This is just a rehash of the map already available at datacentermap.com (it’s literally cited as their source). Not sure what KXAN is adding here.
Also worth noting that a very loose definition of data center is used here that doesn’t fit the current colloquial usage of the term. One of the “data centers” listed in the middle of Austin, for example, is barely the size of a house and is actually just the switching infrastructure for a radio tower. Not every dot on this map is an energy-guzzling hyperscaler boogie man.
Totally agree. The story is similar for all the dots in the middle of nowhere and small towns. That's half the map!
If people are so curious, they should head on out there and see what the fuss is about. They're going to find a lot of sheds and random closets with a single rack at most.
Knowing how this state operates, I wouldn't doubt a lot of these ended up on the list for small business tax purposes or subsidies. That's a different and much less interesting news story, though.
I predict "data centers" are going to start being built but they'll say it's a distribution warehouse for motorcycle parts or a factory or something. There'll be a token amount of floor space set aside to manufacture pen cartridges but then there'll just be an incidental 45000 sq ft of server racks.
One of the heaviest water consumers and a massive user of land (especially when considering the land needed to grow feed). And data centers aren’t creating lagoons of shit.
And that’s even before you get to the moral atrocity of dairy.
Government exists to serve corporations not individuals in this country. They can pretend these are confidential and have various cover to not release info as a result.
One question I've got is why Texas? It gets very warm there and DCs need cooling. Wouldn't like Wisconsin or Minnesota or Michian be cheaper. I mean Michigan's whole schtick is land of 1000 lakes, and that's not even considering Alaska which is massive, unpeopled, and colder than a nun's ruler?
I'm not saying for or against, I'm just curious why they are choosing Texas?
My takeaway from this is apparently you can build a datacenter in a place where the weather reaches 110 degrees in the summer. AC has come a long way. I wonder what cost feasability of building essentially a biodome that is actively climate controlled that spans an entire town or city.
Why is that a pipe dream? It’s BTM for at least one of the sites you are talking about. The only constraint, which is real, is availability of turbines but other than a delayed timeline i am not sure what’s a pipe dream.
are you off by a K? from the article - 'As of early August, ERCOT was considering more than 474 gigawatts of requests to connect to the Texas electric grid, about 90% of which came from data center projects.'
This is just a rehash of the map already available at datacentermap.com (it’s literally cited as their source). Not sure what KXAN is adding here.
Also worth noting that a very loose definition of data center is used here that doesn’t fit the current colloquial usage of the term. One of the “data centers” listed in the middle of Austin, for example, is barely the size of a house and is actually just the switching infrastructure for a radio tower. Not every dot on this map is an energy-guzzling hyperscaler boogie man.
Totally agree. The story is similar for all the dots in the middle of nowhere and small towns. That's half the map!
If people are so curious, they should head on out there and see what the fuss is about. They're going to find a lot of sheds and random closets with a single rack at most.
Knowing how this state operates, I wouldn't doubt a lot of these ended up on the list for small business tax purposes or subsidies. That's a different and much less interesting news story, though.
I much prefer the KXAN presentation of the data and the map layer styles.
Did this claim to be a 'hyperscaler' map?
I predict "data centers" are going to start being built but they'll say it's a distribution warehouse for motorcycle parts or a factory or something. There'll be a token amount of floor space set aside to manufacture pen cartridges but then there'll just be an incidental 45000 sq ft of server racks.
Actually I'm sure they're already doing that.
And here's a map of major water users in Texas: https://golfcoursebrowser.com/
Now do dairy operations…
One of the heaviest water consumers and a massive user of land (especially when considering the land needed to grow feed). And data centers aren’t creating lagoons of shit.
And that’s even before you get to the moral atrocity of dairy.
Some of these are just office buildings with multiple companies. Are we really calling a rented space with servers a data center now?
How can locations be labeled secret (for 29 data centers)? Aren't there hearings or filings for proposed data centers?
Government exists to serve corporations not individuals in this country. They can pretend these are confidential and have various cover to not release info as a result.
Border patrol, law enforcement, FBI, etc. There's a few military bases as well. I'm not sure what else you're expecting in Texas.
If you look at google maps, the "secrets" will become a lot less mysterious.
One question I've got is why Texas? It gets very warm there and DCs need cooling. Wouldn't like Wisconsin or Minnesota or Michian be cheaper. I mean Michigan's whole schtick is land of 1000 lakes, and that's not even considering Alaska which is massive, unpeopled, and colder than a nun's ruler?
I'm not saying for or against, I'm just curious why they are choosing Texas?
It's not geography, it's politics. Low taxes, general amenability to big businesses, and low ecological restrictions.
My takeaway from this is apparently you can build a datacenter in a place where the weather reaches 110 degrees in the summer. AC has come a long way. I wonder what cost feasability of building essentially a biodome that is actively climate controlled that spans an entire town or city.
How does this compare to the crowdsourced data included on https://www.brockovichdatacenter.com/ ?
Some of these are pipe dreams. A Microsoft datacenter at 2.5MW, another at 2MW. There's no way they're going to get generation capacity for that load.
Why is that a pipe dream? It’s BTM for at least one of the sites you are talking about. The only constraint, which is real, is availability of turbines but other than a delayed timeline i am not sure what’s a pipe dream.
2.5 MW / 2 MW are tiny. I think you are confused.
are you off by a K? from the article - 'As of early August, ERCOT was considering more than 474 gigawatts of requests to connect to the Texas electric grid, about 90% of which came from data center projects.'
Now I'm curious what the other 10% is.