The Stratos artificial intelligence datacenter footprint will cover more than 40,000 acres (62 sq miles) over three sites in Box Elder county in north-western Utah. The facility will require about 9GW of power, which is more than the entire state of Utah currently consumes, and suck up a significant amount of water in an area that has been hit by severe drought in recent years.
Last week, the project was approved by the county’s commissioners, despite thousands of objections lodged by Utah residents. Environmentalists have warned that Stratos could imperil the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, including a critical migratory bird habitat, which is already under severe stress.
The lake is shrinking due to water diverted for agriculture and the impact of the climate crisis, placing inhabitants of the nearby Salt Lake City at possible risk of toxic dust clouds as the lake bed dries up.
[...]
The network of industrial-scale fans needed to cool the datacenter’s hot pipes will result in so much waste heat that it could raise daytime temperatures in the surrounding Hansel valley by 2F to 5F (1.1C to 2.7C) and night-time temperatures by 8F to 12F (4.4C to 6.6C), according to an analysis by Rob Davies, a physics professor at Utah State University.
[...]
“Instead of speaking with us, Kevin O’Leary went on social media saying we were out-of-state, paid protesters, and we don’t want people from out-of-state making decisions for us,” said Brenna Williams, lead sponsor of the referendum push. “The only thing he’s right about is that we don’t want him, an out-of-state billionaire, making decisions for us.”
Last week, there was a further twist when the developers withdrew their application to divert 1,900 acre-feet of water from ranching to the project. However, Stratos “fully intends to move forward” with a new application set to be lodged with state regulators, according to the developers.
This new process will invalidate the objections already raised by Utahns and require each person to pay $15 to file a new complaint. Opponents claim this move is aimed at skirting public disapproval of the project.
A 62 square mile data center campus would just completely replace the local ecosystem, lol.
Imagine badging in at the gate for your job at Stratos, and then you have to drive more 62 miles to get to the building you actually work in on the other side of the place.
We need a new word for these things, "datacenter" isn't really cutting it at this scale. "AI datacenter" isn't much better. Data center complex? Data city? Datanexus?
Imagine badging in at the gate for your job at Stratos, and then you have to drive more 62 miles to get to the building you actually work in on the other side of the place.
I’m alarmed by this too, but the FAQ on Gov. Cox’s site dispels some of my wackier imaginings about a colossal 1.742 billion sq. ft. superstructure that would dwarf anything ever built by humans:
While the entire project area encompasses 40,000 acres, most of the acres will remain undeveloped. The different types of power generation contemplated for the data center have different footprints. For example, solar will require a larger footprint than natural gas. The actual data center footprint will be a fraction of the size of the MIDA project area. The majority of the remaining acreage will remain as open space, allowing for wildlife corridors, continued grazing, and significant distance from the Great Salt Lake. Salt Lake City is closer to the Great Salt Lake than the proposed data center.
I mean, take it all with a grain of salt… this whole doc is meant to downplay concerns and sell the project, it’s 100% spin. But still.
I don't believe the headline numbers. I imagine they asked for approval for a much larger project than they're going to build any time soon. Maybe they'll get there in a decade, maybe not, but they won't need to worry about approvals for room to expand.
I think that given the kinds of sizes we're talking about here, the opposition would be justified even if the project were an eighth the size of what's being proposed. So it doesn't really matter if they're not planning to actually build that much or not; it's terrible regardless. And that's before considering the many problems datacenters bring when they aren't enormous.
[OP] LukeZaz | 11 hours ago
From the article:
[...]
[...]
crialpaca | 9 hours ago
62 square miles?! I feel like it's maybe not quite hyperbole to be concerned that this is the kind of stuff that is going to cause ecosystem collapse.
cutmetal | 5 hours ago
A 62 square mile data center campus would just completely replace the local ecosystem, lol.
Imagine badging in at the gate for your job at Stratos, and then you have to drive more 62 miles to get to the building you actually work in on the other side of the place.
We need a new word for these things, "datacenter" isn't really cutting it at this scale. "AI datacenter" isn't much better. Data center complex? Data city? Datanexus?
multubunu | an hour ago
Wouldn't that be more like 8 miles?
balooga | 21 minutes ago
I’m alarmed by this too, but the FAQ on Gov. Cox’s site dispels some of my wackier imaginings about a colossal 1.742 billion sq. ft. superstructure that would dwarf anything ever built by humans:
I mean, take it all with a grain of salt… this whole doc is meant to downplay concerns and sell the project, it’s 100% spin. But still.
skybrian | 5 hours ago
I don't believe the headline numbers. I imagine they asked for approval for a much larger project than they're going to build any time soon. Maybe they'll get there in a decade, maybe not, but they won't need to worry about approvals for room to expand.
[OP] LukeZaz | 2 hours ago
I think that given the kinds of sizes we're talking about here, the opposition would be justified even if the project were an eighth the size of what's being proposed. So it doesn't really matter if they're not planning to actually build that much or not; it's terrible regardless. And that's before considering the many problems datacenters bring when they aren't enormous.