By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amazon will invest $20 billion in two Pennsylvania data center complexes, representing the largest capital investment in state history. One complex, located near the Susquehanna nuclear power plant, involves a controversial “behind-the-meter” power arrangement currently under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The second complex will be situated at the Keystone Trade Center near Philadelphia. This substantial investment reflects the booming demand for data centers fueled by the growth of cloud computing and artificial intelligence, and positions Pennsylvania as a key player in the expanding tech infrastructure sector.
Read the original article here
Amazon’s planned $20 billion investment in Pennsylvania data centers, touted as the largest in the state’s history, is generating considerable controversy. While the sheer scale of the investment is undeniably impressive, concerns are mounting regarding the long-term economic and environmental consequences. The anticipated job creation, for instance, seems far less significant than the initial figures suggest; estimates point towards a relatively small number of permanent positions, primarily focused on maintenance and security.
This limited job growth contrasts sharply with the massive strain on Pennsylvania’s already stressed infrastructure. The energy demands of these data centers are expected to be enormous, potentially leading to significantly higher electricity costs for residents and businesses across the state. Adding to this concern is the likelihood of increased pollution and a substantial drain on the region’s water resources, a particularly sensitive issue given Pennsylvania’s recent experience with droughts.
The argument that this investment will revitalize the region’s economy is challenged by the claim that Amazon will not be paying the expected level of taxes, leaving local governments with increased costs without commensurate revenue increases. This disparity raises questions about whether the economic benefits will outweigh the environmental and social costs. The potential for negative health effects stemming from increased pollution and energy consumption is also a major source of worry.
The proposed use of the Fairless Hills USX location, a site with a long industrial history, further fuels these concerns. While repurposing brownfield sites is often seen as beneficial, the environmental legacy of this particular location raises questions about the potential for further pollution and the long-term sustainability of this project. The project’s scale also raises the question of land use, implying the loss of farmland, forests, and natural habitats, impacting biodiversity and the local ecosystem.
The experience of other states, such as North Carolina and Virginia, where similar large-scale data center developments have occurred, offers a cautionary tale. Reports suggest that these projects haven’t brought the widespread economic benefits initially promised, often leaving residents with higher utility bills and little tangible reward for the environmental burden. The pattern of minimal job creation coupled with significant infrastructure strain appears to be a recurring theme. In fact, some observers point to the possibility of a “race to the bottom” dynamic, where states compete to attract these investments with generous tax breaks and subsidies, ultimately resulting in minimal return on investment for the state.
The comparison to third-world countries, while provocative, also needs some unpacking. While the criticisms surrounding resource consumption, environmental impact, and relative job creation are valid, classifying the United States as such is an oversimplification and mischaracterization of the issues at hand. However, the fact that this type of development is often located in regions which are economically depressed highlights a deeper systemic problem concerning the distribution of economic benefits and the sustainability of such models.
Further concerns have been raised about the water usage of these facilities. Given the cooling requirements of data centers, the considerable volumes of water required for this purpose are a significant concern, especially in areas prone to drought. The use of localized power reactors, while potentially cleaner than traditional energy sources, still presents potential safety and environmental risks, especially given past incidents involving nuclear facilities in the state.
It is undeniable that the construction phase of this project will create temporary jobs, but the sustainability of this economic contribution is questionable. The potential increase in property taxes, while a positive aspect for local government, is unlikely to offset the increased costs faced by residents. Ultimately, a detailed and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is needed to determine whether the long-term impacts of this massive investment outweigh the potential gains. The state of Pennsylvania should carefully consider lessons from other states and conduct thorough assessments before endorsing future data center projects on this scale.