As a raucous public meeting this week in Box Elder County demonstrated, large new data centers are contentious. County commissioners found it necessary to retreat to a side room to avoid the constant interruptions, from which they broadcast their deliberations and their vote to approve the plan.
It’s not likely to be the last flashpoint, unless public officials slow down enough to listen to the public’s concerns and to study environmental impacts.
The lesson here is not that data centers are necessarily bad. It is that governments considering such things must be transparent and responsive. The process must continue and, as Congressman Blake Moore noted, there is no place for threats on those tasked with making decisions:
“The acrimony, threats, and vitriol that have become commonplace against elected officials must stop. It’s nonsense that this is becoming our political discourse here in Utah. The Box Elder County Commissioners are engaged in the process and are trying to ensure that Box Elder County residents can experience the benefits of this development for future generations,” he said.
Transparency
Openness is essential. The effects of such data centers, particularly in a fragile desert environment, argue for constant monitoring and assurances.
Like many cutting-edge, high-tech projects, data centers are touted as necessary, not only for the U.S. to establish global leadership, with its economic benefits, but also for national security.
And like many others, they have a rushed feel to them. This one, backed by Canadian businessman Kevin O’Leary, came to light only recently.
As KSL reported, the long-range plans call for a 40,000-acre development on three swaths of undeveloped land in Box Elder County. They would require 9 gigawatts of power-generating capacity, likely from natural gas-fired plants located on the site.
These centers are being touted as important for the U.S. military, providing access to artificial intelligence and cloud-computing capabilities that could counter similar efforts by adversaries such as China.
Public input
The public has been granted few opportunities to respond to this project, other than an informational website that accepts comments. There has been scant time for environmental studies.
Skeptical residents raise two valid concerns. One is the enormous amount of water the centers may require at a time of severe drought. The other is the amount of electricity they might use.
The Sutherland Institute recently published a paper examining these and other questions. It noted that data centers require constant cooling in order to avoid malfunctions, typically consuming about 300,000 gallons of water per day. “If current trends continue,” it said, “water consumption tied to data center cooling would rise by 80% in the coming years.”
However, the report also notes that innovations, such as new cooling technologies, are being tested. A report last year by Data Center Magazine said several companies are working on new closed-loop technologies, using “engineered fluids and hybrid designs” to conserve water while still providing the necessary cooling. These continuously recirculate coolant, negating the constant need for more water.
Other new systems are designed to circulate coolant passively or allow it to evaporate and then condense for reuse.
The Box Elder facility is reportedly going to use a closed-loop system using water from local wells that is unsuitable for other uses, according to various news reports. Once used by the data center, the water will be cleaned and sent to the Great Salt Lake. Elected officials need to disclose the details of how this will work, as well as how they can assure that important water sources will not be affected.
Power needs
The Sutherland report also addresses electricity bills in areas surrounding typical data centers. The common concern heard from opponents is that rates will rise along with demand. But the report concludes that, despite worries, this has not been the case with existing centers. Many companies have pledged to cover the power costs of their own data centers.
The Box Elder facility may eventually use 9 gigawatts, or more than twice what the rest of the state currently uses. It plans to generate this on-site using natural gas. Utahns need assurances that this facility will not adversely affect the environment, especially one of this immense size.
We understand the need for speed in developing data centers; technology is changing fast. Alan Howard, senior analyst for data center infrastructure at Omdia, told networkworld.com that data centers are obsolete by the time they are designed and built. Still, he supports their construction.
“To say, well, let’s wait and see if maybe we’ll be able to build a better, more efficient data center by not building anything for a couple of years. That’s just straight up not going to happen,” he said. “By waiting, you’re going to miss market opportunities.”
Or, in this case, national security could suffer. But speed should not supplant transparency and the need to answer public questions.
Markets are demanding more and more data storage. But at some point, that built-in obsolescence may result in technological shifts that make large data centers unnecessary. How will locals be protected? Does the huge data center become an outdated albatross at some point?
The Sutherland report said the data center market is predicted to grow from $35 billion in 2025 to almost $170 billion by 2033. The U.S. currently accounts for 23.8% of that market.
Utah is not alone in the race to acquire centers. Reuters reports that, based on filings as of January, “computing capacity could jump by close to 1,000% if all projects currently planned come to fruition.”
Still, Utah cannot afford to let haste make waste. The loud objections of so many people in Box Elder County should be a sign to slow down, gain assurances that protect Utah taxpayers and the environment, and show respect for legitimate public concerns.
Data centers, especially those earmarked for military purposes, must be decided in a careful and transparent manner, which shouldn’t necessarily result in long delays.
The process must continue with full consideration of the public’s concerns.