> Data center upstart Crusoe is being pushed aside at an artificial intelligence campus it was developing in Wyoming after failing to lock in customers including Alphabet Inc.’s Google, according to people familiar with the situation.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-11-06/google-ta...
Problems with Crusoe were already brewing back in June:
> The developer [Crusoe] known for giant AI buildouts announced that it had “paused” its plan to build a data center that would draw enough electricity to power a city the size of Denver. In reality, Crusoe is being pressured to leave the project, after Google had raised concerns about the costs and timetable under Crusoe’s watch, some of the people said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-11/crusoe-pu...
Crusoe was previously a bitcoin mining operation that pivoted to building AI data centers around 2024. They don't have decades of experience building data centers.
It seems Google disagreed with how Crusoe was running the project and decided it would be better to own everything itself, so it acquired the project.
Yeah crusoe was a bitcoin miner, then pivoted to using flared natural gas for compute, now AI neocloud. I interviewed there at one point; the engineers seemed allright but the leadership… very dodgy.
"would draw enough electricity to power a city the size of Denver."
I wonder where they get that number from? Google mentions a 702 MW fuel cell development, which from what I can tell will be able to generate be between 1/4 to half of Denver's energy usage, depending on duty cycle?
Sure, but Bakersfield is a city almost exactly the size of Denver (150 mi^2), and uses much less power. Just because it’s enough power to power /a/ city the size of Denver doesn’t mean it’s enough to power Denver.
they don't have experience building datacenters, yet
> Crusoe Energy: Acts as the lead developer for the flagship 1.2 GW Abilene, Texas campus ("Project Ludicrous"), as part of Project Stargate, managing the execution, co-financing, and design of the data halls.
> Crusoe was previously a bitcoin mining operation that pivoted to building AI data centers around 2024. They don't have decades of experience building data centers.
Didn't stop CoreWeave. They very successfully pivoted from crypto to data centers.
We can’t build out data centers that are not running on renewable energy. It’s too critical to get global warming under control, and the AI build-out is going in the opposite direction of where we need to be heading, and at a huge scale.
It’s just greediness unhinged by lack of policies. And the voters have finally had a say.
You’re making the wrong argument. Making a pitch for renewable energy-powered data centers shouldn’t be about the environmental impact. If you do that you’ll only convince people who already agree with you.
I think you’ll have better luck by arguing the economics and cost predictability. Not everyplace has a natural gas field next door, and in those places you’ll have a compelling argument.
But I’m not entirely convinced that all of the anti-data center voter backlash was about the physical infrastructure and power usage. I think a large fraction was general anti AI sentiment. And you’ll have a much harder time getting people who hate all AI to think putting a datacenter powered by anything is a good idea.
I am thinking of the same. My questions would be why are the not on renewable ( Or Solar ) as they are the cheapest source of energy at that scale with Battery included.
>I think a large fraction was general anti AI sentiment
Agree and I still dont have time to dig out how we got to here. All of a sudden AI is like Anti-Christ or Nuclear Reactor.
Not for nothing, but voters also have a say in what kind of car they buy. I checked the Q2 numbers -- when gas prices were high. In the US, 8% of people bought fully electric cars. Around 22% bought some sort of hybrid.
Each of these people made a choice about how they were going to affect the environment. The vast majority "voted" to use fossil fuels.
I could write an essay of pure rage about how many overtly liberal people in my life and online still decide against electric over minor or non-existent inconveniences or extra upfront cost (for people who definitely aren't broke).
These people will yell and complain about anything and everything destroying the Earth, but then when it's their turn?
"We just couldn't figure out how to make the extra 30 minute charge stop on our annual vacation work..."
You should stop tying your emotions to other people’s purchasing habits. For your own mental health. And its kind of narcissistic to be offended that people aren’t spending their money how you think they should.
My complaint is the cavernous gap I have uncovered of people who hold beliefs for social points and people who hold beliefs because they themselves are making the world a better place.
Turns out everyone's a selfless hero at the dinner table or in the comment section, but few are on the ground.
This is why it shouldn't be only consumer choices but intentional policy guiding production and product availability. The government should be mandating EVs.
As an individual, your impact is minor. The problem is that there are hundreds of millions of vehicles on the road.
Do you also get mad when people who are upset about the deficit don't donate extra money to Treasury?
This is a pretty typical coordination problem where people are reluctant to make personal sacrifices when they know others will not make similar sacrifices which are necessary to achieve the goal.
Yes, like any other tax, it destroys economic activity. Which is "good for the environment", or at least you can argue that (given what people always do when they're losing money it obviously isn't, but let's not get into reality here, this is politics)
It keeps surprising me that Trump got elected as politician on the promise of introducing new taxes. Tariffs. Republicans at the midterms seemed very surprised that extra taxes affected their election chances negatively. I mean you wouldn't believe it but it's pretty clear who is the pro-tax party now, isn't it?
I mean you couldn't make this up. You'd almost think Trump is like some sort of llama, or perhaps a Russian camel (do those exist?) spitting in the face of his voters, kicking them in the balls to get elected. And it worked.
at this point, I think it's more likely that Trump and Zelensky are secretly working together, and the whole Trump loves Putin thing is a facade to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war (remember, they are both TV actors).
But we can't do without! Without shipping cheap crap from China (and now South America) to Germany, and cheap gas from Russia, oh and without checking labor laws, environment laws, ... normal Germans (and Europeans) would have more jobs, be paid more, it would be a lot more comfortable living on the countryside AND politicians would make less. There would be no German politicians getting very high wages from Putin without Europe paying billions to Putin for his war in Ukraine.
What is the problem with a few thousand terrawatt-hours if it allows politicians to get paid?
Presumably the value of data centers that (1) already exist and (2) already have deals to provide the energy (and water) they need is about to skyrocket.
And even more so the ones that have room for brownfield expansion on the premises. Adding capacity to a site that is already zoned and permitted could be relatively easier.
I was wondering if a solution to the NIMBYs is to just put the data centres in other countries like Mexico? I understand it would be hard to have talent move there, though. I mean, this sounds so obvious, but I haven’t heard much discourse around it yet so I’m not sure how feasible it is.
I guess the main problem is infrastructure like energy, heat dissipation and local government. So, why not build them on Canada or Alaska? There are resources and could help on the problems I pointed out.
It's not like they're just trying to build data centres in the US. Google's building two in Finland (although all work has been suspended because they had trouble following local laws).
If that's the case then China is running circles around the US. They're actually investing in energy rollout whereas US is going as far as to pay companies to not build wind farms.
They use coal for what they have not yet been able to replace with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear because coal is their most abundant, accessible, and cheap domestic fossil fuel.
Exactly the same reason the US uses a huge amount of natural gas for producing electricity: it is their most abundant, accessible, and cheap domestic fossil fuel.
The US was doing a "yes to all" approach, and it still somewhat is due to market forces, but the federal government is trying hard to but the brakes on the solar and wind parts of that, and also trying hard to encourage more fossil fuel use.
That usually goes with “nobody living there.” It’s a lot easier to fear and blame others for your problems when you don’t have to live peacefully among them.
They will likely back out (this is infinite money glitch news for accounting) - see: similar from Nscale. No one company needs more data centers lol (you will not hear this from anyone who has a vested interest in using them as loan collateral).
Google announced yesterday they would invest $17 billion into this Wyoming data center project https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/infrastructure-and-clo...
> Data center upstart Crusoe is being pushed aside at an artificial intelligence campus it was developing in Wyoming after failing to lock in customers including Alphabet Inc.’s Google, according to people familiar with the situation. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-11-06/google-ta...
Problems with Crusoe were already brewing back in June:
> The developer [Crusoe] known for giant AI buildouts announced that it had “paused” its plan to build a data center that would draw enough electricity to power a city the size of Denver. In reality, Crusoe is being pressured to leave the project, after Google had raised concerns about the costs and timetable under Crusoe’s watch, some of the people said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-11/crusoe-pu...
Crusoe was previously a bitcoin mining operation that pivoted to building AI data centers around 2024. They don't have decades of experience building data centers.
It seems Google disagreed with how Crusoe was running the project and decided it would be better to own everything itself, so it acquired the project.
Yeah crusoe was a bitcoin miner, then pivoted to using flared natural gas for compute, now AI neocloud. I interviewed there at one point; the engineers seemed allright but the leadership… very dodgy.
>very dodgy
And Google isn’t?
People, even on this startup forum, prefer Google to startups nowadays
"would draw enough electricity to power a city the size of Denver."
I wonder where they get that number from? Google mentions a 702 MW fuel cell development, which from what I can tell will be able to generate be between 1/4 to half of Denver's energy usage, depending on duty cycle?
Sure, but Bakersfield is a city almost exactly the size of Denver (150 mi^2), and uses much less power. Just because it’s enough power to power /a/ city the size of Denver doesn’t mean it’s enough to power Denver.
they don't have experience building datacenters, yet
> Crusoe Energy: Acts as the lead developer for the flagship 1.2 GW Abilene, Texas campus ("Project Ludicrous"), as part of Project Stargate, managing the execution, co-financing, and design of the data halls.
I believe Abilene is actually 1.21 GW.
They’ll drive 88MPH to get there.
Great Scott!
> Crusoe was previously a bitcoin mining operation that pivoted to building AI data centers around 2024. They don't have decades of experience building data centers.
Didn't stop CoreWeave. They very successfully pivoted from crypto to data centers.
...to bankruptcy? Even Jensen Huang (Nvidia) said without Nvidia's help these "neocloud" enterprises wouldn't be able to exist.
I’ve got a task to talk to a couple of my customers about lifeboat projects after coreweaves hammering in the stock market this week.
We can’t build out data centers that are not running on renewable energy. It’s too critical to get global warming under control, and the AI build-out is going in the opposite direction of where we need to be heading, and at a huge scale.
It’s just greediness unhinged by lack of policies. And the voters have finally had a say.
You’re making the wrong argument. Making a pitch for renewable energy-powered data centers shouldn’t be about the environmental impact. If you do that you’ll only convince people who already agree with you.
I think you’ll have better luck by arguing the economics and cost predictability. Not everyplace has a natural gas field next door, and in those places you’ll have a compelling argument.
But I’m not entirely convinced that all of the anti-data center voter backlash was about the physical infrastructure and power usage. I think a large fraction was general anti AI sentiment. And you’ll have a much harder time getting people who hate all AI to think putting a datacenter powered by anything is a good idea.
I am thinking of the same. My questions would be why are the not on renewable ( Or Solar ) as they are the cheapest source of energy at that scale with Battery included.
>I think a large fraction was general anti AI sentiment
Agree and I still dont have time to dig out how we got to here. All of a sudden AI is like Anti-Christ or Nuclear Reactor.
> All of a sudden AI is like Anti-Christ or Nuclear Reactor.
A little off topic, but I began to explore the "truth" of various religions from the perspective of an adherent and... the news isn't good.
If there is a compelling case for AI to be the anti-Christ, that's probably one of them.
Anecdotally my hunch is voters care about what impacts their wallet primarily, even if they won’t admit it.
People don’t want these in their backyard but also care about lot about their energy costs.
And their 401ks
And by anti-AI sentiment it's really more like "anti- oligarchs controlling everything and making us live in the sewers."
Not for nothing, but voters also have a say in what kind of car they buy. I checked the Q2 numbers -- when gas prices were high. In the US, 8% of people bought fully electric cars. Around 22% bought some sort of hybrid.
Each of these people made a choice about how they were going to affect the environment. The vast majority "voted" to use fossil fuels.
This is disingenuous if you don’t note that in the US we essentially subsidize/ encourage fossil fuel.
Is that really true?
Up until two years ago, we very explicitly subsidized electric cars. And for the past six-plus months we've caused oil/gas prices to double.
In any case: is it worth spending a little more money (maybe?) to save the world from climate change? Or isn't it?
Yes, the US subsidizes fossil industries with several billion dollars per year.
I could write an essay of pure rage about how many overtly liberal people in my life and online still decide against electric over minor or non-existent inconveniences or extra upfront cost (for people who definitely aren't broke).
These people will yell and complain about anything and everything destroying the Earth, but then when it's their turn?
"We just couldn't figure out how to make the extra 30 minute charge stop on our annual vacation work..."
You should stop tying your emotions to other people’s purchasing habits. For your own mental health. And its kind of narcissistic to be offended that people aren’t spending their money how you think they should.
To be fare, they said they could write an essay full of rage :-)
It's not unreasonable to be frustrated by people's hypocrisy.
My complaint is the cavernous gap I have uncovered of people who hold beliefs for social points and people who hold beliefs because they themselves are making the world a better place.
Turns out everyone's a selfless hero at the dinner table or in the comment section, but few are on the ground.
This is why it shouldn't be only consumer choices but intentional policy guiding production and product availability. The government should be mandating EVs.
As an individual, your impact is minor. The problem is that there are hundreds of millions of vehicles on the road.
In fact, policy is the only way to unblock multi-agent coordination problems. Of which environmental protection is definitely one.
Do you also get mad when people who are upset about the deficit don't donate extra money to Treasury?
This is a pretty typical coordination problem where people are reluctant to make personal sacrifices when they know others will not make similar sacrifices which are necessary to achieve the goal.
You have to be kidding me
Whatever you do, never look at the energy cost of shipping.
Global shipping uses the equivalent energy of a Hiroshima bomb every two minutes - that's about 4000TWh over the course of a year.
ALL data centre use, worldwide, totals 490TWh - that's inclusive of AI data centres.
AI data centre use - 155 TWh.
All data centre use, worldwide, accounts for less than 0.5% of CO2 emissions.
This is "use paper straws to save the whales" territory.
so what you're saying is... tariffs are great for fighting climate change?
Yes, like any other tax, it destroys economic activity. Which is "good for the environment", or at least you can argue that (given what people always do when they're losing money it obviously isn't, but let's not get into reality here, this is politics)
It keeps surprising me that Trump got elected as politician on the promise of introducing new taxes. Tariffs. Republicans at the midterms seemed very surprised that extra taxes affected their election chances negatively. I mean you wouldn't believe it but it's pretty clear who is the pro-tax party now, isn't it?
I mean you couldn't make this up. You'd almost think Trump is like some sort of llama, or perhaps a Russian camel (do those exist?) spitting in the face of his voters, kicking them in the balls to get elected. And it worked.
Twice.
at this point, I think it's more likely that Trump and Zelensky are secretly working together, and the whole Trump loves Putin thing is a facade to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war (remember, they are both TV actors).
But we can't do without! Without shipping cheap crap from China (and now South America) to Germany, and cheap gas from Russia, oh and without checking labor laws, environment laws, ... normal Germans (and Europeans) would have more jobs, be paid more, it would be a lot more comfortable living on the countryside AND politicians would make less. There would be no German politicians getting very high wages from Putin without Europe paying billions to Putin for his war in Ukraine.
What is the problem with a few thousand terrawatt-hours if it allows politicians to get paid?
WILL SOMEONE think of the politicians?
Presumably the value of data centers that (1) already exist and (2) already have deals to provide the energy (and water) they need is about to skyrocket.
And even more so the ones that have room for brownfield expansion on the premises. Adding capacity to a site that is already zoned and permitted could be relatively easier.
I was wondering if a solution to the NIMBYs is to just put the data centres in other countries like Mexico? I understand it would be hard to have talent move there, though. I mean, this sounds so obvious, but I haven’t heard much discourse around it yet so I’m not sure how feasible it is.
I guess the main problem is infrastructure like energy, heat dissipation and local government. So, why not build them on Canada or Alaska? There are resources and could help on the problems I pointed out.
It's not like they're just trying to build data centres in the US. Google's building two in Finland (although all work has been suspended because they had trouble following local laws).
Yes, but I think they need some in North America for latency reasons.
can build datacenters in Canada, they have a lot of hydro power
>I was wondering if a solution to the NIMBYs is to just put the data centres in other countries like Mexico?
Or the NIMBYs
The thing is a lot of the opposition is simply anti AI so it doesn’t matter where you put them.
You could easily work out deals with the cartels for security!
Win win!
It also sounds futuristic, imagine the comic books based on this.
The Mechartels
This isn’t trans meta crusoe right?
First thing that came to mind as well.
no it's not, and we are old
energy is the most valuable thing right now
always has been, we are just distracted by abstractions around it.
If that's the case then China is running circles around the US. They're actually investing in energy rollout whereas US is going as far as to pay companies to not build wind farms.
Yup. And while new coal development has stalled they have no qualms about using a huge amount of it for electricity.
Dont forget that the US is attacking the energy supply from both sides. Oil, wind, etc. Yes to all.
They use coal for what they have not yet been able to replace with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear because coal is their most abundant, accessible, and cheap domestic fossil fuel.
Exactly the same reason the US uses a huge amount of natural gas for producing electricity: it is their most abundant, accessible, and cheap domestic fossil fuel.
The US was doing a "yes to all" approach, and it still somewhat is due to market forces, but the federal government is trying hard to but the brakes on the solar and wind parts of that, and also trying hard to encourage more fossil fuel use.
Well at least Trump seems to have invoked the final inflection point for "we need to get off oil"
Wyoming looks less regulated than Texas a Ohio now
Wyoming has the benefit of having practically nobody living there. If it ever becomes populated, that will change.
Wyoming is also the reddest state in the country.
That usually goes with “nobody living there.” It’s a lot easier to fear and blame others for your problems when you don’t have to live peacefully among them.
They will likely back out (this is infinite money glitch news for accounting) - see: similar from Nscale. No one company needs more data centers lol (you will not hear this from anyone who has a vested interest in using them as loan collateral).
When the labs don't need to do rate limiting and quotas I'll believe this take.