"Backlash was immediate, however, when Vineland’s mayor and council proposed giving DataOne a $6.2 million loan."
These poor data center operators do really need a hand up after all. Incredible. Of all of the things your municipality could use its development funds on, this would not make my shortlist.
Wasn't colossus (Musk/grok) data center in Nashville powered by gas generators? And, xai just ignored the environmental regulation preventing it? Am I misremembering?
Bloom Energy makes fuel cells that can run on natural gas. This site would need a very large number of them to replace gas generators. Each "bloom box" can create 325kW and are about 1m x 1m x 2m in size.
They make sort of whine/squeal noise when operating. Not sure of the dB level.
San Jose Ice Rink has had a bunch of these installed out back for about 10 years I think.
Well, most of the results on google images for "natural gas fuel cell" are of renderings or diagrams instead of actual equipment, that sould say something. Probably that they arent very common.
I never understood how the dutch tulip craze started, i still dont understand why people think generating AI videos of cats and rainbows are so valuable.
A $1.1M fine is a laughable penalty to a data center operator. Meanwhile, DataOne is allowed to operate the gas generators while they pursue permits... good job NJ.
They got fined a million bucks for not having properly permitted their backup gensets, which were almost certainly included on all myriad of drawings that were part of the permitting application.
Reeks of "someone comb over their papers and fine them so it looks like we care"
> ... first spotted ‘some type of unit’ on satellite imagery ...
> According to the NYT, the “tractor-trailer-size” generators were “impossible to miss” and certainly were not there when inspectors last visited in December 2025.
Just how lax is NJ's regulation, for violations to be noticed from space, after a billion-dollar construction project received no inspections for 9 months?
The way it likely works is that SOP is to not visit or if you do don't "notice" stuff you can see from the air because if they use the GIS as their source they get to back date the fine to the date of the last GIS aerial photos and then use their magical powers of "we're the government, either sue us or bend over and take it" to let that fine stand unless they subject of the fine produces evidince of when they installed the offense which they then use to make the fine more defensible if the subject ever goes get in front of a real court.
That's how a lot of the worse municipalities roll in my state that is very politically similar.
Also, 9mo ago data centers weren't boogeymen the government wanted to flamboyantly turn the screws on make a "look we're serving your interests" show for the peasants.
Commercial photography costs money. Hard to reconcile how public goods are all in private hands, but new jersey ain't launching satellites, they're also not going to buy daily satellite images.
If NJ's inspectors can't be bothered to visit a site this large for 9 months, then would it do any good for the photography to be magically free?
If NJ's inspectors are honest, competent, and numerous enough to actually do the job, then would cheap drones be good enough to provide quick "big picture" views?
What a weird argument. If one doesn't trust private enterprise to "do right" then the state is nannying and oppressing companies, and if one does and therefore only inspects once a year or so then the state is neglecting their duties...
Public inspectors can't do right.
Maybe it is also fair to ask, did the developer/operator try to get away with something there? Do and hope for forgiveness instead of asking permission?
(and the "fine" is laughable, especially since retrospective permit is rather likely; in fact the fine might not even be higher than the cost of any project delay from requesting the generators at planning approval stage...)
"Backlash was immediate, however, when Vineland’s mayor and council proposed giving DataOne a $6.2 million loan."
These poor data center operators do really need a hand up after all. Incredible. Of all of the things your municipality could use its development funds on, this would not make my shortlist.
Wasn't colossus (Musk/grok) data center in Nashville powered by gas generators? And, xai just ignored the environmental regulation preventing it? Am I misremembering?
It is in the Memphis area - not Nashville - but yes, they use gas turbine generators.
> transitioning to low emission quiet fuel cells
Does this technology even exist? The lies are getting more brazen.
Bloom Energy makes fuel cells that can run on natural gas. This site would need a very large number of them to replace gas generators. Each "bloom box" can create 325kW and are about 1m x 1m x 2m in size.
They make sort of whine/squeal noise when operating. Not sure of the dB level.
San Jose Ice Rink has had a bunch of these installed out back for about 10 years I think.
Well, most of the results on google images for "natural gas fuel cell" are of renderings or diagrams instead of actual equipment, that sould say something. Probably that they arent very common.
1.1 million? You are basically telling them that they made the right choice to break the law.
I never understood how the dutch tulip craze started, i still dont understand why people think generating AI videos of cats and rainbows are so valuable.
>why people think generating AI videos of cats and rainbows are so valuable.
Because it's the gateway to more pernicious forms of media manipulation.
1.1 million dollars and they are still allowed to run the gas generators?
I think this is inaccurately called a fine when it sounds like a retroactively applied permit fee to operate.
> retroactively applied permit fee
This sounds like a euphemism for "bribe." And if you replace "fee" with "expense" you get a hum-dinger of an acronym.
A $1.1M fine is a laughable penalty to a data center operator. Meanwhile, DataOne is allowed to operate the gas generators while they pursue permits... good job NJ.
They got fined a million bucks for not having properly permitted their backup gensets, which were almost certainly included on all myriad of drawings that were part of the permitting application.
Reeks of "someone comb over their papers and fine them so it looks like we care"
Should be a million per week until the generators are removed
> ... first spotted ‘some type of unit’ on satellite imagery ...
> According to the NYT, the “tractor-trailer-size” generators were “impossible to miss” and certainly were not there when inspectors last visited in December 2025.
Just how lax is NJ's regulation, for violations to be noticed from space, after a billion-dollar construction project received no inspections for 9 months?
Hard to bribe satellites, easy to bribe NJ inspectors
Yearly audits seem fair, no?
The way it likely works is that SOP is to not visit or if you do don't "notice" stuff you can see from the air because if they use the GIS as their source they get to back date the fine to the date of the last GIS aerial photos and then use their magical powers of "we're the government, either sue us or bend over and take it" to let that fine stand unless they subject of the fine produces evidince of when they installed the offense which they then use to make the fine more defensible if the subject ever goes get in front of a real court.
That's how a lot of the worse municipalities roll in my state that is very politically similar.
Also, 9mo ago data centers weren't boogeymen the government wanted to flamboyantly turn the screws on make a "look we're serving your interests" show for the peasants.
Inspections are annual unless they receive complaints. This is normal. It works that way in the private world as well.
Commercial photography costs money. Hard to reconcile how public goods are all in private hands, but new jersey ain't launching satellites, they're also not going to buy daily satellite images.
If NJ's inspectors can't be bothered to visit a site this large for 9 months, then would it do any good for the photography to be magically free?
If NJ's inspectors are honest, competent, and numerous enough to actually do the job, then would cheap drones be good enough to provide quick "big picture" views?
What a weird argument. If one doesn't trust private enterprise to "do right" then the state is nannying and oppressing companies, and if one does and therefore only inspects once a year or so then the state is neglecting their duties...
Public inspectors can't do right.
Maybe it is also fair to ask, did the developer/operator try to get away with something there? Do and hope for forgiveness instead of asking permission?
(and the "fine" is laughable, especially since retrospective permit is rather likely; in fact the fine might not even be higher than the cost of any project delay from requesting the generators at planning approval stage...)