted services work.

The Fairfax County BOS would like to decide where data centers are built. That way they could choose the optimal locations that wouldn't impact communities. The end result would be no data centers because everyone will have some objection.

However, if someone wanted to put up a new federal building, the BOS couldn't jump at the opportunity fast enough.

Data centers take a significant amount of property. Fairfax County may have but a handful of qualified sites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not put the data centers in places where they can be powered by electricity from renewable sources (e.g. Texas wind and solar, geothermal in Iceland, etc.)? Also, why don’t utilities charge the companies a high rate, rather than passing it on to regional consumers?

Proximity to existing data centers and fiber networks is one of the most significant factors that determines placement for new data centers. Information typically needs to bounce around through multiple different company data centers before it gets to the end user. Lower latency is very important.

That's wrong. We can centrally plan our way out of this mess with just a few decades of government studies on the optimal locations. We will need to select a committee first to choose the selection criteria.

DP. I'm not sure why you're saying that's wrong. That's exactly how the internet and hosted services work.

The Fairfax County BOS would like to decide where data centers are built. That way they could choose the optimal locations that wouldn't impact communities. The end result would be no data centers because everyone will have some objection.

However, if someone wanted to put up a new federal building, the BOS couldn't jump at the opportunity fast enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not put the data centers in places where they can be powered by electricity from renewable sources (e.g. Texas wind and solar, geothermal in Iceland, etc.)? Also, why don’t utilities charge the companies a high rate, rather than passing it on to regional consumers?

Proximity to existing data centers and fiber networks is one of the most significant factors that determines placement for new data centers. Information typically needs to bounce around through multiple different company data centers before it gets to the end user. Lower latency is very important.

That's wrong. We can centrally plan our way out of this mess with just a few decades of government studies on the optimal locations. We will need to select a committee first to choose the selection criteria.

DP. I'm not sure why you're saying that's wrong. That's exactly how the internet and hosted services work.

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more regulation. They should be paying for more of the regional electricity impact burdens.

And there the automated AI replies during normal searches etc is so wasteful and sucks.

No one cares about the environmental impacts (GHGs and water use for every click) it's so depressing.

Anonymous wrote:Too much of a good thing is a horrible thing when it comes to data centers.

Anonymous wrote:What benefit do we gain from having these data centers in our area? AI consumes so much energy and demand for AI is growing. Doing a Google search or looking up a product on Amazon now generates a AI summary.

The energy costs to generate responses are passed on to local resident as I understand it. It will supposedly account for 25% increased household energy bills in data center areas over the next 5 years. (Not sure how accurate that is.) unfortunately, Google users, for example, can’t turn off the AI queries and responses.