News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Data centers need power – lower income, rural residents p... by jltsiren on Thursday November 12, 2026 @03:40PM (#50473936)
The actual issue is that they don't. A 100 MW steel mill might employ ~1000 people and contribute ~$1 billion/year to the economy. A 100 MW data center doesn't need that many people even during construction, and its economic contributions are attributed to the location of corporate offices. As far as local people are concerned, any other use for the electricity would be more valuable than a remotely owned data center.
Re:Data centers need power – lower income, rural residents p... by limagnolia on Thursday November 12, 2026 @03:52PM (#50474099)
Got any examples of 100 MW steel mills and 100 MW Datacenters that you are comparing here? Would love to see some real side by sides if you actually have any data?
Re:Data centers need power – lower income, rural residents p... by jltsiren on Thursday November 12, 2026 @09:51PM (#50477489)
I took the steel mill example from a comparison I made in a Finnish context. Outokumpu's steel mill in Tornio employs ~2000 people directly, plus an unknown number of subcontractors. Its revenues have varied between €3.5 billion/year and €7 billion/year recently, and its average power consumption is ~400 MW.

Nebius is currently building a 310 MW data center in Lappeenranta. The construction phase employs ~700 people, and the finished data center is expected to have ~100 employees.

Re:Data centers need power – lower income, rural residents p... by MaxHoppersGhost on Thursday November 12, 2026 @04:31PM (#50474594)
Yeah well they aren't building steel mills in rural Texas/Louisiana/etc so this is what we have to work with.
Re:Data centers need power – lower income, rural residents p... by lenerdenator on Thursday November 12, 2026 @04:53PM (#50474853)
Well, it's arguably making things worse in rural Texas/Louisiana/etc., so I don't blame them for not wanting the data centers.

Understand that if the data center developers had not been so cartoonishly exploitative in their deal making in these municipalities nationwide, there really wouldn't be that much pushback. NIMBY stuff ultimately gets built all the time, usually because the money offered is just too good. Instead of using their massive amounts of capital, they struck backroom deals with local politicians to get tax credits, pass along infrastructure costs to other parties, and otherwise financially burden the community.

They had the money to go in and do all of this stuff without involving the public beyond the usual permitting processes; they just thought themselves too important to be burdened with having to spend money to make money. It's the "cult of the founder" mindset in action at the infrastructure policy level.