Data Centers

[Jackie Augustine]

Hello AOK Board,

As you know, data centers have been in the news lately. The topic has come up at our chapter meetups and people have been reaching out to us to get involved. Brittney suggested it was a topic that I should discuss in a newsletter, so I wrote the attached write up. 

Without approval by an advocacy committee or the board, I am hesitant to say that it is an AOK position. Please let me know: 1) If you have comments or suggestions on the attached write up, 2) If you have concerns about publishing the write up (even with the disclaimer that it may not reflect AOK's position). Please send feedback as soon as possible. 

Thanks!

Jackie 

--

Jacqueline K. Augustine, PhD 

Executive Director, Audubon of Kansas

PO Box 1106, Manhattan, KS 66505

785-537-4385 Office | Mobile

jac...@audubonofkansas.org  

https://www.audubonofkansas.org/

[Debbie Baker]

Hi Jackie,

This is well written. I like your point about lowering our own digital footprint.

Location is the key to whether a data center should be built. But I’d like to see a moratorium for at least a couple years here in Douglas County to see how the current data centers affect the human and natural environment.

I am fine with including it in a newsletter and the caveat that it is your opinion.

Debbie Baker

---

From: audubon...@googlegroups.com <audubon...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jackie Augustine <jac...@audubonofkansas.org>
Sent: Saturday, 27 June 2026 11:13:50
To: audubon...@googlegroups.com <audubon...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Data Centers

 

--
Please contact Jackie@audubonofkansas with any suggestions for adding/deleting groups.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Board of Trustees (Audubon of Kansas)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to audubonofkans...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/CA%2Bpzhjsc8UQv7nr8jmKatUjHmH0nYgd_JE3vJkkQU%3DiKtXCgJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Cindy K Jeffrey]

I agree. We should take a position.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/SN7PR11MB6557E22561733C6F70B494C9C9EA2%40SN7PR11MB6557.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Richard H. Seaton, Sr.]

Looks fine as an opinion piece by you, Jackie.

Respectfully,

Richard H. Seaton, Sr., #05994

Attorney at Law

Seaton Law Offices, LLP

410 Humboldt St.

Manhattan, KS 66502

Ph. (785) 776-4788 / Fax (785) 776-2449

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any documents, files, or previous email messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, print, or save this email. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution of this email, its contents, or the attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original, any attachments and all copies without reading or saving.

[David Kirsch]

Jackie,

This is extremely well reasoned. I am working increasingly in data center issues and this piece captures that data centers are not a uniform monolith, and I think outlines some common sense approaches. I might also note that Kansas, like many Great Plains states, has an electricity surplus. If Kansas bans data centers, the next proposal will be for high voltage transmission lines to carry more electricity to the states that do host them. And that creates other issues for the environment. 

All that said, I am with Dick in thinking this should be identified as reflecting your views and not necessarily those of AOK. As you note, the advocacy committee and the Board would need to weigh in on a formal AOK position. 

Appreciate your taking up the pen on this!

Dave

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/290844053.617489.1782609259681%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Gary Haden]

To Jackie and others who have weighed in on the data center issue.  I have not researched the issue, so my thoughts are based solely on media reports, anecdotal reports that might not be accurate, and my own limited experience with AI, which drives demand for more computing power and thus more data centers.  I had forgotten how much more energy is used to do an AI search versus a search with Google, but I was sure had the number at hand on my desktop computer upstairs, which came with a copy of Copilot embedded with Microsoft.  The answer is that it takes 10 times as much electricity to do an AI search versus a Google search.  To be more specific, the fun fact of the day is that the average Google search requires 3/10,000 of a kilowatt hour, while the same AI search requires 29/10,000 Kwh. When I go to Microsoft Edge my computer automatically takes me to Copilot for a search and believe me Copilot is much more efficient that Google.  I confess in these days of the daily discourse associated with Trump and his minions, including the Supreme Court, I have more inclination than normal to escape into K-State sports. Copilot has answers to my most trivial questions on recruiting and other issues.  And, it is as though one is dealing with real humans, only smart ones. 

My point is that having instant answers to our questions is addictive and we are going to be wedded to AI and data centers and the cloud whether we like it or not, so I think we need to address their siting from the standpoint of how we minimize their environmental impact.  I personally feel that an opinion from AOK would carry more weight than one from a single individual.  Jackie's draft is a good start and I think that it would be appropriate for the AOK Board or the Advocacy committee to address the issue.  Ideally, a position from AOK will have more sway than a letter from a single individual.  

As I said at the beginning of this email, I have not delved into this issue, so I don't know what the KCC has said regarding electrical rates, and I don't know how data centers have affected rates elsewhere.  When Carolyn and I get together with some of our compatriots from our time at the KCC, we mostly discuss politics, not what the KCC is currently ruling on.  For those of you who don't know me well, I was the spokesperson for the KCC during the rate hearings that dealt with the costs of constructing the Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant.  Before that I was the energy writer for the Wichita Eagle. The data centers cause some rather complicated issues.  They will need steady, uninterrupted,  power, so they are going to rely on diesel-powered generators for backup, if not steady-state generation.  So, while we may currently have excess power in Kansas, due to an abundance of wind and solar power, there may still be a need for more baseload generation to cover for those calm cloudy days.   The increased reliability of the system could also be assured through construction of more powerlines from other parts of the country, so we are not out of the woods as far as having to deal with power line siting.  Again, I think we'll be looking at trying to blunt the environmental effects of data center developments, rather than trying to reduce the number of them. 

As wrote earlier, I have not looked into how data centers might affect electricity rates.  I certainly agree that there is a need to site them where the noise they produce is somehow manageable.  We also might keep in mind that studies show excessive levels of noise impact birds, their calls, and thus their communication, though I don't know how we handle that.  The only issue I have with what you wrote, Jackie, is that it would be very difficult to construct a closed system that is going to allow one to continuously recirculate the water.  The heat that the water is carrying away from the data center operations has to be dissipated somewhere.  I suspect much of the energy will be dissipated as steam, with the remaining water going into a lake.  I don't know how hot the water in the lake might be, and there could be another technology I am not thinking of, that could reduce the impacts, but I suspect we'll be dealing with lakes or obtrusive cooling towers or some other feature that impacts siting and thus directs development to the open natural areas we love.  Regardless of how cooling is handled, there will doubtless be a need for makeup water.  

Anyway, these are just some thoughts I have.  As a personal hangup, I would suggest that however we decide to approach this, we get in the habit of using the word "data" as a plural.  I know that "data" is commonly used as a singular thing, but "data" is the plural of a "datum". To me,  it sounds more scientific to use "data" as a plural.  As David has acknowledged, I can be rather anal at times.  lol  - Gary

---

From: audubon...@googlegroups.com <audubon...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Kirsch <dav...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2026 8:23 PM
To: audubon...@googlegroups.com <audubon...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Data Centers

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/CA%2BnvCjrb1b31nXhKRMxVUT%3DRaRCYG7R60-6E1B9mPdZyyVp3Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Elizabeth Dodd]

Jackie, this is a thoughtful editorial. I also think it's fine to run this as your personal opinion piece in AOK's newsletter.

Elizabeth

[Diana Stanley]

Jackie,

I think this is fine to do as an editorial. I also agree that this is something we should probably develop a position as an organization for since this issue is not going away.

Diana Stanley 

On Jun 28, 2026, at 3:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd <elizabe...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/CAMHC4ab61%2B0jYkUog-DE0gJd49%2B8SNCbWDnv%2BgNLy2Guw5KD3g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ann Tanner]



I agree this will fit nicely as a thought-provoking editorial with educational background info, practical standards to strive for, and clear instructions on what we can do to help.  Thanks Jackie for tackling this topic for us.

Ann Tanner

On Jun 28, 2026, at 3:52 PM, Diana Stanley <dianast...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jackie,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/E5B9320F-1F9B-4F58-908D-13E390073477%40gmail.com.

[Vanessa Avara]

I like as an opinion piece. We definitely need to come up with a position statement. Thanks for addressing this hot topic, so much going on! 

The last sentence says "email you data and concerns to"  should be "data center concerns"? 

Thanks. 

Vanessa

[Jackie Augustine]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for all your feedback. The article will be published with the caveat that it is my personal opinion. If anyone wants to join the advocacy committee to come up with an AOK-sanctioned position statement on this topic, let me know!

Gary is right that doing an AI search takes approximately 10x more electricity than a 'regular' search. However, that amount of energy is still small. Comparisons suggest it is the same amount of energy as using a microwave for one second. It seems that even creating AI photos does not take a bunch of energy. Creating AI videos DOES take excessive amounts of energy.  Not sure we want to demonize AI searches at this time... no need to make people feel guilty about using small amounts of energy. 

-Jackie

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/audubonofkansas/BL0PR04MB4625105C692E14904340B0C2BEE92%40BL0PR04MB4625.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.