President Donald Trump said Friday that his son Donald Trump Jr. has paid back a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin who the Trumps have confirmed hosted two nights of parties after Trump Jr.'s wedding.
Trump was asked in the Oval Office on Friday whether it was appropriate for his son to have accepted the gift from Umar Kremlev.
"Well, it's totally, it's totally allowed. And a lot of people have parties and all, but it's totally allowed," Trump said. "But as I understand it, he paid them back. He didn't want to have that, so I hear he paid them back. A person that he knows pretty, I guess a friend of his, gave him a wedding party. That's very common."
NurPhoto via Getty Images - PHOTO: Bettina Anderson Trump and her husband Donald Trump Jr. hold hands while standing together during the formal welcoming parade lines inside Aras an Uachtarain on Sept. 12, 2026, in Dublin, Ireland.
ProPublica first reported on Kremlev's gift to Trump Jr.
Lawmakers and critics have expressed concern over the gift. Some of them warned that accepting expensive gifts from foreign adversaries could create potentially severe conflicts of interest and potential leverage over the president's family.
When pressed about Kremlev's close ties to the Kremlin, Trump suggested that his son "didn't do a background check."
A reporter commented that it was the first the public had heard that Trump Jr. paid Kremlev back.
"No, I heard I heard about that. I actually heard that -- when I heard the story, I asked about it. He said, 'No, I'm paying it back, Dad.' So, and that was a while ago," Trump later added.
ABC News has asked the White House and The Trump Organization for evidence that Trump Jr. paid Kremlev back.
Trump Jr.'s wife Bettina Anderson said in an Instagram post that Kremlev "very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us AFTER our wedding. It was an extraordinary gift from a friend and something for which were and remain incredibly grateful."
Kremlev's press office told ProPublica that “Mr. Kremlev and Mr. Trump Jr have a friendly relationship” and they first met "a couple of years ago." ABC News has reached out to Kremlev for comment.
This article originally appeared on ABC News at https://ift.tt/5OFD4tv
from yahoo.com/news Top Stories https://ift.tt/5OFD4tv
He was the sole holdout on a 12-person jury who otherwise voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy of murdering her three children — frustrating the defense and causing a mistrial.
After seven days of deliberations, and with specific instructions from Judge William Sullivan to follow the letter of the law on reasonable doubt, the jury said it still had one holdout who refused to budge. A mistrial was declared on Sept. 4.
Now, the lone juror, named Michael Desronvil, has come forward to share his side of the story, saying that he "didn't have any doubts" that Clancy was criminally responsible for the killings.
In a statement shared with CBS on Sept. 17 via his representative Ray Marcel, Desronvil said: "As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present.
"Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned," he added.
Desronvil refused to acquit Clancy on charges of the murder of her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan, whom she admitted killing in 2023.
Attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik said in a social media post he was representing Desronvil and that his client would not be giving any interviews.
“We are focused entirely on his health, safety, and well-being,” Paltzik said. “There will be a time for accountability and a time for the real story of the Lindsay Clancy Trial to be told. But not right now.“
Paltzik added that his client was “safe and sound at an undisclosed secure location in a rural area of Northern New England.”
The trial centered on whether Clancy could be held legally responsible for their deaths, as her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time.
The case is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington pictured making an argument, as the jury resumes deliberations, in Plymouth Superior Court.
Reuters / REUTERS
Desronvil’s statement follows a number of jurors giving their views publicly about the case.
Last week, one juror said that Desronvil, one of three men serving on the jury, did not cite "a single piece of evidence" to support his position.
Juror Nick Dargie said the holdout juror did not show the other jurors any witness testimony or evidence to support his position.
"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie said in an interview with ABC News aired on Sept. 10.
"There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was," Dargie continued, explaining that this was why the jury had given a note to Judge William Sullivan that eventually led to a mistrial.
"Otherwise, like, there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion ... that would be a hung jury. That, like, that is our justice system."
What else did the jurors say?
Prior to Dargie's ABC interview, jury foreperson Roni Carlson had told NBC10 Boston that the holdout juror blocked Clancy’s acquittal despite having reasonable doubt.
A guilty verdict requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system.
"He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt," Carlson said.
"I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'"'
Another juror, who chose to remain anonymous, told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most of the jurors were "very firm in their stance," adding that "the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side".
"I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense," she told WBZ-TV. "There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions."
She added that there was "so much doubt."
"The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."
What happens next?
The two sides in the case are scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29, when the next steps will be decided.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether he will seek to retry Clancy.
Speaking outside the courthouse on Sept. 4 following the mistrial, Cruz said, "I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case."
He added: "However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are, Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides."
Attorney Kevin Reddington speaks to members of the media after a judge declared a mistrial in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.
Reuters / REUTERS
Meanwhile, Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said he was open to a plea deal, but told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he would not agree to one that would result in her serving prison time.
"I want to hear what Tim [Cruz] has to say," Reddington said. "I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government, as well as from the defense, that he would revisit that issue."
This article originally appeared on Yahoo News at https://ift.tt/WZ7fPaS
from yahoo.com/news Top Stories https://ift.tt/WZ7fPaS
On Wednesday, OpenAI (OPAI.PVT) revealed six new examples of its AI models displaying "unexpected or concerning model behavior" during testing and evaluation.
The company made the announcement alongside a new framework for "tracking, reporting, and disclosing" instances where AI models take actions they otherwise aren't told to or shouldn't.
It follows a number of reports of AI models from companies hacking into third-party networks and services, including an unreleased OpenAI model breaking into the network of AI model and testing site Hugging Face.
Earlier this week, Anthropic (ANTH.PVT) CEO Dario Amodei penned a lengthy essay calling for a slowdown in the pace of the development of frontier AI models, after Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon posted on X that he was resigning from the company because it, and his former employer OpenAI, is "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives."
Anthropic alignment science lead Evan Hubinger followed up on Coxon's comments with his own post on X saying that he believes there is a greater-than-10% chance that the technology could "kill all humans."
Anthropic Co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei speaks at INBOUND 2025 at Moscone Center on Sept. 4, 2025, in San Francisco, California. (Chance Yeh/Getty Images for HubSpot)
Chance Yeh via Getty Images
The incidents, posts, and Amodei's essay have renewed fears of Terminator-style AI taking over and ending the world. But the reality of the situation is far from some sci-fi doomsday scenario, experts say.
"This is nothing about AI becoming sentient and coming out to get us," associate professor of computer science and engineering at NYU's Tandon School of Engineering and director of the school's Center for Responsible AI Julia Stoyanovich told Yahoo Finance.
"Essentially, what happened was that … some basic security protocols were not enacted within OpenAI. And so this is actually a wake-up call for the AI companies to remember what we all learned when we studied computer science. That security is a thing," she added
And focusing on end-of-the-world scenarios may take away from preventing other, more immediate harms AI could cause.
Alignment and security
The biggest issues with AI come down to two things: alignment and security. Alignment is how companies nudge AI systems to behave — or not behave — in specific ways.
For instance, if an AI model tries to hack a third-party system, AI researchers will work to alter the model's behavior to prevent it from doing so in the future. Think about it like scolding a child for not following the rules.
AI security comes down to locking down AI systems so that they can't break free and try to hack into outside networks.
Neither misalignment nor security issues, however, means that AI is prepared to take down humanity.
"The pretext for a lot of this is some very actually mundane forms of unexpected consequences of information systems, such as the so-called Hugging Face incidents, which are often [depicted] as these out-of-control agents conspiring and attacking and going on a rampage," explained Georgia Tech professor and program director for the school's Master of Science in cybersecurity policy, Milton Mueller.
"In fact, it was a direct experiment with the security implications of these agentic AI systems that was badly configured by the people doing the experiment. And in a kind of a typical way, when you're dealing with complex information systems, sometimes you forget that there are little nooks and crannies that a smart entity can exploit," he added.
Futurum CEO Daniel Newman told Yahoo Finance that what he's hearing is a "massive need" for alignment on both safety and security. "The industry needs to step up," he added.
Bad actors can definitely use AI, like other technologies, for malicious purposes. Its increased cybersecurity capabilities mean cybercriminals and nation states could more easily hack things like water treatment plants or knock large networks offline.
And Anthropic recently posted a rundown of its efforts to counter the misuse of its AI for developing biological and conventional weapons.
But AI can also be used to help scammers supercharge email phishing operations or by identity theft rings.
Emily Black, assistant professor of computer science and engineering at NYU Tandon School of Engineering, told Yahoo Finance that while there is no harm in preparing for all eventualities, doing so shouldn't take away from addressing more immediate and less headline-grabbing issues, including AI's impact on discrimination, labor, and education.
"The truth is sort of between two fairy tales," Black said. "There are certainly some credible threats around the continued evolution of AI. I don't think that we need to be hiding under our beds for fear of AI destroying mankind right now."
Sign up for Yahoo Finance's Week in Tech newsletter.
Yahoo Finance
Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@yahoofinance.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DanielHowley.
President Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office [Getty Images]
President Donald Trump's administration says it has approved the sale of nearly 50 F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia in a policy shift for the US that has raised concerns from some members of Congress.
Saudi Arabia has sought for years to buy the world's most advanced warplane, equipped with stealth technology that allows it to evade enemy detection.
Washington had resisted, partly because it supplies F-35s to its ally Israel, which is guaranteed under US law to receive top-of-the-range American weapons compared with those its regional neighbours can access.
Congress has 30 days to scrutinise or attempt to block the $24bn (£17.8bn) sale to Riyadh, which is the largest customer for US weapons.
A US Air Force F-35 [AFP via Getty Images]
Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, a Democrat, opposed the sale on Thursday.
He warned "it could put the crown jewels of American military technology within reach of the Chinese Communist Party".
Other Democratic lawmakers and some American defence officials have raised similar concerns about giving F-35s to Saudi Arabia.
They said Riyadh might share the sensitive technology with China under a security partnership between the two countries.
The state department said in announcing the deal on Thursday that it would support US "foreign policy and national security objectives".
It said the deal would improve "the security of a major non-Nato ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region".
"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military balance in the region," the state department added.
Trump has a close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who visited the White House last November.
The two also met in May last year in Riyadh, where a $142bn arms sale was sealed – described by the White House as the "largest defence sales agreement in history".
The latest proposed sale announced to Saudi Arabia would include 48 F-35s, which are built by the arms company Lockheed Martin.
This would place the country on a level with Israel, which currently has a fleet of 50 jets.
However, Israel's ministry of foreign affairs announced in May that it would procure another F-35 squadron.
Just one of Lockheed Martin's F-35A jets costs about $82.5m.
Congress has previously questioned arms deals with Riyadh after the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.
Former US President Joe Biden's administration considered supplying F-35s to Saudi Arabia if Riyadh would normalise its relations with Israel, but that diplomatic effort faltered.
The proposed sale comes as the Saudis are engaged in fighting with the Houthis, an Iran-backed armed group that controls much of western Yemen.
The Houthis have recently seized control of swathes of Yemen's Red Sea coast from Saudi-backed pro-government forces.
The Saudi crown prince has personally pressed Trump to take military action against the Houthis, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News, the BBC's US media partner.
But Trump has so far declined to involve the US military directly, the sources said.
Flooding is seen in the Crownpoint District of New Mexico in an image posted by the Navajo Police Department on Tuesday. - From Navajo Police Department
The Southwest faces a barrage of intense rain this week as rounds of storms are tapping into unusually moisture-rich air being pulled north from Baja California, after flash flooding in New Mexico killed three people early Wednesday.
Officers responded at around 12:30 a.m. local time to a report of three people washed away by flooding near Newcomb, New Mexico, on the Navajo Nation. Police discovered two adults and one juvenile on scene, the Navajo Police Department said in a statement. All three were pronounced dead. The department declined to provide further details about the deaths when contacted by CNN, citing concern for the family’s privacy.
Rainfall over Newcomb began Tuesday afternoon around 4:30 p.m. and lingered intermittently until just after midnight. The area saw around 0.5 inches to 1 inch of rain in total, with most of it falling within an hour Tuesday evening.
Wednesday’s storms prompted a rare Level 3 of 4 risk of flooding rainfall for parts of Arizona and New Mexico, including Phoenix and Tucson. Phoenix had not faced a flood risk that high since 2022.
More than 3 inches of rain fell in just three hours around the Phoenix metro area midday Wednesday, flooding multiple locations in the Phoenix area.
Officials reported inundated roads and stranded vehicles where drivers had to be rescued in Scottsdale and Mesa, CNN affiliate KPNX reported. First responders were called to a water rescue just south of Phoenix for a car stuck in floodwater with two people inside, CNN affiliate KTVK reported, citing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Helicopter rescues two people from a car stranded in floodwater in Goodyear, Arizona. - Goodyear Fire Department
Flood threat shifts east
Rain chances will drop sharply around Phoenix Thursday as drier air moves in. Farther southeast, storms could still produce locally heavy rain, particularly south and east of Tucson.
Western and central New Mexico will remain vulnerable to flash flooding Thursday as more storms develop in the afternoon and evening, especially over the mountains. Repeated downpours over the same areas could send water rushing through normally dry arroyos and low-water crossings.
The heavy rain threat will gradually diminish in New Mexico Friday and Saturday as drier air spreads east.
️⛈️☔️In one of the impacted areas? Track the storms, find out your local risk and get more detailed timing from meteorologists in the CNN Weather app⛈️☔️
Soil across the region is generally dry and compacted, so rainfall quickly runs off the surface rather than soaking in. Whencombined with steep and narrow terrain, that runoff can quickly turn into fast-moving flash floods, sometimes far from where the heaviest rain actually fell.
The Arizona Dept. of Transportation shared traffic cam images of flooded roadways near Phoenix amid heavy downpours on Wednesday. - Arizona Dept. of Transportation
New Mexico’s Sacramento Mountains near Ruidoso are particularly at risk for flash flooding and debris flows due to the wildfire-scarred ground that absorbs even less water than the surrounding terrain typically does. The fast-moving mix of mud, rock and burned vegetation can be even more destructive than floodwater alone.
Hikers at the Grand Canyon, Utah’s Zion National Park and other wilderness areas s hould be on alert for sudden flooding, since normally dry ground, including slot canyons, can quickly fill with surging floodwater.
This flooding is unfolding during the Southwest monsoon, when shifting winds pull moisture into the US Southwest, fueling thunderstorms. The monsoon season typically runs from mid-June through September, with the region now in its final stretch.
But this bout of torrential rain is being enhanced by a tropical disturbance that tracked up the Gulf of California and is now in northern Mexico. The system is providing extra moisture and energy for storms to tap into.
Extreme rainfall is becoming more common as planet-warming pollution pushes global temperatures higher because warmer air can hold more moisture.
This story has been updated with additional information.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
This article originally appeared on CNN at https://ift.tt/vZWwXte
from yahoo.com/news Top Stories https://ift.tt/vZWwXte
The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bipartisan bill aimed at shielding Americans from increased electricity costs associated with data centers being built across the country.
The Ratepayer Protection Act, which passed with an overwhelming 417-3 majority, “ensures American families are not left footing the bill for the grid upgrades and new energy generation required to operate large data centers,” Republican Rep. Gabe Evans, one of the bill’s sponsors, said ahead of the vote.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where its prospects of passing are uncertain.
The Ratepayer Protection Act is the first major piece of legislation taken up by Congress to address the growing public discontent over the mass buildout of data centers among the American public. Even if it passes, though, it won’t directly set the rates that data center operators pay for their electricity.
Congress doesn’t have the power to compel utilities to set higher rates for the facilities. Only states have that authority. What the Ratepayer Protection Act would do is compel state utility regulators to consider adopting a federal standard under which large data centers would cover the extra costs of upgrades. The bill is comparable to a proclamation signed by President Trump earlier this year that established a similar voluntary pledge for tech companies.
Trump has been a vocal advocate for building more data centers in the United States, recently warning communities that oppose them that they will end up “backwards and poor” if they block new data centers from being built.
“If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign,” he wrote on Truth Social in late August. “The good news is that there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.”
Trump’s full-throated data center advocacy is at odds with the views of most Americans. Recentpolls show that a strong majority of those surveyed oppose a new data center being built in their communities, while only a small percentage strongly support the idea. Even Republican voters are largely against data centers.
A few years ago, the typical American hardly ever thought about data centers. But they’ve become a major political issue seemingly overnight. We’ve seen locallawmakers lose their jobs over their support for new data center projects. Candidates in some of the most pivotal races in this year’s midterms have angled to position themselves as the voice of the people’s opposition to the data center boom. New York recently became the first state to ban new data center projects. Similar proposals have been put forward in more than a dozen other states.
All this is happening at a time when the president and the country’s biggest tech companies are saying that the U.S. needs to dramatically increase its data capacity in order to build the economy of the future.
With that in mind, here are answers to some of the most important questions you may have about data centers, including why we need them, why thousands more are being built and what it means for local communities when a new data center comes to town.
What are data centers?
Data centers are often called the "physical infrastructure of the internet." They are facilities where the servers, networking equipment and storage systems that allow digital data to be processed, stored and transmitted are housed.
Why do we need data centers?
At a fundamental level, the modern internet simply cannot exist without them. Every email, social media post, video or news article that you can find online runs through a data center.
How many data centers are there?
There are an estimated 3,000 data centers currently operating across the United States, according to a Pew analysis of industry data. The facilities aren't evenly distributed, though. Virginia has nearly 400, while data centers in some states number in the single digits.
How many more are being built?
There are roughly 1,500 new data centers in "various stages of development" nationwide, according to Pew. Other estimates suggest there could be as many as 3,000. But that doesn't just mean more of the same types of facilities that already exist are being built. Some of the proposed data centers are much larger than anything that's currently in operation. According to the power market tracking company Clearview, the biggest active data center in the U.S. has a power capacity of 750 megawatts. A single data center that's been proposed in Utah would have an estimated capacity of nearly 9,000 megawatts.
Data centers aren't just getting bigger. They're also being built in new places. Right now, the vast majority of active data centers are in urban areas, according to Pew. More than two-thirds of the incoming data centers will be in rural areas.
Why do we need so many more data centers?
The more we ask the internet to do, the more computing power is needed to meet our demands.
Over the course of the past two decades, the U.S. has had to steadily build more and more data centers as so many aspects of our lives have moved online. But the recent, dramatic increase in data center projects isn't being driven by the spread of social media, the rise of streaming or the remote work revolution. It's being driven by AI.
AI works by processing huge data sets to learn, adapt and make predictions in a way that typical algorithms can't. That takes a lot of processing power. The kind of processing power that America's data infrastructure simply won't be able to handle as AI becomes more complex and widespread, without a massive increase in data center capacity.
Tech companies are pouring money into building more data centers to support their lofty AI ambitions, which many see as a world-changing technology that will be at the core of everything we do. One estimate found that it could take $6.7 trillion in global data center investment before the end of the decade to create the scale of computing power that's needed to support AI's continued growth.
How have opinions on data centers changed?
Data centers have been around in some form as long as computers have. Until recently, most Americans had no real strong opinion about them, if they were aware of their existence at all. But public opinion has shifted dramatically against data centers over a remarkably short period of time, as people across the country are being faced with the prospect of having one built in their back communities. The share of Americans who say they would strongly oppose a new data center near where they live more than doubled, growing from 24% to 55%, in the span of just nine months, according to a recent poll by Heatmap. Other surveys have shown that a strong majority of Americans do not want data centers built in their communities.
Anti-data center sentiment has been especially intense in areas where they're being built. There's a growinglist of local lawmakers who have been voted out after approving the construction of new facilities. Data centers have rapidly become a core issue in key congressional races across the country. A recent study tracked the creation of hundreds of new local Facebook groups with more than 400,000 total members dedicated to bringing residents together in opposition to proposed data centers in their communities.
Why have data centers become so controversial?
There are many reasons people cite for why they oppose data centers. The most prominent concerns center around the amount of resources the facilities consume. Data centers use up a ton of electricity and need a lot of water to keep all those servers from overheating.
New facilities are also massive construction projects, which bring all sorts of disruptions to communities while they're being built — road closures, construction noises, huge trucks clogging up streets and more.
Many data center critics say it's just unpleasant to live near one. One of the main complaints is noise, which some residents have described as like having a "freight train" constantly running past their homes. Researchers have found that large data centers can have a "heat island" effect that makes the surrounding area noticeably hotter.
Demonstrators wave signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion in Imperial, California on July 18, 2026.
SANDY HUFFAKER via Getty Images
Broader skepticism of AI is also a big factor. Tech companies have argued that the U.S. needs to build all of these new data centers to support their vision of an AI-powered future. But more Americans say they expect AI to have a negative impact on society when you account for how it will affect the labor market, education, environment and our personal relationships. It's a tough sell to ask people to tolerate the downsides of having a data center in their community when they don't want the products that the facilities are being built to support.
Finally, there's the phenomenon commonly known as NIMBYism. The acronym, which stands for Not In My Back Yard, is often used derisively to describe people who say they support the construction of things our society needs — affordable housing, power plants, prisons and public transportation — but refuse to accept those things being built where they live. In the eyes of some proponents of data centers, local opposition to building them is a classic case of NIMBYism in action.
How much power do they use?
A lot. In 2024, data centers accounted for 4% of all power consumption in the United States. With so many facilities being built, the total amount of electricity data centers consume is projected to more than double by 2030, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. A separate study estimated that data centers could account for up to 12% of all power usage in the U.S. by 2028.
A typical newly built "hyperscale" facility can require as much power as 100,000 households. The largest data centers can consume more energy than entire major cities, and demand is higher in places with the most facilities. In Virginia, for example, data centers consumed 40% of the state's electricity in 2024, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
Utility companies have also spent billions building out transmission lines and other infrastructure to connect data centers to the local power grid and building new power plants to meet increased demand.
How do they affect utility rates?
It's important to note that all of the tangible information we have on data centers and energy prices is based on what's already been built. At this point, experts can only estimate what will happen when all of those new proposed facilities eventually begin operating.
That said, there's already evidence that the data centers that are currently online have had an impact on electricity rates, thanks to a combination of higher operational costs for utilities and increased demand.
Residential power rates have roughly doubled over the past 10 years. How much data centers are to blame for that increase is the source of significant debate. Some recentanalyses have found that states with the most data centers have seen their energy rates climb at a faster rate than the national average. But another study suggested that their impact on electricity bills has been modest — at least so far.
Some in the energy and tech industries even argue that data centers can actually lower energy prices. While there's some evidence to support that claim in certain areas, most experts believe the large-scale buildout of data centers across the country will push prices higher in the long run.
A variety of solutions have been proposed to keep that from happening, including forcing data center companies to pay for any new infrastructure or plants that utilities have to build to power them, charging the centers higher rates than typical consumers and even requiring data centers to have their own on-site power plants.
An aerial view of the Stargate Oracle AI data center campus in Abilene, Texas.
Brandon Bell via Getty Images
How much water do they consume?
Data centers use water to keep the thousands of servers and other equipment they house from overheating. One estimate found that the typical non-hyperscale data center uses about 300,000 gallons of water per day, about as much as 1,000 U.S. households. Newer, larger facilities can use as much as 5 million gallons every day.
In total, data centers used up an estimated 66 billion gallons of water in 2023, according to an analysis by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That same study estimated that data center water demand could double by 2028.
While that is a lot of water, it's a relatively small share of the 117 trillion gallons the United States uses every year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
There are also ways to significantly reduce the amount of water data centers use. Historically, most data centers relied on what's known as an open-loop cooling system, in which water is brought in, then evaporated to cool the air around servers. While that's the cheapest way to prevent servers from overheating, it's also very inefficient. There are other, closed-loop approaches that allow facilities to reuse water, which can cut a data center's water demand by up to 70%.
More than half of all global data centers still rely on open-loop systems, but some of the biggest companies in the tech industry, including OpenAI, have said they plan to prioritize closed-loop facilities moving forward.
That change only addresses the water that data centers use directly. The facilities also impact water supplies in a larger way through their electricity consumption. The vast majority of power plants in the U.S. use water to keep their own systems from overheating. As a result, the extra strain that data centers put on electricity providers accounts for an additional 800 billion gallons of water consumed annually, according to Lawrence Berkeley Lab.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman sought to appease concerns about water usage this week, telling the Sources Podcast that data centers use no more water than an office building and that 38,000 ChatGPT queries use as much water as the production of one almond. It's a claim that many experts feel is difficult to verify given the limited amount of public information made available by AI companies and the number of vairables at play when trying to acuurately analyze each data center's water usage.
How many jobs do they create?
Like any major construction project, a new data center creates a lot of short-term jobs while it's being built. But once it's completed and operational, the facilities take a relatively small number of people to keep them running. The average data center creates between 100 and 200 permanent full-time jobs locally, according to a recent study by the Brookings Institution.
Of course, data centers don't only affect employment at the local level. The entire U.S. economy relies on the existence of infrastructure that allows us to consistently and reliably send information over the internet. At a very basic level, we need data centers. The questions of how many we need, where they should go and who should bear the costs are where the real debate lies.
This article originally appeared on Yahoo Tech at https://ift.tt/IvAY7aq
from yahoo.com/news Top Stories https://ift.tt/IvAY7aq
