Read it here:https://t.co/UkKcTgaDRV pic.twitter.com/PfyJ6uGzGD

— Pirate Wires (@PirateWires) May 20, 2026

Irony is that AI data centers are likely to result in both reduced electricity spend per household and reduced water consumption overall. Build them and build a lot of them, and allow the insatiable desire for them to result in a society that turns back towards a growth mindset rather than the conserve mindset that has been propagandized for 30+ years.

I just read the article and it's awesome. But, this tweet that you just posted is doing the same thing as what it's condemning on the other side…extremism by painting with a large brush. This is a hyper local issue that the underlying physics teacher even acknowledges from a water and environmental standpoint. He also pointed to higher water pricing and water issues, just that it's misunderstood that the higher pricing is to get up to date infrastructure and water issues are tied to construction phases primarily. He admits they don't belong just anywhere, and hot places with water conservation is not ideal. My counter is that just saying triple it and it's fine, therefore all new Gw facilities in proposed locales are okay, is not nearly the same thing. You cannot operate with a simple mental model on these things. They require specific review.

This smells like wasted taxpayer money funneled into politico and friends pockets.

There's no electricity or water for these things.

275 million given to Space Cowboys, at a 2 billion dollar valuation.

Where are the young ag engineers getting in on this, the real cowboys?

They do. But the current conversation around them is extreme to the wrong side of the issue. People think these companies are spending $1T so that they can have cooling pipes run so dry that Elizabeth Warren gets a new swagger in her step because she's no longer the driest thing in the country.

They no more want to deplete water for a community than the community wants them to, because it's every bit as damaging to their operations. They identify a site where power can be produced, even if its not yet being produced, identify a site where water is plentiful enough to sustain their operations and then submit proposals for construction. Local authorities review viability of proposals and the approve the construction and then internet experts assure themselves and others its going to cause an ecological and financial crisis, when the norm reality is the forcing function of increased consumption of water/energy is better infrastructure and lower costs.

You and I really want to believe that common sense prevails, but that is not always the case. I keep bring up PE, because they don't care about long-term sustainability in a gold rush. That's why they fund operators at arms length, and they will have long past sold their equity before those issues arise.

Edit: That statement also has nothing to do with your posted tweet. That's a big ol' pivot since it didn't say what you wanted underneath. Lol

Sure, PE is bankrolling a lot of this, but they don't have anything to do with the overall design. Even if they own the land and will lease out the building, its still the operator/end user who is controlling the built/fit out.

$ Premium, FOMO, and time constraint mess with decision making all the time. I saw some of the assets Citi was entangled with coming out of the GR and you want to say, why didn't like any one of 5 parties not saying anything.

To your question specifically, it's like asking why did builders overbuild housing supply during the housing crisis. Everyone has their lane and they stick with it. If a series of contractors say, well, the money guys like it, the county/municipality approved it, who am I to say no.

Edit: My mistake for this critical error, meant to Coates' point.

Was that directed at me? If so i have no idea what you are talking about, and I didn't ask any questions.

You replied to me and you didn't want me to reply back?

Lol, no, I am asking because it didn't seem to have anything to do with my post, and then you wrote "To answer your question" when I didn't ask a question.

You posted that PE doesnt care about long term sustainability, etc, but PE doesn't have anything to do with design, so how is that an issue with PE involved?

Because contractors and designers and builders aren't coming to save anyone from a lack of water, higher energy prices, generator emissions, etc. People like to stick in their lane. You keep saying PE has nothing to do with it, that's such an odd notion that the investor consortiums don't have anything to do with a project being greenlit and executed, despite concerns from outside parties.

500,000ags said:

---

Because contractors and designers and builders aren't coming to save anyone from a lack of water, higher energy prices, generator emissions, etc. People like to stick in their lane. You keep saying PE has nothing to do with it, that's such an odd notion that the investor consortiums don't have anything to do with a project being greenlit and executed, despite concerns from outside parties.

---

Not sure if you understand how these are built, but the end user/tenant is who directs the design firms, and they are actually interested in long term cost savings and reduced water usage. 'Sticking to lanes' doesn't matter if there is a new design or a spec that needs to be met. A contractor/builder or even design firm has zero authority to install anything outside of the spec unless approved by the client.

And not sure where I said anything about PE not having to do with a project being greenlit, but that wasn't what you mentioned above and that really doesn't have anything to do with sustainability.

There are many, many lakes that could be built if not for environmental crap. Funding might be a hurdle but it would pay for itself with added property values and business.

Lake Columbia outside of Jacksonville has been on the drawing board my entire adult life.

Think how much cheaper that project would have been if they did it in the 90's. Estimated 85,000 acre feet per year I think that's 27 billion gallons. Instead that water is sent down to the Gulf of America.

oldcrow91 said:

---

There are many, many lakes that could be built if not for environmental crap. Funding might be a hurdle but it would pay for itself with added property values and business.

Lake Columbia outside of Jacksonville has been on the drawing board my entire adult life.

Think how much cheaper that project would have been if they did it in the 90's. Estimated 85,000 acre feet per year I think that's 27 billion gallons. Instead that water is sent down to the Gulf of America.

---

Water that could go to a lake by Jacksonville instead is sent across the state to the Gulf?