New Hampshire has always prided itself on doing things differently. We value our forests, our small towns, our local decision-making and our quality of life. We believe communities should have a meaningful voice in shaping their own future. That is why the proposal to build an AI data center in Nottingham should concern Nottingham residents, people who live in nearby towns and every person who cares about the future of New Hampshire.
Artificial intelligence may transform the world, but that does not mean New Hampshire should rush to accept every industrial-scale project that comes along. The proposed AI data center would bring significant costs to local residents while delivering uncertain benefits to the community.
The first concern is noise.
Many people picture data centers as quiet buildings filled with computers. The reality is very different. Large data centers require extensive cooling systems that operate around the clock. Massive fans, cooling towers and mechanical equipment can create a constant industrial hum that never stops. Residents who moved to Nottingham for peace and quiet should not be forced to accept an industrial complex that fundamentally changes the character of their community.
Then there is water.
AI data centers can consume enormous quantities of water to keep their servers cool. Across the country, communities are grappling with the impact these facilities have on local water supplies. New Hampshire is experiencing drought conditions and increasing pressure on groundwater resources. Before we permit millions of gallons of water to be used for the computational demands of multinational technology companies, we should ask if that is the best use of our natural resources.
Energy supply may be the biggest concern of all.
AI data centers are among the most energy-intensive facilities ever built. A single large AI center can consume as much electricity as tens of thousands of homes. Meeting that demand from the grid requires new power infrastructure, transmission upgrades, increased energy generation and higher rates. The other option is to generate electricity on-site with gas turbines. The turbines are very noisy, and emit significant exhaust which will degrade the air quality over a large area. (A future option could be a small nuclear reactor. These would be quiet and emit no exhaust, but involve questions about handling of nuclear fuel and waste.)
New Hampshire residents could find themselves paying higher energy costs and bearing the environmental impacts resulting from a facility that primarily benefits corporate shareholders located far from our state.
The question we must ask is simple: Who benefits, and who bears the burden?
The technology companies behind these projects often promise economic development and tax revenue. Yet experience from around the country shows that data centers create relatively few permanent jobs compared to the scale of their resource consumption. Once construction is complete, many facilities employ only a modest workforce. Communities are left with the costs outlined above while receiving far fewer economic benefits than initially promised.
New Hampshire has a long tradition of allowing communities to make decisions about their own future. Whether it is zoning, land use, schools or development, Granite Staters believe that local residents, not distant corporations or outside interests, should have a strong voice in what happens in their towns.
That principle matters because local residents understand the importance of protecting rural character, preserving natural resources, and maintaining the quality of life in towns like Nottingham. Citizens asking tough questions about noise, water consumption, energy demand, environmental impacts and community character are doing exactly what engaged residents should do.
The debate over this data center is about more than one project. It is about what kind of state New Hampshire wants to be.
Hal Rafter lives in Nottingham and is running for state representative in Rockingham District 1.