Good summary of what is known. The main problem I see was the secrecy at first and the lack of up front research. I'm also concerned by the power able to be exerted by the small MIDA board with no input from citizens.
I'm not convinced we have to beat the Chinese. I think a lot of tech companies have borrowed extraordinary amounts of money, and are desparate to achieve some kind of payout before their house of cards collapses. I don't want our water, air quality, and local climate in that valley to get gobbled up in the course of their gamble.
You can build phase one small and look at it, but you cannot un-grant permanent land use authority over tens of thousands of acres, there is no permitting process that says how many degrees you’re allowed to heat a valley at night, and the MIDA designation survived an election that removed the Senate president and two of the three commissioners who approved it. That’s the whole objection. Not that the project couldn’t turn out well, that every mechanism for finding out beforehand, and every mechanism for changing course afterward, was disabled before the first public meeting
Of the 500 to 2,185 acre feet of annual water consumption you cite, how much (if any) is allocated to cooling the on-site natural gas plants versus the data center itself, and does the closed loop system for the power plants draw from the same 13,000 acre foot pool, or would it require separate water rights?
Great question. Developers have never published that breakdown, but the two water-rights conversion applications that have been filed for the project (since withdrawn) listed power generation as the primary use, with the data center's closed-loop system as a secondary portion. For the plants themselves, developers have told county officials they intend to use air-cooled, near-zero-water turbine technology — but we have not seen designs or a contract for such a system. And according to Ben Abbott, a BYU ecology professor, "the world's largest Allam cycle plant is in Texas and it's 400 times smaller than a 9-gigawatt plant".
To your second question: both uses would likely draw from the same ~13,000 acre-foot pool of existing rights. No separate rights for the plants appear anywhere in the record, though converting any of that pool to industrial use requires State Engineer approval that hasn't yet been obtained for either purpose.
I appreciate this article, and the example of buying a minivan before talking with your wife. Every step in this process has been concerning, and often sneaky. For example, with the water rights application being withdrawn the first time, the second application(s) were not under a name that would be easy to recognize. So, no wonder the number of responses was lower. It also should be noted that to file a protest claim, it costs $15, and we don't know where the thousands of dollars went when the original application was pulled. No refunds were given, and not everyone can afford to keep giving $15 for each time these companies refile. Governor Cox's family's business also stands to make millions if this deal goes through. I don't think he should be anywhere near this deal. As for research, if you want to know very specific details, then sure. Do more research. But, scientists who know how physics works can tell you this will be bad in ways that won't be fixable. As for the politician who swooped in to negotiate the project down by 75%, that did nothing to the part of the project that will cause damage. His big heroic mive did absolutely nothing. I can't believe how many media sources failed to put this in their headlines. I have seen nothing about light and noise polution. The China question seems ridiculous. Their number vs ours is 400 to 4000. Other states with many data centers now have a moratorium on building more. The list goes on for the problems data centers are causing other states from stealing more water to shutting down power grids. And MIDA, from what I understand about it's purpose, is being used to get past laws that are there to protect our environment for projects that are not appropriate. I apologize for just turning this into a list. The pros of money will not matter if we destroy the environment we live in.
One part of the debate I’ve had questions about are the effects on energy costs for surrounding areas. Colossus 1 (or 2, can’t remember which) is a prime example of using cheap resources at the expense of the residents. In Virginia, some researchers estimate that data center growth could result in 183% energy cost increases in less then 12 years. On the other hand, this could also be an incredible opportunity to upgrade our aging electrical infrastructure.
Overall, I sit more neutral on this topic than I did a month ago. I’m in favor of incremental data center growth, as long as long as both sides holds up their ends of the bargain. Stratos needs to be open for scrutiny, and the consequences of that scrutiny, Box Elder county needs to do their homework and come up with real data.
I landed on... it doesn't matter whether it was good or bad. The public made up its mind, and a lot of elected officials took the fall for it. Maybe perception will change, maybe new research will show us the good and the bad, and hopefully we can all come to better-informed decisions next time. But Utah made national news for this one, and I don't think voters will soon forget that.
You lost with your own argument about energy. You counted 683 miles of underutilized gas as a benefit, quoted the estimate that burning it could raise Utah’s emissions 55 to 75 percent, more than double at full buildout and then never let the second fact touch the first.
Thanks for the note! I agree that raising the emissions is a concern, and that I could have spoken to that more directly in the “My Take” section. I think that it’s probably included in my most direct critique of this process, which is that we granted irrevocable approval without knowing the effects of the project. Seeing designs for the natural gas power plants would be part of that research. However, I do take some comfort knowing that there is a permitting process that vets emissions. I’m hoping that this will result in some sort of carbon or emissions capture. I agree with your other note in other comments about there not being any permitting requirements around the heat effects. That’s the biggest environmental effect where the government currently has no legal oversight.
You can’t take comfort that there is a permitting process that vets emissions when the trump admin is trying to bypass the epa on data centers. You can’t find comfort in permitting processes when the Utah leg writes laws that give quasi governments control over thier own permitting and takes away the state engineers power over the gsl.
You suggest slowing down the process as one of your suggestions if future data centers are proposed.
Utah has uncontrolled growth and if you dare to suggest slowing down the growth you will be called a fear monger, fascist, and communist by most of the citizens in that community (I know this for a fact because it happened to me in Washington County).
I provided facts, proof and links to everything I was claiming about our water and infrastructure issues, like you are doing here. It didn't matter they stilled called me a liar and the other names.
I felt you weren't giving enough information about water demands for the centers, compared to what our water supply can meet.
There is "NO" water for them to fight over in the Colorado River Basin, our aquifers are dropping at 3x the rate they were just a decade ago, and we are in a 100-year drought with no idea how long it will last. We had the worst year on record for snow fall runoff last year, and we have no idea what this year's snowfall and runoff will be.
So, the whole state needs to slow the growth, but that's just a "fear mongers" opinion. It will never slowdown in this state for anything. Instead, they will just throw more money (our tax dollars) at the problem and pray the water will come. And hope that the averages they are counting on to make their decisions with actually come true.
So, in my opinion none of the other concerns will really matter if there isn't a change in our water supply that will handle the demand being put on it now and after future growth increases that demand.
Good summary of what is known. The main problem I see was the secrecy at first and the lack of up front research. I'm also concerned by the power able to be exerted by the small MIDA board with no input from citizens.
I'm not convinced we have to beat the Chinese. I think a lot of tech companies have borrowed extraordinary amounts of money, and are desparate to achieve some kind of payout before their house of cards collapses. I don't want our water, air quality, and local climate in that valley to get gobbled up in the course of their gamble.
You can build phase one small and look at it, but you cannot un-grant permanent land use authority over tens of thousands of acres, there is no permitting process that says how many degrees you’re allowed to heat a valley at night, and the MIDA designation survived an election that removed the Senate president and two of the three commissioners who approved it. That’s the whole objection. Not that the project couldn’t turn out well, that every mechanism for finding out beforehand, and every mechanism for changing course afterward, was disabled before the first public meeting
Of the 500 to 2,185 acre feet of annual water consumption you cite, how much (if any) is allocated to cooling the on-site natural gas plants versus the data center itself, and does the closed loop system for the power plants draw from the same 13,000 acre foot pool, or would it require separate water rights?
Great question. Developers have never published that breakdown, but the two water-rights conversion applications that have been filed for the project (since withdrawn) listed power generation as the primary use, with the data center's closed-loop system as a secondary portion. For the plants themselves, developers have told county officials they intend to use air-cooled, near-zero-water turbine technology — but we have not seen designs or a contract for such a system. And according to Ben Abbott, a BYU ecology professor, "the world's largest Allam cycle plant is in Texas and it's 400 times smaller than a 9-gigawatt plant".
To your second question: both uses would likely draw from the same ~13,000 acre-foot pool of existing rights. No separate rights for the plants appear anywhere in the record, though converting any of that pool to industrial use requires State Engineer approval that hasn't yet been obtained for either purpose.
I appreciate this article, and the example of buying a minivan before talking with your wife. Every step in this process has been concerning, and often sneaky. For example, with the water rights application being withdrawn the first time, the second application(s) were not under a name that would be easy to recognize. So, no wonder the number of responses was lower. It also should be noted that to file a protest claim, it costs $15, and we don't know where the thousands of dollars went when the original application was pulled. No refunds were given, and not everyone can afford to keep giving $15 for each time these companies refile. Governor Cox's family's business also stands to make millions if this deal goes through. I don't think he should be anywhere near this deal. As for research, if you want to know very specific details, then sure. Do more research. But, scientists who know how physics works can tell you this will be bad in ways that won't be fixable. As for the politician who swooped in to negotiate the project down by 75%, that did nothing to the part of the project that will cause damage. His big heroic mive did absolutely nothing. I can't believe how many media sources failed to put this in their headlines. I have seen nothing about light and noise polution. The China question seems ridiculous. Their number vs ours is 400 to 4000. Other states with many data centers now have a moratorium on building more. The list goes on for the problems data centers are causing other states from stealing more water to shutting down power grids. And MIDA, from what I understand about it's purpose, is being used to get past laws that are there to protect our environment for projects that are not appropriate. I apologize for just turning this into a list. The pros of money will not matter if we destroy the environment we live in.
One part of the debate I’ve had questions about are the effects on energy costs for surrounding areas. Colossus 1 (or 2, can’t remember which) is a prime example of using cheap resources at the expense of the residents. In Virginia, some researchers estimate that data center growth could result in 183% energy cost increases in less then 12 years. On the other hand, this could also be an incredible opportunity to upgrade our aging electrical infrastructure.
Overall, I sit more neutral on this topic than I did a month ago. I’m in favor of incremental data center growth, as long as long as both sides holds up their ends of the bargain. Stratos needs to be open for scrutiny, and the consequences of that scrutiny, Box Elder county needs to do their homework and come up with real data.
Great article Nick!
Great article, Nick!
Thanks Daphne! Which side did you land on?
I landed on... it doesn't matter whether it was good or bad. The public made up its mind, and a lot of elected officials took the fall for it. Maybe perception will change, maybe new research will show us the good and the bad, and hopefully we can all come to better-informed decisions next time. But Utah made national news for this one, and I don't think voters will soon forget that.
You lost with your own argument about energy. You counted 683 miles of underutilized gas as a benefit, quoted the estimate that burning it could raise Utah’s emissions 55 to 75 percent, more than double at full buildout and then never let the second fact touch the first.
Thanks for the note! I agree that raising the emissions is a concern, and that I could have spoken to that more directly in the “My Take” section. I think that it’s probably included in my most direct critique of this process, which is that we granted irrevocable approval without knowing the effects of the project. Seeing designs for the natural gas power plants would be part of that research. However, I do take some comfort knowing that there is a permitting process that vets emissions. I’m hoping that this will result in some sort of carbon or emissions capture. I agree with your other note in other comments about there not being any permitting requirements around the heat effects. That’s the biggest environmental effect where the government currently has no legal oversight.
You can’t take comfort that there is a permitting process that vets emissions when the trump admin is trying to bypass the epa on data centers. You can’t find comfort in permitting processes when the Utah leg writes laws that give quasi governments control over thier own permitting and takes away the state engineers power over the gsl.
You suggest slowing down the process as one of your suggestions if future data centers are proposed.
Utah has uncontrolled growth and if you dare to suggest slowing down the growth you will be called a fear monger, fascist, and communist by most of the citizens in that community (I know this for a fact because it happened to me in Washington County).
I provided facts, proof and links to everything I was claiming about our water and infrastructure issues, like you are doing here. It didn't matter they stilled called me a liar and the other names.
I felt you weren't giving enough information about water demands for the centers, compared to what our water supply can meet.
There is "NO" water for them to fight over in the Colorado River Basin, our aquifers are dropping at 3x the rate they were just a decade ago, and we are in a 100-year drought with no idea how long it will last. We had the worst year on record for snow fall runoff last year, and we have no idea what this year's snowfall and runoff will be.
So, the whole state needs to slow the growth, but that's just a "fear mongers" opinion. It will never slowdown in this state for anything. Instead, they will just throw more money (our tax dollars) at the problem and pray the water will come. And hope that the averages they are counting on to make their decisions with actually come true.
So, in my opinion none of the other concerns will really matter if there isn't a change in our water supply that will handle the demand being put on it now and after future growth increases that demand.
https://transmissions33.substack.com/p/utah-were-selling-our-water-to-saudi?r=5vdfcv&utm_medium=ios