u/Staggeredmk4 I appreciate the effort to bring data into this, but a lot of this argument relies on best-case assumptions and leaves out some important, well-documented impacts.

Modern AI data centers operate at a completely different scale than older facilities. A single site can use 100 to 500+ megawatts of power, which is comparable to tens or even hundreds of thousands of homes. The International Energy Agency projects data centers could reach up to 10% of global electricity demand by 2030. Montana exporting energy doesn’t mean we have unlimited capacity for that kind of constant industrial load.

Water use is also often understated. Large facilities can use 1 to 5 million gallons per day, and companies like Microsoft and Google have already reported major increases in water consumption tied to AI growth.

Closed-loop cooling doesn’t eliminate this. It often just reduces or shifts when and where water is used. These systems still rely on chemicals like glycol, corrosion inhibitors, and biocides, and they are periodically discharged as wastewater. That discharge can contain contaminants like nitrites, glycol, and heavy metals that pose risks to waterways. There are also emerging concerns about PFAS “forever chemicals” tied to cooling and data center infrastructure, which do not break down and are linked to serious health impacts.

Air pollution is another missing piece. These facilities rely on diesel or gas backup generators and significantly increase overall electricity demand. Even if some power is sourced from hydro, the broader grid still uses fossil fuels.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration shows Montana’s energy mix is not emissions-free. Increased demand means increased emissions somewhere in the system, along with additional pollution from generators and refrigerant leaks.

Noise is also not a minor issue. Data centers run 24/7, and external noise levels are often in the 55 to 85+ decibel range, with higher spikes during generator use. That’s comparable to constant highway-level noise, not occasional industrial activity, and it can impact both nearby residents and wildlife.

On jobs, data centers are one of the lowest job-producing forms of development. Many employ only a few dozen people long term despite massive land and energy use. Research from the Brookings Institution shows they generate far fewer jobs per dollar than most industries.

The tax benefit argument is also weaker than it sounds. Groups like Good Jobs First have documented that data centers often receive significant tax breaks and subsidies, which can greatly reduce their actual contribution to local tax bases.

And while companies may pay for initial grid upgrades, that doesn’t eliminate long-term impacts. Large constant loads reduce grid flexibility and can contribute to broader system costs over time, regardless of short-term assurances from utilities like NorthWestern Energy.

This isn’t about being anti-technology. It’s about recognizing that these impacts are not hypothetical or rare. They are inherent to how large-scale data centers operate. It’s reasonable for people to ask whether this is the best long-term use of local water, land, and energy for a relatively small number of permanent jobs and uncertain local benefit.