• Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s pretty easy to regulate this:

    • Closed loop cooling
    • grid upgrade built into design plans, paid for by the datacenter.
    • cleaner power generation
    • officermike@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d say your list is a bit too short. Some more considerations (not comprehensive):

      • Construction noise and seismic limits (nearby neighborhoods have been disturbed and experienced damage from blasting operations)
      • Operating noise limits (ban on-site gas turbine generation, limit noise levels from cooling towers)
      • Limit light pollution

      Edit:

      • Job protections and guarantees for workers displaced by automation
      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Data centers ought to only be allowed in rural areas to begin with. Even if the noise/vibration/heat/etc. weren’t an issue they’re still a goddamn hole with zero foot traffic, and that’s just bad urbanism. They’re like public storage warehouses, but even worse.

        They need access to the Internet backbone, but that doesn’t mean they have to be in cities. Put 'em somewhere along the fiber halfway between.

      • Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Still missing heat increase, up to 26°F in the surrounding area. All that heat from the gpus and cpus is a lot. I’ve heard of people using their gpus to heat their apartments.

        • 7101334@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          There was a Bitcoin mining computer being marketed as a dual-purpose space heater lol

      • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Job protections and guarantees for workers displaced by automation

        Jobs are a necessary evil, not a goal in itself. The goal should be to eliminate all jobs.

        Until that time we should figure out a better way to share the burden of the work that nerds to be done as well as better way to distribute resources. Trying to preserve jobs is not the way.

        • richmondez@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It’s more about resource allocation, who gets to control of how much. You can eliminate jobs and have most people scratching out a meager existence or you can elinimate jobs and have everyone on a level playing field. I think we’d mostly agree we want the latter but currently looks like we’d need a war against the already wealthy to avoid the former.

      • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Datacenters aren’t responsible for workers displaced by automation.

        Construction and noise aren’t special to datacenters and don’t need special regulation.

        • Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          On this particular topic, the more red tape the better. These companies are shady and will find any loophole available to circumvent any protection the current laws are meant to provide.

          • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s how you end up getting republicans elected into local office: by putting up unnecessary or complicated barriers.

            Additionally, I believe we’ll be in a really bad situation in the next 10-25 years in regards to access to advanced CPUs. The more we onboard now the more we’ll have later.

            It’s also a concern of national security if we put up enough barriers that people and companies put their resources in datacenters in other countries that can’t defend them against attack.

            • BassTurd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Per itar regulations, government data already has to live in the US. They will never change that law in order to store it in another country’s DC.

              And putting barriers on multi bullion dollar businesses is not the same as putting it on citizens. People aren’t going to vote a Republican because of regulations on a DC that makes the neighborhood quieter and cleaner, stops excessive water consumption for cooling, and forces them to build their own power infrastructure. They will vote Republican for a million other dumb AF reasons, including a conservative taking head telling them regulations are bad for DCs, but they won’t do it because of those reasons. They won’t even know what those reasons are

              • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                “Leftist lunatics tie up small business development!!!” It’s dumb but it works. I live in an area like this.

                I’m not talking about government data, I’m talking about businesses. Securing corp data and service availability it’s just as important. Just think how many companies would go under if a datacenter was droned. The 2nd level impact of a mass email outage or payment processing going offline would put employees out of work.

                • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Business data doesn’t require the mega datacenters that are all compute for AI. Those types of datacenters won’t have the same issues with infrastructure for power and closed loop systems. If they do, they’ll figure it out because they have the money to do so. Someone will build them. DCs that have storage and racks for cloud compute are in a different category.

                  I agree and mentioned that talking heads will spin regulations in a way that convinces their idiotic base that there’s an issue. It’s not the regulations that are the problem, it’s the media. But the thing is, If it’s not regulations, it will be something else. It will be just as nonsensical, but something will fill that gap. Might as well do something good if the propaganda is gonna flow anyway.

    • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Closed loop is absolutely the right answer, and easily regulated.

      As to your other two points, the answer is obvious. Nuclear.

      • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It doesn’t need to be nukes. Hydro, solar, wind, and any other mix of power sources is fine, including fossil fuels as an alternative should it be a cloudy, windless week.

        • 7101334@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Wtf are you talking about? No, any usage of planet-warming compounds for the benefit of creating Twitter incel AI-gen CSAM and TikTok slop videos is unacceptable. Even use of renewables is largely unacceptable, considering the materials (lithium, cobalt, etc) usually entail environmental degradation at best and outright child slavery at worst.

        • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Hydro is limited by geography, and wind and solar requires a metric fuck ton of oil to produce and replace at EOL. You want clean, you want nukes.

          • richmondez@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            You say that like building a nuclear plant won’t require the metric fuckton of oil to build and replace at eol.

            • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              EOL for a nuke plant in measured in centuries. Refueling measured in decades. Wind turbines have end of life somewhere between 5 and 10 years.