Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by phil21 236 days ago
Do any of these links actually show the exact method that datacenters are "socializing the costs" for energy production? They tend to pay industrial rates like any other industrial consumer would, and pay for their local interconnect to the grid. Why they should be on the hook for long distance transmission/etc. is unclear to me given that every user on the grid takes part of that and has enjoyed under-replacement electrical rates for decades. I have seen the typical local tax abatement deals which I totally agree need to be outright banned - but that's really the only thing that's jumped out at me. Otherwise it's largely opinion pieces parroting the same few background sources.

I'm not sure it's really a correct mental model to put 50+ years of lack of investment maintaining and expanding transmission and grid capacity onto the industry that laid that fact bare. From where I stand and the underlying studies/reports I've personally read the root cause always seems to be we're running out of power on a grid built by the Greatest Generation and more or less zero work has been put into expanding anything since. There were plenty of people sounding alarm bells a decade ago before the latest datacenter boom.

Then you get into NIMBY stuff, pie in the sky wishful thinking re: dispatchable vs. intermittent power generation, etc.

In the end if we want wealth, we need industry. Industry needs cheap and abundant power to be competitive - AI datacenter or Aluminum smelter. Energy consumption correlates very strongly with wealth, and we've spent decades in the margins messing around with efficiency gains vs. actually investing in anything substantial. When your power company is willing to give you a credit for a more efficient appliance so they don't have to upgrade the grid to your neighborhood you know things have jumped the shark and we are in malinvestment territory.

I certainly agree with the argument that the datacenters might not end up panning out as profitable investments for society, but I'm at least hopeful that when the dust settles we'll actually have augmented our electric grid and finally started to take that looming problem seriously. We might be left with something useful that lasts another 3 generations when all said and done.

We were going to get here either way with population growth and older power generation facilities not being replaced faster than they are reaching end of life. Datacenters simply brought it forward maybe a decade or so. Eventually you run out of the previous generation's energy investments.

2 comments

> They tend to pay industrial rates like any other industrial consumer would

Well yeah, you don't need to look further than Econ 101 and supply and demand. If demand goes up, prices go up.

The real problem is that the gains from the new demand don't end up fairly distributed, which is bad but not really directly related to the discussion.

And then supply goes up. In theory.

Americans have coasted too long on other people's infrastructure investment. It's basically run out. Time to pay the piper or watch our quality of life decline.

I firmly believe datacenters are simply the scapegoat de-jour. If this buildout hadn't happened it'd still be EVs or "air conditioning use in the city" like it was beforehand.

It's coming for us either way. At least this way there is an industrial user subsidizing a portion of grid modernization and energy generation tech.

I agree that wealth distribution is a problem. But I come from a "there needs to be wealth to distribute to begin with" standpoint. Degrowth isn't the way.

> And then supply goes up. In theory.

Supply goes up for a price and it's called capex, that cost wouldn't be there without new datacenters.

> Americans have coasted too long on other people's infrastructure investment. It's basically run out.

That's such an egregious inversion of the truth. It would be true if the companies building data-centers were building power plants and transmission lines which the population was allowed to use for the cost of operating expanses - after all capex and loans were payed off by these companies.

The reality is the exact opposite of that - the public is shouldering all of the capex and the new AI overloads want to pay for the opex only.

> Time to pay the piper or watch our quality of life decline.

They are even ready to issue threatening ultimatums if you disagree... as if agreeing would lead to a different outcome.

> In the end if we want wealth, we need industry. Industry needs cheap and abundant power to be competitive - AI datacenter or Aluminum smelter.

Why do we want wealth when it is only going to the wealthiest? AI data centers benefit Big Tech, its employees, and its shareholders. So, who is "we"? I believe I can make the argument that the majority of Americans do not want this, only a privileged minority (ie those getting wealthy from this current hype cycle).

Poll: American voters don't want data centers built in their communities - https://www.thecentersquare.com/issues/energy/article_d5b564... - July 2nd, 2025

> Energy consumption correlates very strongly with wealth, and we've spent decades in the margins messing around with efficiency gains vs. actually investing in anything substantial. When your power company is willing to give you a credit for a more efficient appliance so they don't have to upgrade the grid to your neighborhood you know things have jumped the shark and we are in malinvestment territory.

No longer true.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-gdp-decoupling

If AI data centers want power, they should be charged a painful premium for it, paid out of the pockets of Big Tech building it. They have the resources, clearly, from the very obvious capital flows. Meta has issued its largest bond offering ever, $30B, for its Hyperion project in Richland Parish, Louisiana. Because when the bubble pops, we're all going to be left holding the bag ("socializing the losses"). We should not all have to suffer higher electrical prices for the benefit of Big Tech and their shareholders. They can pay up for the necessary power infrastructure if they want the gains they're chasing.