There are so many different angles to consider when it comes to the data center debates it's hard to determine which one to start from, and it's even harder when the long term consequences thereof or not, doesn't exist yet, the unknowns. One doesn't have to be a scientist to engage in reading healthy scientific debate to become better inform. It doesn't make scientist out of anyone, that really isn't the objective, the objective is the sharing information to become better informed, reading various opinions to enlighten one on a subject matter so they can better decide for themselves which side of the debate they feel comfortable presents forming their own basis of an opinion on. When scientific data is available, there are always people out there sharing their thesis on any given subject. When it comes to data centers, it's pretty much a shot in the dark, as no one really knows outside of they are noisy, use a lot energy, don't create a lot of jobs in return for the jobs they will reportedly take, but one crucial point in the whole debate that gets lost, is that this one won't take a village, a township, a city, even a state, but multiple people engaging in the decision from all those entities, including people from other states. That is the point of where I started this all from, people missing that one bit of information fighting against a data center, and even then, it's no longer a given to succeed now that Trump signed an executive order that if a data center is being build for national security reasons, there's no local ordinances or zoning laws that can stop it. That's what citizens of Utah just found out.
Despite the local city council trying to advise the citizens it is out of their hands, it didn't help matters shutting people out of the last meeting to approve the project by calling them mostly "bussed ins". Like people from multiple states, cities, localities didn't have a say at least to object to the probability they were going to be using natural gas to produce energy from a pipeline that ran through multiple states. Though the project is being sold as one that will generate its own energy needs, no one is showing the non disclosure agreements made between the state and the company building the project. People have a right to question that since no such technology has ever been built that could create that kind of energy generation for such a massive project. Since no one is willing to show them such technology exist, what is in those NDA's, people have a right to be skeptical.
This is new to a lot of people, and the information out there, and lived experiences are limited, so are peoples experiences and opinions on the matter. Since this project drew a huge response, this is a case point where people can start. Will it create the heat of twenty three atom bombs, will it cause the Great Salt Lake to forever dry up, or will they use water drawn from the underground aquifer, or will they infuse discharge water into the aquifer, will it make people's energy cost rise through the roof, I don't know but we don't draw a baseline comparison to what others may be facing enabling people to draw their own on unknowns, you have to start somewhere and this is a big enough of an issue to follow. I wouldn't just watch the two story links I post and the video, read the comments, get a feel for what other people's opinions are, expert or not, as this time it just may take a country and knowing where people stand across the country is important. Like I said, this one have proven newsworthy, this is a case point you'll remember. If people in the states where the gas line runs, in the future start paying five fold energy bills, you'll know why, if the Great Salt Lake dries up, you'll know why, if the aquifer dries up or becomes polluted because water wasn't cleared properly, you'll know why, if they find dead carcasses popping up across the landscape due to the heat in the equivalent of twenty three atom bombs, they won't be able to sell it to you as climate change, or drought, because you'll know why. Being in the why is better than being in the unknown, especially if a data center rep comes calling.
‘So much worse than I even thought’: Utah’s ‘hyperscale’ data center could create massive heat island near Great Salt Lake
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/05/07/utahs-data-center-could-create/
'About 23 atom bombs worth of energy': Utah's newest data center to expel 'radical amount of heat'
Before I close on the subject matter, though scientific minds are a wonderful thing, inquiring minds aren't half bad either. As such I ran across a video on them wanting to take us into a digital money system, mentioned in the topic was sustainability, something that is often mentioned but many times fail to mention exactly the how(s), that these data centers will be self sustainable energy wise. As one person put it in the video, "there just isn't enough geo-thermal energy in the world". I think that individual was conclusively right and why natural gas is becoming a big thing in mention relative to not only these data centers, but, and I may say ironically because one doesn't mesh with the other, the transition goals of changing countries to cleaner fuel sources. Larry Fink of Blackrock has said the object isn't to eliminate fossil fuels, it's to switch countries to cleaner fuel sources. When they speak of Europe's transition away from Russia as an energy source, coupling that with switching over Asian countries, that's a market quadruple the current market. That is huge demand for liquified natural gas. It's a market about money, not climate change, if it was about climate change, you'd switch the larger market over to electric use, not the smaller market. It shouldn't come as any surprise then, that the announcement of building a multi-billionaire dollar refinery on the Texas east coast that can convert oil over to LNG after having gotten three hundred billion dollars in signed LNG contracts, that the war in Iran really isn't just about nuclear weapons. Experts have stated, no one country can service a market of four billion people alone. As Jared Kushner would phrase it, no one is going to throw good money after bad, relative to another topic but a belief held nonetheless. Jared is also the one mentioning transitioning that four billion people market, and when you have goals set that high in your portfolio of investors, one isn't going to do all that work so another country can underbid their anticipated market share. In that regard, everyone has to be on the same page to make this work, if they aren't, they are out, literally. When thought about in that aspect, this begins to sound more like control over global oil flows.
The last thing I'd touch on this topic, which aligns also that many people have no idea how plants closing in another state has any relevance to them, but it does if they share energy sources on the same grid. Increasing grid capacity is crucial for the expansion of data centers, in the same manner as it's crucial that data centers affect more than just the people living around them. When large corporations start consolidating, upgrading for consolidations to shut down other plants, when people see constant notices of low to underperforming stores closing, restaurants, and no return of twenty four hour shopping, it begins to be a pattern development. Another odd point, is when plants shut down, the mention of the loss of revenue to that city or towns water revenues. I've never historically seen such a placement in an article about a manufacturer shutting down. It will mention the loss of revenue to the areas businesses, loss tax revenues, but never a mention about loss water revenues. That becomes suspect at best why. Now, taken in context with the announcement they may take water from the aquifer mentioned above, not only do all the coincidences start adding up, but it might explain Bill Gates having spent the last several years buying up farmland. Mix that up with all the rural food manufacturers being forced to shut down by all those consolidations, you can almost get to a point where that light bulb is going to go off any second now. Not conclusively, but one can get to a point where they can anticipate some light. People who are undermined often don't see it until it's too late, as what happened with our last election, better to be forward thinking than continue to be deceived.