How Business Insider investigated the true cost of data centers
The actual price, though, has never been fully measured. So a team of Business Insider reporters and editors set out to find the true cost of the US data center boom — in water, power, pollution, and tax incentives.
We pulled obscure state records, scoured corporate disclosures, and sought analysis and guidance from government researchers in Virginia and elsewhere. We spoke to engineering specialists who study data centers, including Shaolei Ren at the University of California, Riverside, and Vijay Gadepally of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We also spoke to researchers who study incentive packages, such as Kasia Tarczynska of Good Jobs First, a research group that advocates for transparency and equality in public subsidies. And we sought input from companies and industry groups.
The result is the most complete accounting yet of data centers' impact on our environment, economy, and lives.
Here's how we did it.
Data centers can never be without power. Developers build backup generators to provide emergency electricity. Since these generators emit air pollution, they are regulated by state environmental agencies and need permits.
We requested these air permits and applications from 50 states and Washington, DC, asking agencies to search permits using federal industry codes associated with data centers. To confirm state searches were complete, Business Insider cross-referenced permits against company disclosures, news articles, and data from datacentermap.com, Baxtel, and other trade websites.
Some of the permits we obtained were actually for other types of facilities. If public or corporate records confirmed the facility was not a data center, we removed it from our analysis.
We compiled permits for 1,240 existing or planned data centers across the country, the most definitive tally to date. Tracking the year each permit was first issued reveals a construction boom. Until 2010, companies had filed permits for 311 data centers. By 2024, that number had nearly quadrupled.
Often the permit holders are subsidiaries of Big Tech companies, with unfamiliar names like Nova Mango Farms. Business Insider determined the owners using emails, addresses, and other information on permit applications, secretary-of-state disclosures, county databases, and SEC filings.
Business Insider mapped location information from the permits onto the Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas built by the World Resources Institute, a Washington, DC, group that advocates sustainability. The atlas measures a location's relative water stress — the ratio between demand and available, renewable supplies. Business Insider found that 40% of data centers were sited in areas of high or extremely high water stress.
Data centers can use staggering amounts of water. Business Insider requested metered water use records and water supply agreements from dozens of public utility agencies for every data center in areas with extremely high water stress.
Data center water use is a closely guarded secret. Many agencies denied our requests for facility-specific water use or released the records only in aggregate for all data centers in a water utility's service area. In Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado, utility agencies sued Business Insider to prevent the release of metered water use records. Business Insider prevailed in both lawsuits.
Business Insider found that some of the largest data center facilities were permitted to use more water a day than you might expect nearly 49,000 Americans to use.
Companies also disclose little information on how much power their US data centers consume. Data center power use varies based on factors including the types and frequency of use of servers, cooling systems, and other infrastructure. To account for this, Business Insider calculated a range of estimated annual data center electricity use.
To calculate this range, Business Insider used air permit data to identify the total power-generation capacity of every backup generator at each facility. Companies rarely install generator capacity that is more than twice what a data center consumes — and often they install significantly less than that. So Business Insider, in consultation with experts, conservatively estimated that a data center's maximum electricity use is between half and 80% of its generators' capacity.
A 2024 federal report estimates that across the industry, data centers operate at just 50% of that maximum electricity use level, to avoid straining their equipment. So Business Insider multiplied the low and high ends of its initial range by 50%.
Business Insider's data includes permits for data centers that are not yet built and fully online, and therefore estimates expected electricity use in the near future. If all permitted data centers go online, we estimate, they will use between 149.6 terawatt-hours and 239.3 terawatt-hours a year. Business Insider's low-end estimate is roughly equivalent to the state of Ohio's electricity needs in 2023, and on the high end, is nearly as much power as the entire state of Florida used that same year.
Our estimates are conservative. The low end of our estimate is below the federal report's estimate for data center power use in 2023. The federal report estimates data center power use could reach the upper end of our estimate by 2026.
Business Insider used the range average to identify the 322 largest facilities in our dataset that, according to our estimate, consume 40 megawatt-hours of electricity or more an hour.
An Amazon spokesperson said the methodology "oversimplifies complex data center operations and is based on assumptions that do not account for important differences in how companies build and operate data centers."
Google and Meta did not respond to Business Insider's queries about data center power use estimates, and QTS declined to comment. A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged that its data centers "do not always run at 100% of their installed capacity."
Nineteen permits across 10 states — including 12 held by Google — have their generator capacity information fully or partially redacted under public disclosure exemptions for trade secrets. Business Insider was unable to estimate the electricity use of these facilities, so our estimate likely undercounts the true total.
The US uses highly polluting fossil-fuel-fired sources for at least 60% of its electricity. Data centers draw power from a wide regional grid, so Business Insider needed to estimate the public health impact attributable to data centers' use of electricity generated from far-away power plants.
The US electricity grid is complex and does not map closely to state boundaries. To model the complexity of the US electricity grid, Business Insider used an Environmental Protection Agency tool called AVERT that splits the contiguous 48 states into 14 independent electricity regions that approximate grid regions.
Using our estimate for data center power consumption, along with US Energy Information Administration data and the AVERT tool, Business Insider calculated the likely share of total power use attributable to data centers in each of these 14 regions. Then, using another EPA tool with the acronym COBRA, Business Insider estimated the public health cost engendered by that share of total electricity-generation-related pollution in each region. Even a careful calculation like this is inherently imperfect, but in the absence of industry transparency about such emissions it provides a rare and well-founded estimate of the health costs of the data center boom.
Business Insider estimated that annual public health costs from electricity generation for data centers could reach between $5.7 billion and $9.2 billion.
Power plants are not the only source of data center air pollution.
The diesel backup generators installed at data centers emit volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, and particulate matter — all regulated air pollutants the EPA labels as hazardous to human health. Air permits issued to these facilities set total annual pollutant emission limits that determine how frequently their generators can be used.
Data centers generally run their generators infrequently so emit only a fraction of the pollutants their permits allow. A 2024 report to the state legislature in Virginia — which is home to nearly a third of US data centers with permits — calculated that data center backup generators on average emit 7% of their permitted pollution limits each year. Business Insider used that percentage to estimate each county's air pollutant emissions from data center backup generators.
Business Insider then input these county-by-county totals into COBRA, which models how air pollution emitted in a county affects public health nationwide. The tool assigns a dollar figure to what it would cost to avoid negative health outcomes like premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart attacks, and missed school or work days.
The COBRA tool estimated that air pollutants emitted by data centers across the country could trigger nearly 20,000 asthma symptom cases a year and create a $385 million annual burden on public health.
Generator pollution is more harmful to communities already overburdened by environmental pollutants. A community that already has high levels of air pollution will experience greater negative health impacts from additional pollutants, for example, than a community that isn't already saturated with harmful pollutants.
To better understand their impact on these communities, Business Insider mapped all 1,240 data center locations onto a third EPA tool called EJ Screen that combines census and pollutant data within a mile radius of a specified location. We found that more than 230 data center locations were in communities highly overburdened by environmental pollutants.
Business Insider requested and obtained the most detailed data-center-related economic development deals and annual tax incentive disclosures for facilities in and around Columbus, Ohio. Some of the oldest data center deals in the state are in Franklin and Licking counties, and companies are required to disclose how much they've saved from these tax exemption agreements each year, which made the state a useful case study for judging data centers' actual economic impact. Business Insider tallied these numbers, then used company-reported property investment totals to calculate total state and local sales and use tax savings (7.5% for Franklin County and 5.75% for Licking County).
We did not include personal property tax in our calculations, as Ohio eliminated that tax. Because of fluctuations in the number of jobs employed at data centers, Business Insider also did not include state or local job creation tax credits in the analysis.
We nevertheless found that these tax incentive packages given to tech companies were highly lucrative, amounting to as much as $2 million in tax savings per full time job at a data center.
Reporting: Hannah Beckler, Dakin Campbell, Daniel Geiger, Rosemarie Ho, Narimes Parakul, Adam Rogers, Ellen Thomas
Editing: Jeffrey Cane, Rosalie Chan, Jason Dean, Esther Kaplan, Jake Swearingen
Research: Darren Ankrom, Schuyler Mitchell, Trey Strange, Yuheng Zhan
Design and visuals: Dan DeLorenzo, Isabel Fernandez-Pujol, Jinpeng Li, Kim Nguyen, Randy Yeip, Rebecca Zisser
Photography: Kendrick Brinson, John David-Richardson, Greg Kahn, Brian Palmer, Jesse Rieser
Video: Robert Leslie, Gary Moon, Marco Secci
Copy editing: Mark Abadi, Kevin Kaplan
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT and a Financial Advisor How To Become a Millionaire: Here's How Their Advice Compared
For all of the transformative capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI), AI chatbots are still in their infancy stage. While applications like ChatGPT provide generic information that can be used to jump-start research or clarify terms, trusting it with a serious matter like a person's finances would certainly be foolish. Or would it? To test ChatGPT's accuracy on a unique and universally desired financial end goal for many Americans, GOBankingRates asked it how to become a millionaire and received an answer detailing things like how much you would need to invest and at what return, paths to use (consistent investing, growing a business, building high-income skills), and the importance of living below your means and avoiding wealth killers. Read Next: Find Out: GOBankingRates then sought a professional to speak on the subject, asking veteran wealth advisor Jake Falcon, CRPC, where the application succeeded and where it failed. Here's what the founder and CEO of Falcon Wealth Advisors had to say about ChatGPT's answer on how to become a millionaire. Where ChatGPT Succeeds What Falcon liked about ChatGPT's advice was its emphasis on practicalities. The nuts and bolts of sound planning and wealth building aren't a mystery, but they need to be adhered to if you're going to make any progress toward your financial objective. 'ChatGPT's response to 'How to Become a Millionaire' is surprisingly solid for a general audience — it's structured, motivational, and covers the basics well,' Falcon said. 'That said, there are a few areas where it shines and others where it falls short from my perspective.' Here are three examples where ChatGPT provided solid basic guidance, according to Falcon. Learn More: Emphasizing Consistency and Time 'The breakdown of how monthly investments compound over time is a great way to demystify wealth-building,' Falcon said. 'It reinforces the idea that becoming a millionaire is more about discipline than luck.' Highlighting Multiple Wealth Paths 'ChatGPT does a good job outlining the common routes — investing, entrepreneurship, real estate, and high-income skills,' Falcon explained. 'This gives readers a menu of options to explore based on their strengths.' Promoting Financial Hygiene 'Advice like 'live below your means,' 'avoid lifestyle inflation,' and 'track every dollar' is timeless. These are foundational habits I encourage with many clients,' he said. Where ChatGPT Falls Short Financial advisors know that investing is a highly personal activity, so ChatGPT's 'underplaying of behavioral finance' doesn't sit well with Falcon. 'Becoming a millionaire isn't just about math — it's about mindset. ChatGPT doesn't address emotional biases, fear of loss, or the discipline needed to stay invested during downturns. That's where human advisors add real value,' he said. ChatGPT falters in the details, those which financial advisors give such high priority for their clients. Here are three instances where ChatGPT fell flat for Falcon. Oversimplified Math 'While the investment projections are directionally correct, they lack nuance,' Falcon said. 'For example, assuming a flat 7% return ignores market volatility, inflation, and sequence-of-returns risk. Real-world planning requires stress testing — something ChatGPT can't do reliably.' No Personalization Similar strategies can't be used for every investor. 'The advice is generic,' Falcon stated. 'A 25-year-old software engineer and a 55-year-old teacher need very different strategies. As a wealth advisor, I tailor plans based on income, risk tolerance, tax situation, and life goals.' Missing Tax Strategy and Asset Location 'There's no mention of Roth vs. traditional accounts, capital gains, or tax-efficient withdrawals,' Falcon said. 'These are critical to maximizing wealth and often overlooked in DIY plans.' A Financial Advisor's Take A million dollars doesn't go quite as far as it used to, but hitting that wealth threshold is still the ultimate goal for many Americans. Unless you're a master tactician when it comes to creating comprehensive financial plans that cover the essentials — retirement, insurance, taxes, estate planning and major life transitions — you should see a human advisor before consulting ChatGPT for specific strategies on any important financial matter, including how to become a millionaire. 'ChatGPT is a great starting point for financial literacy. It can help people get motivated and understand the basics,' Falcon admitted. 'But when it comes to execution — especially for high earners or those nearing retirement — there's no substitute for personalized advice. 'You can Google 'How to change your car's oil,' but asking the internet on how to build the car probably isn't going to work. The same applies to wealth-building.' More From GOBankingRates New Law Could Make Electricity Bills Skyrocket in These 4 States I'm a Self-Made Millionaire: 6 Ways I Use ChatGPT To Make a Lot of Money 5 Strategies High-Net-Worth Families Use To Build Generational Wealth 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT and a Financial Advisor How To Become a Millionaire: Here's How Their Advice Compared Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Billionaires say a private jet is one of life's greatest luxuries. Here's how much it costs.
More than 15 years ago, Oprah Winfrey shared one of her famous nuggets of wisdom: "It's great to have a private jet," she said at Duke University's 2009 commencement. "Anyone that tells you that having your own private jet isn't great is lying to you." But she did leave out one detail: Having a private jet is expensive — really expensive. Costs such as crew, custom features, and maintenance can add to the already hefty price tag of purchasing a private plane, companies that manage these and charter fleets told Business Insider. "There is a lot that goes into owning an airplane, a lot of expenses that aren't on the surface," said Jamie Walker, the executive chairman of jet management company Jet Linx. Some of the most popular private jet models — the Bombardier Challenger 300 and 350, the Embraer Phenom 300, the Cessna Citation XLS+, and the Gulfstream G550 — cost between $9.5 million and $33 million brand new, Walker estimated. The cost fluctuates by model. But even when purchased used, many list for sale for eight figures. That's not including customization, which is "where things get fun," Walker said. See: Paris Hilton's "SlivAir," a Gulfstream G450 with a Barbie pink paint job and "That's Hot" written on a wing. "We've seen clients spend anywhere from a few hundred thousand to several million on customizations," Walker said, who compared it to "building a luxury home." Interior upgrades like custom cabinetry and headrests imprinted with logos start at about $65,000. Premium woodwork and Hermès leather seats can exceed $1 million. WiFi from Starlink or L5 can cost between $120,000 and $450,000. A private jet can cost more than $1 million a year to run Once a jet is delivered, the costs of operating it start to add up. Leona Qi, the president of the US division of charter firm VistaJet, estimated that it typically costs more than $1 million a year to run a single jet. Members of a private jet's crew — at least two pilots, sometimes an air host — are typically considered full-time employees. Each can earn between $150,000 and $400,000 a year. They also have to be properly certified, trained, and insured, at the owner's cost. While some jet maintenance is scheduled — much like a car's, it's based on mileage and crew — unexpected fixes can leave an unlucky owner seven figures in the red in a bad year. An engine overhaul, for example, can cost as much as $1.5 million per engine, Walker estimated (and most jets have two). Then there's a hangar. A parking spot in New York or Miami can cost as much as $450,000 a year, significantly more than one in smaller cities like Omaha or St. Louis. Fuel can make up about one-third of all ownership costs, Walker said. And most private jet owners hire a company to manage it all. Jet Linx said it charges between $7,000 and $12,000 a month for its management services. To charter or not to charter? That is the multimillion-dollar question. The expenses and headaches of owning a plane have some uber-wealthy turning to charter. Qi at the jet charter company said she doesn't think it makes financial sense to own an aircraft unless you fly more than 350 hours a year, want a completely personalized jet with a toothbrush and a set of fresh clothes on board, or need it at a moment's notice. Through charter companies like VistaJet, members can buy a certain number of flying hours a year, while fractional ownership firms like NetJets sell members a share in a specific aircraft. Even when money is no object, some of the wealthiest in the world choose to charter out of privacy concerns. Privately owned jets can be tracked by the public, while charter jets — whose passengers aren't revealed publicly — are much more discreet. "The group had a plane and we sold it," LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault said of his company's jet, speaking in 2022 on a French radio station. "The result now is that no one can see where I go because I rent planes when I use private planes." Others charter jets when they can't use their personal planes. As many as 50% of VistaJet's clients own their own jets but use VistaJet as a backup service when their aircraft is undergoing maintenance or is already in use, the company said. On the other hand, there are private jet owners who don't use their planes very often and charter them out to mitigate some of the costs associated with ownership. (They do something similar with their superyachts.) "Most people who are unfamiliar are surprised," Walker said. "They're like, 'Really, people with that much wealth and companies that are that big that make that much money care about offsetting half a million bucks?' And they do. They absolutely care about that." Well, they care, but not enough to forgo a plane altogether. Look at the infamously frugal Warren Buffett, who resisted a private jet for years. Once he splurged, there was no looking back. "Were I to die tomorrow, you could be sure Berkshire's earnings would increase by $1 million annually, since Charlie would immediately sell our corporate jet, The Indefensible (ignoring my wish that it be buried with me)," he wrote in Berkshire Hathaway's 1990 investor letter.

Business Insider
9 minutes ago
- Business Insider
I had 12 jobs over 22 years at Microsoft. Here's what it taught me about finding my ideal job.
This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Brieanne Yuchasz, the founder of ViewPoint Coaching & Consulting, about her years at Microsoft. Business Insider has verified Yuchasz's former employment. The following has been edited for length and clarity. Are you someone who made an unconventional career move? If you're comfortable discussing it with a reporter, please fill out this quick form. We want to hear who have made nontraditional moves out of corporate life. I've always been fascinated with the question: "What's next?" My own experience plays a big part in that. In 22 years at Microsoft, I held 12 different roles — from program management to community management, and eventually chief of staff. I was laid off once and managed teams through reorganizations. Having these different roles meant I could streamline my vision for my career and what I value in a job. It also meant I developed the skills to run my own business. I quit Microsoft in 2023 and started my career coaching business. Every move taught me a lesson on career management, which I now pass on to my clients. Starting at Microsoft in the early 2000s I majored in business administration at Western Washington University. The college had an advisory board that connected me with people at Microsoft, Starbucks, and Boeing. I received job offers from all three. Microsoft seemed the most innovative company in the early 2000s, so I joined the product launch team as a product information coordinator. We worked on producing the CDs, manuals, and certificates of authenticity for Microsoft products. I moved into an operations program manager role, working across several product launches. I loved learning about the products and collaborating with legal, marketing, and policy teams. Over seven years, I worked on everything from server products to PC games. I even got my name in the credits for the "Age of Mythology" game. In 2005, I was promoted to manage a team of product launch managers. I grew my leadership skills, but it also brought stress. I had my first panic attack, a year into the role. After the panic attack, I realized as a new manager, I hadn't learned how not to care so much about team members and their stresses, how to deal with the fear of failure, and how to deal with my inner critic. I asked to return to an individual contributor role. Thankfully, my manager supported me. I transitioned into a new team called online operations in 2008, where I focused on the customer experience, working on what is now the Microsoft Store. Discovering change management I stayed in online operations until 2012, when I became a program manager in Microsoft's advertising team and helped lead the group through a reorganization. I wanted to do something more people-focused. In 2013, I invested in personal training as a career coach, partly to develop my coaching skills at Microsoft and partly because I was becoming really interested in people and dynamics. Through managing multiple career pivots, I realized that when I'm clear on my values, my purpose, and my long-term vision, I can see the paths to get there. I've taken that with me into my coaching. In 2014, I moved into community management: hosting monthly calls, onboarding leaders, and helping them navigate the organization. Two years later, I shifted to training and readiness within the same team. Fear took over Unfortunately, my position meant I knew another reorganization was coming, and fear took over. I assumed I'd land in a role I didn't want, so in 2017, I jumped into another role on a marketing team. I didn't take time to think it through, and the new job wasn't a fit. I was laid off a year later, in 2018. I tried launching my coaching business — but realized I didn't have enough knowledge yet to run it full time. My values, purpose, and vision have shifted over the years, but when I was laid off, I really focused on these, which helped me clarify my next role. After reaching out to people at Microsoft, I rejoined as a senior business program manager in 2019. I could lead the rhythm of the business, build team culture, and drive initiatives. I really found my groove. The role aligned with my skills and strengths: planning, organizing, team building, and change management. I set my career development plan, and identified that a chief of staff role and retiring as a coach is where I would set my vision. In 2022, I became a chief of staff. I'd finally reached a career peak, which was exciting — but then that question came up again: "What's next?" I missed the partner-facing elements of previous jobs. I wasn't able to work with clients on a daily basis and missed the teamwork. I realized I could focus on clients more deeply as a coach. I was also looking at the writing on the wall, knowing that layoffs would be coming again. It was the time of year, fiscal planning season. Handing in my notice in May 2023 was a big decision. Microsoft is a special place, and I love the people, innovation, and scale. I may go back one day, if they'll have me. On my last day, I was more reflective than emotional. But after 22 years, I was finally ready to start my own business. Navigating change after Microsoft Going from Microsoft to running my own business was the biggest change of all. I had savings to support me as I grew my coaching business, and I adjusted my lifestyle to reduce spending. Overall, my experience at Microsoft was incredible. Over more than 20 years there, I learned that change is constant. If you can learn to embrace it, then you can thrive. But every move gave me something new, like experience in operations, sales, marketing, and business management, so I don't regret it. All of it helped me to run a small business.