Irish datacenters now guzzle 23% of the country's electricity

Maybe they should have been smarter but you operate with more information, you can pay brokers to convince the villagers to sell all their pigs and now the villagers starve, they will find someone who promises to make things right and they will burn your SPAM factory.

But for who and where is it realized? Ireland’s massive data centers aren’t there to serve Ireland’s tiny population. The value is exported overseas and profits realized overseas.

So what really matters for Ireland (and any country/region hosting these data centers) is whether the benefits in terms of capital spending + the few ongoing jobs created outweighs any increased electricity and environmental costs faced by everyone else.

While I do think there is value being created, I think this form of argument is not as watertight as it appears at first glance. Humans are very capable of behaving irrationally.

I think there is a lot of harmful, negative “work” being done by AI today. Creating fake videos for Facebook, running girlfriend bots, automated scams, etc. Even employees just trying to be at the top of their employers’ AI token leaderboards. (So last month, I know). There is legitimate value being created, but I don’t think it’s obvious that the positive value is swamping the negative value 10:1.

“There is value being created, or people wouldn’t buy the meth” - people do buy meth, quite enthusiastically, but any sane person would think allocating 23% of a nation’s electricity to a meth factory is a bad plan.

The grid is only looking after its capacity. When Grange Castle announced they're adding nearly 200MW of generation (for a nearly 1GW site) planners whoop with joy but that's 200GW of gas turbine for when they've spiked the wholesale price of electricity. It's not grid-surplus storage.

That sort of economic activity drives inflation. Well before you consider maybe-effects like job reduction.

Commensurate with their costs, including externalities? That very much remains to be seen.

If you don’t want your landscape vandalised with windmills and powerlines, go nuclear. Especially where the weather is consistently miserable, not conducive to solar power.

Data centers pay sub-market rates for electricity (as well as getting tax relief, generally). Generally, they use so much electricity that more infrastructure needs to be built. Who pays for that? Not the data center. The utility's capex is spread across all customers (sometimes minus the data center).

Then the utility needs to generate moer power or buy it from elsewhere. That's typically at a higher rate than it's currently getting, which raises the average cost of electricity for everyone. But again, the data center is getting a discounted rate so you have a water bed effect raising everyone's prices there too.

And for what? Maybe a few dozens jobs. The "value" being created is for multinational corporations who likely won't pay anything in taxes for it.

Data centers should be taxed for the land value they allegedly create. We have precedents for this sort of thing, most notably imputed rent. So if you spend $300 million on a building that lasts 30 years, that's worth $10M/year+. Then there's all the compute hardware. Assume $700M amortized over 7 years. Well, the imputed rent is at least $110M/year in base costs, so likely $150M+/year.

All this adds up to it should have to pay tens of millions (and maybe as much as $100M/year) in taxes.

Contrarian to the article or to other HN commenters

This article reports on facts, i.e., the CSO data primarily. It also mentions the existence of controversy

It is not taking a position for or against anything

What does it mean to be "contrarian" with respect to an article like this one

To me, this weird defensive behaviour, i.e., absurd attempts to "argue in favour of data centers", is what raises a red flag

The reporting of facts on energy and water use, i.e., data, triggers this behaviour from HN commenters, as opposed to being triggered by the people who are protesting or campaigning against data centers. This article and many others like it have no hint of "anger" whatsoever. The authors are not taking sides in any debate

Then we have companies actively trying to conceal data about data centers. This sort of behaviour is, IMHO, a red flag

If data centers "have value" and are needed despite their impacts, and the proof of this is that "people are using AI" then what's the problem

Why respond to articles that simply report usage statistics (cf. responding to angry protesters or legislation aimed at regulating data center construction)

The article is not taking a position for or against the construction and operation of data centers

Because I guarantee you the people who pointed out that plastic surgery was covered have ideas of what that should be.

Plastic surgery can include burn and emergency surgical scars (trauma surgeons are just trying to keep your insides in and your outsides out, and then they have to run to the next patient to do the same), and hair transplants can include head injuries or cancer surgeries in young people in addition to vain old men.

When we discuss things like this in political arenas, nuance goes out the window and you're contributing to condemning little girls to walk around with giant patches of missing hair and people to tolerate visible scars that will absolutely be used to illegally discriminate against them for jobs that would allow them to afford their own procedures.

Water and power are priced by third parties, if they aren't passing some cost on to datacenters thats not the fault of datacenters.

>Those who bear the consequences are not those who reap the benefits

Super broad statement that cannot be meaningfully tested. Your power goes up, but your ISP has more and better peers, your emergency services have redundant vxc's between redundant sites, your steam games are cached more locally, your data is hosted in country rather than overseas and hundreds of other little benefits. A lot of which would cause greater whinging if they suddenly evaporated.

Either entitlement to the doctors/engineers labor or a house one doesnt own.

I dont think externalities is the most useful model for thinking about this because it is easy to construct a more favorable hypothetical. That doesnt mean one is entiteled to it.

If they're so productive, make them eat the cost and lead time so we can all have a cheap, functional electricity grid. It would be so easy to mandate no new data centres unless they can procure their own renewable sources of electricity.