In Utah on Wednesday, State Senate President J. Stuart Adams—one of the most powerful Republicans in the state—lost his primary election after supporting a major data center development near the Great Salt Lake, in one of the clearest signs yet of the growing political risks tied to the industry.
The data centers in the US are going up at such a speed that there is little to no public feedback allowed on any proposals. Once built the data center only provides a single digit number of jobs while raising the price of electricity in the region (typically by a very significant increase) and creating a low level audio hum that is below human hearing but still causes physiological effects.
The end result is American data centers ignore the public, cost them more money, provides no benefit, and physically hurts the community while operational. Most European data centers have to contend with build codes and councils, paying specific attention to community impact. Not in America. They just go up and make everything else cost more.
That’s a fair take. Any similarity or difference to the US’s primary AI competitor (China)? I’ve seen the EU is now concerned by the US lead on AI and may possibly slide on regulations a little to play catch-up but that’s yet to be seen.
America also seems to be placing these based on local tax situations, not local resources or community impact. Since China is more centrallized, I’d imagine they place them with a different strategy.
Of course both nations have immanent domain, it’s a bit more difficult to justify its use in the US from my understanding. In China aren’t companies ultimately controlled or owned by the government? So if the government feels it’s of a national benefit or security I don’t think there would be as much in the way.