Hacker News
points by reissbaker 3 days ago | 0 comments
FWIW, given how many places in the U.S. are passing datacenter bans, I'd expect space-based datacenters to make a lot more sense over the coming years just because it'll be illegal to build them anywhere else.
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
> FWIW, given how many places in the U.S. are passing datacenter bans

If you have the technical chops to set up a data center in space — with no connections to the electrical grid or municipal water, you can use your technology to build your data center with the same specs right here on earth in 90% of places that you think are issuing "bans". You'll also get much better cooling for free via convection.

A remote town with a population of 43 will be happy for a data center to employ 2 locals, but data center operators aren't doing that today because they want tax breaks tiny towns can't give, infrastructure tiny towns don't have, nevermind a well-armed police force to deter would-be GPU thieves. Space is a red herring.

[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
If all the energy for a space appliance comes from the sun, in steady state they only have to radiate away the same amount that hits them. All long-lived spacecraft manage it.

Whether they can be worth the money it cost to put them in orbit is another story.

[–] overfeed 3 days ago
> All long-lived spacecraft manage it.

Apples to oranges, long-lived satellites have modest power needs. Doing a back-of-the napkin math on required size of solar array and radiative elements for a single-rack's worth of energy is a sobering exercise for those who are a overly exuberant on the topic. The all-in power estimate for a single GB300 chip is 2.1kW

[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away. So it’s radiator size needs are in proportion to its solar panel size needs, and no worse than that.

Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.

My point is not that space data centers are viable or sensible. Only that the need for cooling is limited. If a terrestrial datacenter was powered only by its rooftop solar panels, cooling it would be trivial. Space is harder, but there just isn’t that much heat to dump.

A simple rock in orbit radiates exactly as much heat as hits it from the sun, on average.

[–] overfeed 3 days ago
> Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away

You are correct that the first law of thermodynamics dictates the energy, but anyone who has parked a car in the sun will tell you, the temperature where the absorption/dissipation equilibrium is achieved is often incompatible with the survival of the cargo.

edit to your edit:

> Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.

Cool; that's about half the wattage of one modern full-height Nvidia AI rack (172kW) - you need two ISSes to service just 1 rack; extrapolate that to a data center's worth of racks and see if the math is mathing. The ISS is about the size of a(n American) football field.

[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
Again, just to remind you, I didn’t claim space datacenters are economically rational.
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
My original claim, in its entirety, was that on earth "You'll also get much better cooling for free via convection."
[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
The average temperature of a rock, car, or the ISS in low earth orbit is about -18C.
[–] Sammi 3 days ago
It's this huge misconception that space is super cold. A better mind model is that space doesn't have much of a temperature at all just cause there's nothing there. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature.

You won't immediately freeze if you enter space without a suit. You'll die almost immediately, but it will be because your blood will begin to boil because of the lack of pressure kinda like an extreme form of divers sickness - it's just not the cold that'll get you first.

[–] adrian_b 2 days ago
There is the additional problem that the GPUs are not in the panels, so to radiate the heat you must first transport it from the GPUs, then distribute it uniformly over the entire surface of the radiators, otherwise some parts will overheat.

Without gravity, it is likely that this can be done only by pumping continuously a lot of liquid, which will increase the power consumption and it will reduce reliability.

Solar panels that have heat radiators on their backside will have a higher temperature than simple solar panels, where half of the absorbed solar energy is converted into electrical energy and taken away. The efficiency of solar panels decreases with temperature, so hotter solar panels will have to be made bigger for the same electrical energy output.

Maintenance would be too expensive, so a space datacenter would have to be overprovisioned, e.g. with a double number of GPUs, to keep the average of the number of still working GPUs at the desired level over the lifetime of the datacenter. This will also increase the power and cooling requirements in the early part of a life cycle, and both the power generation and the cooling will have to be dimensioned for the maximum values, not for the average values.

It is certainly possible to design a datacenter that will work in space, but there is a very large number of difficulties that will increase the cost both in comparison with terrestrial datacenters and in comparison with existing satellites.

Until a detailed design is done by someone, it is not possible to know exactly how many times more expensive will be a space datacenter, but my opinion, as an engineer with experience in industrial design, is that the cost will be too high to make it worthwhile.

[–] verzali 3 days ago
Well yes, but what matters is how hot that rock gets. Some rocks melt or vaporise in space (see comets).
[–] robotresearcher 2 days ago
That’s right, and it’s not very hot: -18C on average in LEO.

You know space rocks where we live don’t melt because the Earth and moon don’t melt.

[–] bryan_w 3 days ago
It's not a technical problem. It's a people problem. Every data center project over the last year has experienced some form of pushback no matter where they're built
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
By definition, a data center in space is remote, self-reliant on electrical power and doesn't use potable water. These features require technical solutions before they become practical, and once one has cracked those challenges, they have disarmed all the push-back arguments people have raised against data centers. It's telling that the data centers want to build-out near population centers, i.e. where someone else has paid for fiber, grid and water infrastructure; it's a good old fashioned raid of the commons. This is why no-one is pushing for building data centers in locales with 0.2 people/sq mile with no one to subsidize the costs.
[–] mensetmanusman 1 day ago
This is first order thinking, of course buildings are built near builders…

building where people live is raiding the commons? Lol

[–] amanaplanacanal 2 days ago
Likely because the AI companies that are going to use those data centers have the absolute worst marketing imaginable. "We're going to take away your job and might accidently kill everybody on earth!" It's no wonder they get pushback.
[–] chasd00 2 days ago
> A remote town with a population of 43 will be happy for a data center to employ 2 locals, but data center operators aren't doing that today

This isn’t true, many of these DCs are in very very rural areas and get pushback from people not even living there. Governors get pressure from people hundreds of miles away of the site and then shut it down or impose moratoriums. It’s FUD on social media trying to slow AI advancement that is the root of all of it. The genie is out of the bottle, it’s like blacksmiths trying to slow industrialization. It’s already happened.

[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
Not really. In sun synchronous orbit you can use solar power without battery backup. You can't do that on Earth because of night time.

Remote towns with populations of 43 are exactly the sorts of places that are pushing back on having datacenters in their areas.

And space is the ultimate physical protection. In reality a bigger issue than GPU thefts are protests or leftist groups trying to firebomb you. See the problems the Tesla factory in Germany has had with leftist violence, like setting its electricity pylons on fire (because electric cars "consume natural resources and are not sustainable", lol). The left has become very anti-AI and so the risk of attacks on facilities, especially if built outside the USA, is quite high which in turn means you have to overbuild physical security like high fences.

[–] adrian_b 2 days ago
The number of slots in the sun synchronous orbits is limited. More slots can be accommodated if the satellites can maneuver to avoid collisions.

Moreover, a datacenter in a sun synchronous orbit must be able to maneuver anyway, otherwise without adjusting the orbit it will enter in the shadow of the Earth after a month or two, due to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.

If the datacenter must make periodic adjustments of the orbit, it will need to carry a lot of fuel, especially because a datacenter will be much heavier than a typical satellite, so much more fuel will be needed for orbit changes.

Thus it is not certain that a sun synchronous orbit is the best choice. It is possible that the extra fuel required for it may make this choice worse than using another orbit where the datacenter will not have power for half of the time.

[–] mike_hearn 2 days ago
That's an interesting choice. All the discussion I saw before assumed sun-synchronous, you're the first to suggest otherwise.

Do you know what the capacity of this orbit is?

[–] amanaplanacanal 2 days ago
Antipathy towards AI isn't just on the left, you know. At least in the US it seems widespread, and the remote towns with population 43 are far more likely to have right wing inhabitants than left wing.
[–] thayne 3 days ago
I think the data centers would get a lot less push back if they were built using new solar and/or wind power in places that have abundant water, and maybe further away from residential areas. Yes that is more expensive than what they are doing now, but it is still almost certainly cheaper than building in space. Heck, putting data centers in the ocean is probably cheaper than space.
[–] gmerc 3 days ago
It’s still cheaper to build in a completely undeveloped desert with no neighbors and costly utility hookups than space. By orders of magnitude. That gap will never be materially close.

Space datacenters are just SDI2, a convenient bullshit to be able to funnel more money to campaign donors.

As long as there’s space on earth, Space Datacenters can never be economical. It’s rally that simple.

[–] hparadiz 3 days ago
If Starship launches end up in the $20 million range they would be easily economical. Running cable isn't free.
[–] ileonichwiesz 3 days ago
And how many of these rockets would you have to launch to match the capacity of a mid-size terrestrial data center?

We’re not talking about launching little satellites here, we’re talking about replacing giant buildings.

[–] adrianN 3 days ago
How do you cool a datacenter in a vacuum? You’d need ridiculous radiators to dump megawatts. How do you service it in space when something breaks?
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
An individual satellite would not be consuming megawatts.

The radiators are not a big deal. The solar panels required are much bigger. You can just run the electronics really hot to improve the efficiency of the radiation. Nobody is going to get close to those chips so the usual safety requirements don't apply.

You don't service it. Over time the chips degrade and become less useful. Eventually you deorbit it and it burns up. It's a sealed unit, not meant to be replaced.

[–] adrianN 3 days ago
Can you share the math of why the panels need to be larger than the radiators?
[–] echoangle 3 days ago
> You can just run the electronics really hot to improve the efficiency of the radiation. Nobody is going to get close to those chips so the usual safety requirements don't apply.

The chip temperature isn’t limited by safety issues (unless self destruction of the chip counts as safety to you). Certainly not to protect the people around it.

[–] hackeraccount 2 days ago
You think people wouldn't object to building a datacenter in undeveloped (or pristine as it would be called) desert? I honestly think they'll object to building them in space.
[–] nradov 3 days ago
I don't support data center bans but even if that happens in the US I'm pretty sure some other countries will welcome them. For AI inference workloads the network latency doesn't matter.
[–] reaperducer 3 days ago
I don't think the entire nation would ban data centers. The problem is that tech companies are building them on cheap land. Which usually means land that has little water and is better used for food or oxygen or things other than a massive one-story building.

Data centers in brownfields and urban environments see near-zero resistance. There are data centers in skyscrapers in the center of most major U.S. cities, and nobody cares.

Stop plowing down the forests, slurping up the aquifers, and digging up the prairies, and people will stop complaining.

[–] derektank 3 days ago
Data centers in urban areas definitely see massive resistance. Seattle straight up banned any new data centers with a capacity over 20 MW, even though water is a non-issue, and we have tons of industrial land in the south of the city.
[–] Peanuts99 2 days ago
Presumably because people don't want the cost of their energy to go up because a single company wants to come in and use half of the total capacity.
[–] jquery 3 days ago
The problem is data centers produce absolutely colossal amounts of noise that can be heard and felt for miles. Even if water is a non-issue, the noise isn’t.
[–] derektank 3 days ago
Neither is a problem in the sense that both noise and water consumption can be mitigated with some minor (relative to the total cost of a project) capital investments. If these were rational objections, states and municipalities could simply issue noise codes and water access caps, then let the companies figure out how to work within the lines. Instead, we’re left with blanket bans
[–] chunky1994 3 days ago
No, it’s not the noise it’s the power consumption. Your locale becomes a power consumption hog so your off-peak hours and your peak hours become very similarly priced. Noise can be dampened, the power bill cannot.
[–] ipsum2 3 days ago
This is actually a meme/fake videos on the internet, where they add random noise over their videos while recording a datacenter to make it seem really loud.

Realistically you can only hear it if you're within 30-50 feet of the data center, unless there's a separate diesel/natural gas generator.

[–] reaperducer 2 days ago
95% of Seattle isn't "urban."

Put a data center next to BoAT, and nobody cares.

[–] jquery 3 days ago
People are complaining because they are building data centers near people, and data centers produce prodigious amounts of noise pollution. They should be building them far away from civilization, where the low frequency noise has plenty of distance to attenuate.
[–] IcyWindows 3 days ago
People are complaining because of propaganda online. My middle school age children think data centers are evil and we don't have any around us nor have they ever seen one.
[–] blackqueeriroh 3 days ago
Have you ever been near an actual data center? Have you ever been in one?
[–] reaperducer 2 days ago
Have you ever actually lived next to one?

Not visited one in the middle of the day. Lived next to one 24/7.

[–] victorbjorklund 3 days ago
Feels like it would be cheaper and easier to put a data center on a platform/ship in international water than in space.

Also pretty sure there will always be empty land somewhere on earth where no one cares. It will always be easier to build and maintain even in a desert than in space.

[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
People are radically overestimating the cost of space post-Starship. The sea is a terrible place to put inferencing chips!

1. Everything rusts.

2. There is no permanent power source, unlike in sun synchronous orbit where you have 24/7 daylight.

3. The US has no ship building industry of any size.

4. Storms can destroy things.

There is no empty space on Earth unclaimed by governments. Given the results of the American midterms essentially all land is currently controlled by left wing governments, and the left is very anti-AI. Only China really wants to build AI at scale but they don't have enough chips yet. That might change, but even then not many companies want to upload all their IP to China.

So you can forget building more or less any large industrial projects on Earth for the foreseeable future. It may not matter. There appears to be a GPU glut starting anyway, so who knows if anyone will even need new datacenters for a while?

[–] sriacha 2 days ago
There's an interesting company, Panthalassa [1], thats working on harnessing open ocean wave energy to generate electicity, and run inference with it. [2]

[1] https://panthalassa.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PCJRN7yGs (interview with the founder)

[–] nonethewiser 3 days ago
You aren’t necessarily wrong but thats a dumb reason for space data centers to be good ideas.
[–] m3kw9 3 days ago
they are not gonna law itself back to stone age by making data centers illegal, it's just too much money, security implications to chain yourself up just because a few politicians wants a few votes and "enviromentalists" demands it. Don't forget there are people that are ok with data centers.
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
The world is a very, very large place and I have a hard time imagining space would be an easier place to do anything. Nobody wants to live near petrochemical factories or aluminum smelters, either, but we’ve got lots of petrochemicals and aluminum. SV execs shredded any chance of cheap public cooperation by presenting like cartoonishly evil, patronizing, greedy big corporate bad guys from some shitty legal dramedy. They need to learn from their mistakes, develop some humility, and approach people with a serious financial proposition, like the oil industry in Alaska. That’s not as cheap as it could have been if they didn’t start out acting like scaled-up shady local real estate developers trying to build condos on protected wetlands, but it will absolutely be a lot cheaper than space.
[–] azan_ 3 days ago
> SV execs shredded any chance of cheap public cooperation by presenting like cartoonishly evil, patronizing, greedy big corporate bad guys from some shitty legal dramedy.

Did they though? From what I’ve read the places where they build get lots of money and infrastructure (not only DC-related) from them.

[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
Lots of places don’t. Some spin yarns describing job creation and huge economic opportunities, which are largely bullshit, in exchange for large tax exemptions. In Alaska, the people get money, directly, not just some institutions. The oil and gas industries are notoriously uncaring about the people near their operations, but they recognized what needed to be done to smoothly operate in Alaska, and they just did it. There’s a lot of fantastic reasons to dislike the oil and gas industries, but that’l is what mature big business looks like.
[–] MattGaiser 3 days ago
The cartoon evil part is less about the data centres and how they speak of AI.

Whether it’s A16Z tweeting about how the value of all white collar wages is their market or Anthropic basically saying entry level jobs are done.

[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
It’s also very much about GPU-focused data centers. They’ve been installing essentially illegal (with shaky loopholes) gas-powered turbines on site with no emissions control to speak of, in populated areas. They’ve made local governments sign NDAs, under false promises of huge economic development and job creation, preventing them from telling residents that the big real estate project in town was a giant data center. Cartoonish.
[–] lenerdenator 3 days ago
Oh, they do that too, but it's cartoonishly evil to go in and ask for property tax abatements and for the local ratepayers to support your infrastructure when you have valuations in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars.
[–] lern_too_spel 3 days ago
It depends on the company building the data center and the competence of the government approving the plan. https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/rural-louisiana-roa...
[–] thayne 3 days ago
Oh yes, there is lots of money going to the places near me getting DCs. Specifically to the politicians who conveniently happen to own the land the DCs are built on or construction companies that are building them.
[–] Tanjreeve 3 days ago
Someone ought to tell the voters who supported all the anti data center propositions and politicians that they're wrong and just imagining it not being handled well.

In seriousness this is an example of the previous point. Rather than engaging with the issue the tech/DC industry seems to think they can wordplay their way out of it by quibbling about irrelevant technical details and people are primed to get extremely angry at grinfucking type behaviour nowadays.

[–] azan_ 2 days ago
Yes, voters are very frequently wrong and support lots of policies that end up hurting everyone, such as rent controls.
[–] Tanjreeve 2 days ago
What a bizarre non-sequitir. Rent controls don't work so "the voters are voting wrong"
[–] jazzypants 3 days ago
It's hard for the citizens who live nearby to learn about all of that when the idiotic SV execs forced their civic leadership to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Somehow, they just recently learned that was a bad idea.

https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-says-it-is-going-to-stop-...

https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-to-stop-using-ndas-with-l...

https://www.npr.org/2026/08/27/nx-s1-5879528/data-center-nda...

[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
Psychotic? Likely. Arrogant? Unquestionably. Maniacal? Utterly. Cunning? Indeed. Delusional? Arguably. But, I wouldn’t call them idiotic, per se.
[–] kirubakaran 3 days ago
Sufficiently advanced arrogance is indistinguishable from stupidity
[–] jazzypants 3 days ago
If they're so smart, why didn't they see this data center backlash coming and plan for it accordingly?

I mostly agree with you, and obviously there is a lot of intelligence in the valley, but there doesn't seem to be much wisdom.

[–] AnthonyMouse 3 days ago
> If they're so smart, why didn't they see this data center backlash coming and plan for it accordingly?

Because the backlash isn't actually about the data centers, it's about AI. 80% of the complaints about data centers are nonsense and the remaining 20% only apply to the ones where they're doing something that isn't actually required, like burning fossil fuels to power them.

Which you can tell because the demands look like "stop building data centers" rather than "to build one you have to add 110% as many watt hours in new non-fossil fuel generation to the grid as you use".

[–] jazzypants 2 days ago
Funnily enough, the last comment I made before this chain was saying literally exactly this. I completely agree.
[–] wahern 3 days ago
They did see it coming. Thus all the secrecy, and why datacenters in space have seen so much attention the past few years.

Maybe they didn't predict the magnitude and vitriol of the backlash, but NIMBY resistance to all infrastructure projects has only been growing over the years. For example, wrt solar and wind power. It was obvious data centers were going to see at least as much resistance because you need to build the data centers and more power generation.

Do data centers in space make less sense than build outs in more accommodating countries? Not necessarily. It's not an either/or thing, and it all depends on the concrete bottom line numbers. In space you don't have to worry about managing political winds at all; you control everything. More accomodating countries tend to be poorer with worse infrastructure, so there are more unknown risks. And you don't need to develop or manage a foreign workforce, which is why 100% of Silicon Valley jobs didn't instantly jump to India or Poland.

[–] jurgenburgen 1 day ago
> In space you don't have to worry about managing political winds at all; you control everything.

You ignore global geopolitics at your own peril. In space you have no government to protect you when a hostile nation state blows up your infrastructure.

[–] arcwhite 3 days ago
I don't understand how data centres in space make any sense at all given the heat constraints. Has there been some plausible breakthrough in heat dissipation technology recently?
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
I think they couldn’t see it because they’re steeped in the cult of AI, and far too arrogant, maniacal, et al to read the room. I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.

I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.

[–] customguy 3 days ago
Well, I for one think self-awareness is a much higher order of intelligence than clever manipulation of symbols or the external world, so I still find it stupid. Finding a workaround for the inability to have ironic self-distance is kind of the most pointless, dumbest activity I can even think of.

> I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.

Even in discussions here I'm constantly put off by comments that are this hand-rubbing talking to oneself about how the "AI haters" are all stupid, or how they can be forced to use or consume things they don't want against their will. It kind of baits all the sociopaths out into the open, because if their deus ex machina is about to show up, why bother with the tedious masking?

> I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.

No, but you can be emotionally stunted to force you to be dumb. Call it narcissism or whatever, but no sense of others or self = constant need to rewrite the world around you, and fearing logic and honesty like a vampire would fear sunlight. A dumb person can learn, people who are forced to act dumb cannot. They are still, effectively, very dumb. They will go to their graves dumber than an illiterate or mentally handicapped person would have. Not knowing a bunch of things that are true is meh... but thinking you know a trillion things that are all just the scab on a wound that happened in childhood, none of them true, and one dumber than the other, now that is astonishingly dumb.

[–] samrus 3 days ago
The majority of data center bans on the ballot passed. I undertsand theres a little schadenfruede in calling them idiotic, but the outcome doesnt realy scream competence. These execs arent beating the allegations if not being able to pass a ninth grade civics class

https://www.govtech.com/question-of-the-day/how-many-anti-da...

[–] vasco 3 days ago
The oil industry in Alaska that never pays what it should as oil prices are at all time highs?
[–] DrewADesign 2 days ago
Yeah. Nowhere did I say they were actually good, but they understand that money talks and bullshit walks when they’re trying to do something unpopular. Assuming ham fisted subterfuge and bullying is sufficient is a symptom of the ludicrous amounts of hubris in this industry’s leadership.
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
The possibilities are:

- America. Much harder since the elections. Not appealing.

- Europe. Doesn't have enough electricity with anti-AI, anti-big tech and high tax governments. Not appealing.

- Latin America. Expensive, likely to have your assets appropriated by socialists. Not appealing.

- Africa. No.

- Middle East. Your GPU cluster might get blown up. No.

- China. To some extent yes. Plenty of power and space, pro-AI government, but many companies don't want to send their IP to a country famous for copying it and they're still under GPU sanctions.

- Japan, Korea, etc. Maybe. They're not really famous for big datacenters though.

- Australia, Canada. Possible, but you're exposed to Europe-style political risks.

There just aren't many places on Earth where it's realistic to build and operate AI datacenters once political issues and grid constraints are taken into account.

[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
Come on… this is exponentially too reductive to be a serious counterpoint. Also, 0% of the problems you cited are likely to be less expensive than building in space. And do you imagine being in space would make your data centers more or less defensible against the likes of Russia?
[–] olmo23 3 days ago
We're currently building 500+ datacenters in the EU?
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
Yeah? By "datacenter" are we talking about the kind of gigawatt scale facilities dedicated to AI they're casually tossing around in the USA? I haven't heard of any such projects that actually got off the ground. Stargate UK was paused. If so where do they get their natural gas from.
[–] rbanffy 2 days ago
> - Latin America. Expensive, likely to have your assets appropriated by socialists. Not appealing.

I had to laugh. Not sure what Kool Aid you’ve been drinking, but you should stop.

[–] mike_hearn 2 days ago
Latin American countries have a long history of appropriating expensive industrial assets, what do you think is so crazy about this?
[–] rbanffy 2 days ago
I laughed at the “likely”. How many times have foreign industrial assets been seized? Just in the past few years there has been huge foreign investments in Brazil (which is the one I follow more closely) covering assets that depreciate much slower than an AI datacenter. And all that under a government opponents call “communist”.

It’s far more likely the American companies will appropriate the government, as it has happened much too frequently, especially in Latin America.

[–] mike_hearn 1 day ago
Quite a lot of times? Brazil has an active programme of seizing land even today.

https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2026/01/30/brazil-advances-a...

They also love pressuring tech companies over content, something much easier if they have expensive assets in the country.

There are still court cases pending over Venezuela's expropriation of assets.

https://tlblog.org/d-c-circuit-allows-venezuela-expropriatio...

Argentina was seizing multi-billion dollar oil firms as recently as fifteen years ago.

You're going to say, but those aren't datacenters. No, because nobody builds big datacenters in Latin America, because they have a history of nationalizing valuable assets.

[–] rbanffy 23 hours ago
Do not confuse agrarian reform with state appropriation of farmland. Agrarian reform aims at unproductive land and sustainable farming development.

Tech companies operating in a country have to comply with said country’s laws. In the specific case of Brazil, compliance with judicial orders is not optional. I remember Twitter was blocked because Elon tried to be non-compliant by firing everyone and thus having no representative in Brazil. It obviously didn’t work. The US forced similar adjustment on TikTok and doesn’t seem to hesitate trying to impose American laws outside its territory.

Most countries consider mineral resources to be state-owned if they are located within their national borders. Bribing officials and installing puppet governments only takes you so far, and occasionally local governments grow backbones to allow them to oppose exploitation.

And courts in the US have no jurisdiction outside their borders. If there is a legitimate complaint, it can be brought to the WTO or other similar international court. Unfortunately, in order to avoid prosecution for war crimes, the US chose not to be part of the ICC.

[–] dopa42365 3 days ago
Nah, they'll just bite the bullet and build the data centers in remote Canada or Finland or somewhere else no one's complaining (ignore Greta as per usual) and tap into the local hydropower resources. Might take a tad longer and cost slightly more money than in [quasi-lawless US state], but other than that, no problem. Aluminium smelters (basically a solid form of electricity export) in Quebec and Siberia have been doing that for decades already (like 20GW private-ish hydropower).
[–] jltsiren 3 days ago
Finland only has limited hydro capacity that is needed for load-following due to the prevalence of wind power. It makes no sense to waste it for baseload generation. Additionally, the last major hydro power plant was built in 1976. All subsequent attempts have been massively controversial.

A recent law also gave data centers the last priority for grid access. The idea was to prioritize productive industry over less productive uses of electricity. Even something with as little added value as steel production tends to employ ~10 people (directly or as subcontractors) and produce ~€10 million/year of exports for every MW of average power consumption.

[–] devilsdata 3 days ago
Wish they'd find a good spot in no man's land and do geothermal.
[–] paxy 3 days ago
If cities are banning datacenters, we can

a. put them a few miles outside urban centers

b. put them in space

Which is a cheaper, better option?

[–] lenerdenator 3 days ago
You could probably see some of those bans reversed. You just need to have companies go into communities and act like they're a multi-trillion-dollar company instead of begging for tax abatements and shoving off the cost of the infrastructure on the people who feel like they might lose their jobs from AI.
[–] senordevnyc 3 days ago
I don't really understand this perspective. The margins for data centers are such that they could pay massive subsidies to state and local governments and put them in the middle of nowhere with BTM power, and almost all that opposition would evaporate overnight. And you'd still come out way ahead of space-based DCs. They're not doing this yet because they don't have to.
[–] zardo 2 days ago
Maybe they could if they weren't trying to get those governments to compete against each other with tax breaks.
[–] senordevnyc 2 days ago
Agreed, but giving up tax breaks and instead paying extra taxes or whatever to the localities who will accept DCs will still be cheaper than space DCs, at least for awhile.
[–] shit_game 3 days ago
This is a ridiculous take. The reason that "people" are floating the idea of placing datacenter in space - despite the MASSIVE downsides present (cooling, maintenence, latency, availability, cost, etc.) is because you can't firebomb a datacenter thats in space as easily as you can one thats in your suburb. The regulatory friction behind a datacenter buildout is a low concern, and something that is "affordable" for hyperscalers and billionaires. Buying someones farm and building a private powerplant is small potatoes. But being terrestrial, angry people can show up and destroy it if they feel so inclined. It's much, much harder for angry plebs to launch something into orbit and then hit a moving target.
[–] marcosdumay 2 days ago
Just notice that your random $enemy_country can indeed destroy a datacenter in space much more easily than they can destroy one in suburb of one of your cities.

That tells a lot about who decision makers are optimizing against.