I was looking into the new, probably AI, data center being built in town and noticed it’s built by a private equity backed firm. The data center was rejected by the city and has to operate with a standard cooperate building water supply. They said are switching to air cooling only and reducing the compute power to keep power usage the same. This has caused amazon, the alleged operator, to back out. So they are building a giant reduced capacity data center with no operator and apparently still think that’s a good idea. My understanding of the private equity bubble is that the firms can hide “under performing” assets because it’s all private. From what I read, possibly 3.2 Trillion dollars of it. I feel like this new data center is going on the “under performing” pile.
Used for AI, I agree that a faraway, loud, energy-hungry data center comes with a huge host of negatives for the locals, to the point that I’m not sure why they keep getting building approval.
But my point is that in an eventual post-bubble puncture world where AI has its market correction, there will be at least some salvage value in a building that already has power and data connections. A loud, energy-hungry data center can be tamed to be quiet and energy-sipping based on what’s hardware it’s filled in. Remove the GPUs and add some plain servers and that’s a run-of-the-mill data center, the likes of which have been neighbors to urbanites for decades.
I suppose I’d rehash my opinion as such: building new data centers can be wasteful, but I think changing out the workload can do a lot to reduce the impacts (aka harm reduction), making it less like reopening a landfill, and more like rededicating a warehouse. If the building is already standing, there’s no point in tearing it down without cause. Worst case, it becomes climate-controlled paper document storage, which is the least impactful use-case I can imagine.