Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 2122 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#data#power#lines#eminent#domain#https#infrastructure#centers#land#more

Discussion (141 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Animats•about 17 hours ago
This could work out. We need, for example, ultra-high-voltage DC lines from the US wind belt to areas with real loads. The US wind belt is roughly from the Texas panhandle north to Canada. Plenty of wind, no big power users. But nobody has been able to build lines west to California or east to Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, where the loads are. This is held up by land acquisition, not technology.

China has something of the same problem. The cheap power sources are in the northwest, and the big loads are in the southeast. So China has long million-volt UHV DC lines.

9dev•about 16 hours ago
And why not build data centers where the energy is?
mschuster91•about 15 hours ago
Latency.
rapidaneurism•about 15 hours ago
Does it matter for training?
usrusr•about 19 hours ago
Misleading title: they are using eminent domain to seize land for power lines to data centers. (emphasis mine)

This is still quite debatable, but so much less so than the implied accusation that they would somehow sell out their privileges as subcontractors for the data centers themselves.

bob1029•about 17 hours ago
To be even more nuanced, the land is not typically taken entirely. The more typical solution is an easement with compensation for the land owner to cover the reduction in utility.

Transmission lines are pretty harmless when considering things that could be built instead. Zero emissions, silent, no illumination, etc.

johndough•about 16 hours ago
> Zero emissions, silent, no illumination, etc.

Mostly silent. High voltage transmission lines may have a low-frequency hum. You have to stand directly under them to hear it though.

drysine•about 15 hours ago
What's the voltage of power lines to datacenters?
oliwarner•about 17 hours ago
Pretty harmless? That's easy to say until it's your land and view that now has pylons and restrictions dumped on it.
bob1029•about 16 hours ago
I've got overhead transmission lines in my back yard right now. It's really not a big deal. I've got a garden and a small shed that are directly underneath the lines. I have no perceptible loss in utility. Every now and then, someone will visit my property but I don't have to interact with them.

The nature of the easement can make a big difference. Oftentimes the power lines will be colocated with gas pipelines which tend to impose stricter requirements on land owners. It's a lot easier to do things like excavate when you can see what you aren't supposed to hit.

steele•about 17 hours ago
Is the nuance you're contributing here substantiated in the proposals being discussed in the article?

Transmission lines emit EMF which seem pretty harmless unless you're a pollinator or migratory bird. Maybe the home owners are just making a fuss so they can get a better payout to improve the amenities in the bunkers that comprise their subterranean community of concrete beneath the barren badlands of the over-world. At the very least, they should ensure respirators and gaussmeters for able-bodied coal miner minors.

throwaway667555•about 16 hours ago
They buzz loudly and increase leukemia.
left-struck•about 16 hours ago
Sources?
M95D•about 17 hours ago
> Transmission lines are pretty harmless

Debatable. Some studies found this:

https://emfradar.com/articles/power-lines-childhood-leukemia

Then some other studies mostly invalidated that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7

MostlyStable•about 18 hours ago
There have been some pretty egregious misuses of eminent domain in the past, but using it for infrastructure is pretty much the quintessential justification. That's basically the only reason to have eminent domain at all. Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain. Which one can totally choose to do! But they should be up front about it, if that's what's going on.

As for the title, I would go further than you do. This is not a misleading title. It is a lying title. I'm usually a pretty big believer in Scott Alexander's Bounded Distrust [0] concept for the media where they very rarely actually, technically lie. This title (although not the article itself), in my opinion crosses that line.

[0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust

oliwarner•about 17 hours ago
It should be used for essential infrastructure for public use.

Power lines to a private DC seem to miss on both counts.

jaredklewis•about 17 hours ago
We run power lines to everything else: houses, offices, commercial buildings, factories, and so on. Any particular reasons we should have a special exception where we don't run them to data centers?

Where I live pretty much every piece of land has some sort of easement on it: for water, power, or something else. Seems weird to me if we can insist that now everything needs to be frozen and no more infrastructure upgrades.

makeitdouble•about 17 hours ago
> Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain

You're giving a blank check to use it as long as it's infrastructure, and as any simple rule, it's prone to get abused way beyond it's primary goal. IMHO the issue is nuance and balance, we should accept that whether it's applicable is an "it depends" matter.

Keeping it too simple and black and white means companies can now strategically place data centers and get the local government to seize all the land leading to it, and vice versa, local govs can nudge companies to target specific places to seize wherever they want. Especially as the plans aren't required to come to fruition.

SuperNinKenDo•about 19 hours ago
Dunno why you think it's obvious that I should be able to have the state seize your house for my own personal infrastructure just because I demand I chew through so much electricity that the local infrastructure can't support my demands.
SuperNinKenDo•about 19 hours ago
Actually, strictly speaking, it's /more/ debatable. Using eminent domain to seize land for the data centre itself gets a much more generally negative reaction, while seizing it for the purpose of infrastructure to supply said datacentre - and therefore, at least arguably, alleviate strain on the infrastructure used by everyone else - has more nuance and more room for debate.
throwaway667555•about 16 hours ago
Data centers increase strain on the grid, so their supply lines do too.
wahern•about 18 hours ago
It's more misleading than that. The power line that "may" "primarily"[1] serve a private data center has started construction "after nearly 20 years of planning, permitting and lawsuits"[2].

Per usual, NIMBYs continually move the goal posts and rely heavily on rhetoric to oppose a project. Data center opposition is providing them with great PR fodder, but they would have opposed these projects regardless. This is why infrastructure is so incredibly expensive in this country.

[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/11/oregon-regula...

[2] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/10/a-300-mile-po...

hack1312•about 18 hours ago
When it’s your house and land being stolen we’ll see how you feel
bpodgursky•about 17 hours ago
Are you under the impression people are not compensated by eminent domain?

In fact, a huge portion of the sentimental press stores over eminent domain are attempts by homeowners not to cancel the project, but to increase the payouts. Often the homeowners would be quite sad to see the project cancelled, they just want to milk the settlement via litigation.

steele•about 17 hours ago
Throw around NIMBY as a pejorative until you're blue in the face. Landowning residents have a civic duty to exercise their interests to prevent the remote monied and powerful from packaging their speculative investments as valuable infrastructure when the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized. The gambling addicts aren't going to spend a single day in prison when neglected overbuilt "infrastructure" directly causes mass casualties or pervert the shape of communities spanning generations.
toofy•about 17 hours ago
i definitely have internal debates on the idea of eminent domain and the nuances of wether i think its ok or not.

that said, i think i lean to it’s absolutely not ok to use eminent domain when the receivers of the benefits of the taken property are primarily one private industry and its owners.

i’d probably more often be ok with it if the benefits were mostly limited to being widely distributed to the people of that locality/region.

even then i go back and forth but i know for sure that plays a major part in how i see it.

pegasus•about 16 hours ago
I feel the same. When those large datacenter projects were being considered, the necessity for building new power lines should have been included in the ask. Instead they built the centers, then "notice" the system is straining and stick the public with the bill and local communities with the consequences. Classic "privatize profits and socialize risks".
AnthonyMouse•about 15 hours ago
Every consumer of electricity had to have power lines installed to their building in order to get electricity. They all then pay in proportion to how much electricity they use. The electric bill of a data center is large. It already includes the cost of building and maintaining power lines and generating power and everything else, because they all do, since that's what electric bills pay for.

In general the problem is the power company, having received a large new customer and therefore a lot of new revenue, who wants to stuff it in their pocket instead of using it to upgrade the infrastructure to meet the new demand.

1vuio0pswjnm7•about 8 hours ago
arjie•about 16 hours ago
That seems perfectly reasonable. Eminent domain for power lines is about the most reasonable use of the tool. This kind of thing is what it’s there for.
thrance•about 16 hours ago
Notice how when it comes to the interests of Capital, suddenly regulations or NIMBYs are rendered powerless. Building homes and infrastructure? Impossible. Building datacenters that will be obsolete in 4 years and abandoned just to fuel a speculation bubble? Yessir! Immediately, sir!
ChrisArchitect•about 18 hours ago
UltraSane•about 10 hours ago
Opposition to eminent domain would be a lot less if the government had to pay say 10x market value.
petesergeant•about 16 hours ago
flagged per the highly misleading title
avazhi•about 16 hours ago
The irony of this article that was originally posted completely free on The Conversation being stuck behind a Fortune paywall is a bit much.

https://theconversation.com/when-can-a-power-company-take-yo...

Eufrat•about 19 hours ago
Are these AI-driven data centers actually getting built? I was reading about Kevin O’Leary’s initial proposal for his Utah data center and it’s just preposterous, it’s inconceivable anyone needs that much compute at any realistic demand level. The ask is so massively large that even the scaled down version is just absurd.

We also have the Stargate UK data center that the Starmer government trumpeted before it was exposed as a glorified PR stunt without any substance. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/04/openai-ap...

peer2pay•about 17 hours ago
I’m not too deep into the matter but don’t they all have to wait in the interconnection queue first anyway? My understanding is that that alone will take some years
bpodgursky•about 17 hours ago
Most serious projects are building onsite power generation using natural gas to avoid this.
rolph•about 19 hours ago
if you can actually simulate a stock market with fidelity, i believe that would be a distinct advantage.

probably not short trading, but investigating leveraging positions may be worth it.

crawfordcomeaux•about 19 hours ago
Have you considered the compute demands for nationwide AI video surveillance?
serial_dev•about 18 hours ago
AFAIK, video surveillance is less computationally expensive than LLMs, and much of the work can be done at the edge devices.

So don’t worry, there is already probably a nationwide video surveillance system out there, even without Kevin

michaelt•about 17 hours ago
Video-processing AI can be very flexible in its demands.

Even if a camera supports 4k 60fps video, the 'edge AI' can downscale the input to 224x224 2fps and use a small network.

Often the 'edge AI' just needs to detect humans/cars/pets and trigger saving some footage to an SD card/turning on a light. It's not the end of the world if it misses some things or raises false alarms sometimes.

And if you buy a Reolink on Amazon expecting it to be able to recognise a face from 20 yards away, you'll be disappointed.

shit_game•about 17 hours ago
Regardless of the computational needs to facilitate mass surveilance, there are inescapable storage needs precipitated by surveilance. Governments want to retain data because its value in the future is unknown in the present. This is the entire premise behind the Harvest Now Decrypt Later[0] principle that fuels much of the previous surveilance actions taken by governments. But HNDL is speculative; it either hedges on the bet that computational breakthroughs will weaken encryption methods to the point where brute force attempts at decryption are not financially feasible for most actors but still physically possible, or rely on a backdoor in an encryption algorithm to decrypt data that is valuable. There has been much speculation about this feasibility and value RE: quantum computation and also the design of encryption algorithms from the ground up (see things like the Clipper Chip and RSA's relationship with the NSA).

With things like video, photo, audio, and liturgical surveilance, the data is largely out in the open (or simply purchased from their hosting platforms, leading to social media and adtech companies like Facebook and Google being defense contractors by nature) and does not need to be decrypted (in most cases) - rather, it needs to be correlated. This is a great task for machine learning because that's what the field has largely been engineered to do for the last 60 years, but it relies so, so, so heavily on having data to both train on and use in its practice. Storage of all data is the perfect end-goal of a surveilance state. Storage requires data centers. Data centers of this calibre are effectively black sites in that they are nigh impenetrable in both practical and legal senses, and I'd wager many data centers host actual digital black sites simply due to their ubiquity as means of doing so coupled with the necessity of the hardware and facilities they provide that are needed for doing so.

Theres really nothing that will ever be publicly available that would say "this data center has a hundred thousand SOTA GPUs in it that are doing gait recognition on every camera in every airport in the world in real time" versus "this data center is a bunch of tape machines that store everything ever recorded from every facsimilie of Room 641A[1]".

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_now%2C_decrypt_later

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

DeepSeaTortoise•about 17 hours ago
IMO you highly underestimate the amount of processing and storage video surveillance requires. There is just no good way to determine if you took that pen or made the newly illegal handgesture towards the wrong person 12 years ago unless you have enough storage to keep all the footage around and the processing power to search through it or prepare it for new types of queries in reasonable time.

Also, have you considered AI being necessary to fill in for missing surveillance footage if the cameras are failing (the ruling class)? E.g. the whole Epstein (PR) disaster could have been avoided if the cameras could have been kept running and the footage post-processed in time.

protocolture•about 18 hours ago
I think like 30 - 40% of all the announced projects turned out to be financially viable. Possibly less.

Conversely I see heaps of already in progress data center builds and upgrades tacking AI on as the purpose as just PR to sell colo.

Advertisement
bvcp•about 14 hours ago
tell me again why ai datacenters in space make no sense
delecti•about 11 hours ago
Cosmic rays, launch costs, relative impossibility of maintenance, difficulty of heat dispersal, added latency, interconnect interference, no way to recycle when decommissioning.

Or we could build a power line.

Tangurena2•about 11 hours ago
Along with lack of cooling, the cost to launch hardware means that "servers in space" can never recover startup costs.
downrightmike•about 6 hours ago
It would blot out the sky, ~30,000 acres per Gigawatt
black6•about 13 hours ago
Heat rejection.
Frieren•about 17 hours ago
I am all for Communism and giving more priority to projects that help all society. But this is not it.

It would help if the power grid was public property, thou. It would help if the power grid was build so the majority of citizens profit. It would help if the power grid was build for someone else than big tech.

Meanwhile building railroads is impossible. Could we convince AI companies to build their datacenters on trains? USA would have in a few years the largest train network in the world.