Add comprehensive documentation: README, database tables, and research ideas
This commit is contained in:
213
README.md
Normal file
213
README.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
|
||||
# US Data Centers - Geospatial Research Infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
A comprehensive geospatial research project investigating the spatial concentration, infrastructure dependencies, and socioeconomic/environmental impacts of US data center locations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Overview
|
||||
|
||||
This repository implements a PostGIS-based analytical framework that integrates multiple data sources to examine:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Spatial concentration patterns**: Where are data centers located and why?
|
||||
- **Infrastructure dependencies**: How do data centers relate to submarine cables, power grids, and watersheds?
|
||||
- **Equity and impact**: Do data center host communities bear localized burdens while benefits are nationally dispersed?
|
||||
- **Demographics**: Who lives in data center-hosting census tracts?
|
||||
- **Environmental exposure**: What are the water, energy, and natural hazard exposures?
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Research Question
|
||||
|
||||
**Do data centers represent "concentrated costs / dispersed benefits"?** Host communities bear localized infrastructure burdens (power, water, land use) while cloud computing benefits are nationally dispersed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Major Findings
|
||||
|
||||
### Spatial Concentration
|
||||
- **State level**: Top 5 states (VA, TX, CA, OR, OH) hold 51% of all US data centers
|
||||
- Virginia alone: 20.6% (378 of 1,833 facilities)
|
||||
- **Tract level**: Top 1% of data center-hosting census tracts hold 14.6% of all facilities
|
||||
- Only 0.86% of data center-state residents live in a hosting tract
|
||||
- Per-capita burden is **115× higher** in host tracts vs. state average
|
||||
- **Watershed level**: Half of all US data centers sit in just 15 of 2,139 HUC8 watersheds
|
||||
- Single watershed (Middle Potomac-Catoctin / Loudoun County): 12.8% of US facilities
|
||||
|
||||
### Demographics of Host Communities
|
||||
Compared to the US average, data center host communities are:
|
||||
- **Wealthier**: Median household income $103,623 (vs. $78,538, +32%)
|
||||
- **More educated**: 49% bachelor's+ (vs. 35%, +14 pp)
|
||||
- **More diverse**: 50% non-Hispanic white (vs. 58%), driven by high Asian share (13% vs. 6%)
|
||||
- **Better connected**: 94.9% broadband (vs. 89%)
|
||||
|
||||
### Infrastructure Insights
|
||||
- **89% of data centers are in metropolitan tracts** (vs. 80% of all US tracts)
|
||||
- **Non-metro data centers (11%)** are dominated by hyperscalers:
|
||||
- AWS (67), Meta (22), Microsoft (10), Google (4) = 55% of non-metro facilities
|
||||
- 66% are in Oregon + Washington (Columbia River hydro corridor)
|
||||
- **Energy infrastructure**: 4 states have >2/3 of generation within 50 km of a data center:
|
||||
- New Jersey: 83%, Nevada: 75%, Tennessee: 70%, Oregon: 68%
|
||||
|
||||
### Submarine Cables
|
||||
- **Data centers are NOT systematically closer to cables** than ordinary US cities
|
||||
- Only 21.4% of data centers are within 100 km of a submarine cable landing point
|
||||
- Largest clusters (Ashburn VA, Columbus OH, Iowa) are inland, driven by fiber/power/tax incentives, not cables
|
||||
|
||||
## Data Sources
|
||||
|
||||
### Primary Data Center Inventories
|
||||
- **Curated Sample**: 1,489 facilities from web scraping + manual curation, geocoded via Census TIGER + Nominatim
|
||||
- **OpenStreetMap**: 1,549 OSM features tagged as data centers (via Overpass API)
|
||||
- **IM3 Model Data**: PNNL's Integrated Multisector Multiscale Modeling existing facilities
|
||||
- **Master Table**: 1,833 deduplicated facilities merging all sources
|
||||
|
||||
### Geospatial Context Layers
|
||||
- **US Census**: 2024 TIGER tract boundaries, ACS 2024 5-year demographics (85k+ tracts)
|
||||
- **USDA RUCA 2020**: Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes for metro/micropolitan/rural classification
|
||||
- **USGS HUC8 Watersheds**: 2,139 subbasin polygons for water-stress analysis
|
||||
- **FEMA NRI**: National Risk Index with 18 natural hazard risk scores by census tract
|
||||
|
||||
### Infrastructure Layers
|
||||
- **Submarine Cables**: 693 cables, 3,361 landing points (TeleGeography-style)
|
||||
- **EIA Energy Data**: Operating generator capacity (4.7M monthly records, 2008-2026), facility fuel, state energy data
|
||||
- **FCC Broadband Data**: Provider availability by location/block
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Data
|
||||
- **RDH Precinct Vote Data**: Election results for political-economy analysis
|
||||
- **NOAA HMS Smoke Data**: Wildfire smoke exposure (2005-2025)
|
||||
- **USDM Drought Data**: Drought severity
|
||||
- **Utility Rate Tracker**: State-level electricity rate increases
|
||||
|
||||
## Repository Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Python Scripts
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Ingestion**
|
||||
- `load_postgis_data_centers.py` - Load curated data center CSV into PostGIS
|
||||
- `load_postgis_osm_data_centers.py` - Fetch OSM data centers via Overpass API
|
||||
- `build_master_data_centers.py` - Deduplicate & merge curated + OSM sources
|
||||
- `load_postgis_internet_cables.py` - Load submarine cables and landing points
|
||||
- `ingest_eia_energy_layers.py` - Ingest EIA energy data via API
|
||||
- `build_watershed_huc8_tables.py` - Load USGS HUC8 watersheds
|
||||
|
||||
**Enrichment**
|
||||
- `create_data_center_census_tract_table.py` - Join data centers to Census tracts with ACS demographics
|
||||
- `build_fcc_bdc_broadband_connection_table.py` - Build per-facility broadband provider table
|
||||
- `build_fcc_bdc_location_provider_aggregates.py` - Aggregate FCC BDC data by county/tract
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis**
|
||||
- `analyze_dc_tract_concentration.py` - Tract-level cost concentration analysis (Gini, HHI, demographic deltas)
|
||||
- `analyze_cables_concentration.py` - Test if data centers cluster near submarine cables
|
||||
- `make_data_center_map.py` - Generate Leaflet map of data centers
|
||||
- `make_internet_cables_map.py` - Generate Leaflet map of data centers + cables
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Jupyter Notebooks
|
||||
- `spatial_clustering_master_data_centers.ipynb` - DBSCAN clustering of data centers
|
||||
- `cluster_analysis.ipynb` - Main demographic/energy/watershed analysis
|
||||
- `fema_nri_data_centers.ipynb` - Join data centers to FEMA hazard scores
|
||||
- `rdh_precinct_vote_data_centers.ipynb` - Join data centers to election data
|
||||
- `usdm_drought_data_centers.ipynb` - Drought exposure analysis
|
||||
- `hms_smoke_data_centers.ipynb` - Wildfire smoke exposure
|
||||
- `enhanced_data_center_cluster_map.ipynb` - Generate enhanced cluster visualization
|
||||
|
||||
### Output Files
|
||||
- `output/data_center_demographic_ruca_energy_summary.md` - Flagship analysis report
|
||||
- `cables_concentration_report.md` - Cable proximity + cost/benefit concentration analysis
|
||||
- `data_center_map.html` - Basic data center locations (Leaflet)
|
||||
- `data_centers_cables_map.html` - Data centers + submarine cables (Leaflet)
|
||||
- `output/enhanced_master_data_center_spatial_clusters_map.html` - Enhanced cluster visualization
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
### Database
|
||||
- **PostgreSQL 13+** with **PostGIS 3.x**
|
||||
- Database name: `data_centers`
|
||||
- See [database-tables.md](database-tables.md) for complete schema documentation
|
||||
|
||||
### Python Environment
|
||||
- **Python 3.10+**
|
||||
- Key libraries: `psycopg2`, `geopandas`, `shapely`, `scikit-learn`, `pandas`, `numpy`, `requests`, `folium`
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Formats
|
||||
- CSV (raw data exports)
|
||||
- GeoJSON (watershed/cluster geometries)
|
||||
- Shapefiles (Census, USGS, FEMA inputs)
|
||||
- HTML (interactive Leaflet maps)
|
||||
|
||||
### Configuration
|
||||
Credentials stored in `~/.zsh_secrets`, loaded via environment variables:
|
||||
- `PGWEB_*`: PostgreSQL connection
|
||||
- `EIA_API_KEY`: EIA energy data
|
||||
- `FCC_USERNAME`, `FCC_API_KEY`: FCC broadband data
|
||||
- `RDH_USERNAME`, `RDH_PASSWORD`: Redistricting Data Hub
|
||||
- `CENSUS_API_KEY`: Census ACS API
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Start
|
||||
|
||||
### Basic Rebuild Sequence
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# 1. Load base data center data
|
||||
python3 load_postgis_data_centers.py
|
||||
python3 load_postgis_osm_data_centers.py
|
||||
python3 build_master_data_centers.py
|
||||
|
||||
# 2. Enrich with context layers
|
||||
python3 create_data_center_census_tract_table.py --replace-final
|
||||
python3 load_postgis_internet_cables.py
|
||||
python3 ingest_eia_energy_layers.py --category power
|
||||
python3 build_watershed_huc8_tables.py
|
||||
|
||||
# 3. Run analyses
|
||||
python3 analyze_dc_tract_concentration.py > output/tract_analysis.txt
|
||||
python3 analyze_cables_concentration.py > output/cables_analysis.txt
|
||||
|
||||
# 4. Execute notebooks
|
||||
jupyter notebook cluster_analysis.ipynb
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Generate Maps
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
python3 make_data_center_map.py
|
||||
python3 make_internet_cables_map.py
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
### Research Reports
|
||||
- **Demographic, Energy & Watershed Analysis**: `output/data_center_demographic_ruca_energy_summary.md`
|
||||
- **Submarine Cable Proximity**: `cables_concentration_report.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Interactive Maps
|
||||
- Data center locations with cluster assignments
|
||||
- Submarine cable routes and landing points
|
||||
- Energy infrastructure proximity
|
||||
- Watershed boundaries with data center counts
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Exports
|
||||
- `master_data_center_spatial_cluster_points.csv` - Data center points with cluster IDs
|
||||
- `master_data_center_spatial_cluster_summary.csv` - Cluster-level statistics
|
||||
- `output/master_data_center_huc8_watersheds.geojson` - Watershed polygons
|
||||
- `output/master_data_center_map_context.csv` - Full context for mapping
|
||||
- `output/master_data_center_state_energy_context.csv` - State-level energy statistics
|
||||
|
||||
## Data Quality Notes
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Incomplete power ratings**: Only 5.9% of data centers have power ratings (108/1,833)
|
||||
2. **Operator fragmentation**: String variations ("Meta" vs. "Meta, Inc.") inflate distinct-operator counts
|
||||
3. **45 facilities** use city-precision fallback coordinates (approximate tract assignment)
|
||||
4. **7 facilities** failed RUCA join (Puerto Rico / non-US)
|
||||
5. **Broadband subscribers** are a coarse benefit proxy (actual cloud users are global)
|
||||
|
||||
## Research Ideas & Future Work
|
||||
|
||||
See [research-ideas.md](research-ideas.md) for detailed next steps and potential research directions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Status
|
||||
|
||||
This is a **mature, publication-ready geospatial analysis infrastructure** combining authoritative government datasets (Census, EIA, USGS, FEMA) with novel data center location data to test political economy and environmental justice hypotheses.
|
||||
|
||||
The "concentrated costs / dispersed benefits" hypothesis is operationalized and tested with rigorous spatial statistics (Gini coefficients, HHI indices, Mann-Whitney tests).
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
Research data compiled from public sources. Please cite appropriately if used in publications.
|
||||
|
||||
## Contact
|
||||
|
||||
For questions about this research project, please contact the repository owner.
|
||||
534
database-tables.md
Normal file
534
database-tables.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,534 @@
|
||||
# Database Tables Documentation
|
||||
|
||||
## Database Configuration
|
||||
|
||||
**Database Name**: `data_centers`
|
||||
**Type**: PostgreSQL with PostGIS extension
|
||||
**Connection**: Environment variables from `~/.zsh_secrets`
|
||||
- `PGWEB_HOST`: Database host
|
||||
- `PGWEB_PORT`: Database port (typically 5432)
|
||||
- `PGWEB_USER`: Database user
|
||||
- `PGWEB_PASSWORD`: Database password
|
||||
- `PGWEB_DATABASE`: Database name (`data_centers`)
|
||||
|
||||
## Table Organization
|
||||
|
||||
Tables are organized into four categories:
|
||||
1. **Core Data Center Tables** - Master inventories and source data
|
||||
2. **Enrichment Tables** - Data centers joined with contextual data
|
||||
3. **Base Layer Tables** - Geographic and demographic reference layers
|
||||
4. **Infrastructure Tables** - Energy and connectivity infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Data Center Tables
|
||||
|
||||
### `master_data_centers`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,833
|
||||
**Purpose**: Canonical data center inventory - deduplicated merge of curated + OSM sources
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `id` (INTEGER) - Unique identifier
|
||||
- `name` (TEXT) - Facility name
|
||||
- `address` (TEXT) - Street address
|
||||
- `city` (TEXT) - City
|
||||
- `state` (TEXT) - State code
|
||||
- `latitude` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Latitude
|
||||
- `longitude` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Longitude
|
||||
- `geom` (GEOMETRY) - PostGIS point geometry (EPSG:4326)
|
||||
- `operator` (TEXT) - Operator/owner
|
||||
- `power_mw` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Power capacity in megawatts (sparse: 5.9% populated)
|
||||
- `source` (TEXT) - Data source (`curated`, `osm`, or `both`)
|
||||
- `osm_id` (TEXT) - OpenStreetMap ID if applicable
|
||||
- `geocode_method` (TEXT) - Geocoding provenance
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- 108 of 1,833 facilities have power ratings
|
||||
- 45 facilities use city-precision fallback coordinates
|
||||
- Operator strings have fragmentation issues ("Meta" vs. "Meta, Inc.")
|
||||
|
||||
### `us_dc_sample_geocoded`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,489
|
||||
**Purpose**: Original curated sample with geocoding provenance (superseded by `master_data_centers`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `name`, `address`, `city`, `state`, `zip`
|
||||
- `latitude`, `longitude`, `geom`
|
||||
- `operator`, `power_mw`
|
||||
- `census_lat`, `census_lon` - Census TIGER geocode results
|
||||
- `nominatim_lat`, `nominatim_lon` - Nominatim fallback results
|
||||
- `geocode_source` - Which geocoder was used
|
||||
|
||||
### `osm_data_centers`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,549
|
||||
**Purpose**: Raw OpenStreetMap-derived facilities
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `osm_id` (TEXT) - OSM element ID
|
||||
- `osm_type` (TEXT) - `node`, `way`, or `relation`
|
||||
- `name` (TEXT) - OSM name tag
|
||||
- `latitude`, `longitude`, `geom`
|
||||
- `tags` (JSONB) - All OSM tags as JSON
|
||||
- `operator` (TEXT) - Extracted from OSM tags
|
||||
- `city`, `state`, `country`
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: Fetched via Overpass API with query for `telecom=data_center` or `building=data_center`
|
||||
|
||||
### `master_data_center_spatial_clusters`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,831
|
||||
**Purpose**: DBSCAN cluster assignments for master data centers
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- All columns from `master_data_centers`
|
||||
- `cluster_id` (INTEGER) - Cluster assignment (-1 = noise/singleton)
|
||||
- `cluster_size` (INTEGER) - Number of facilities in cluster
|
||||
- `cluster_label` (TEXT) - Human-readable cluster name
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: DBSCAN parameters: eps=15 km, min_samples=2
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Enrichment Tables
|
||||
|
||||
### `data_center_census_tracts_2024`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,815
|
||||
**Purpose**: Per-facility demographics from containing Census tract
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- All columns from `master_data_centers`
|
||||
- `geoid` (TEXT) - 11-digit Census tract GEOID
|
||||
- `state_fips`, `county_fips`, `tract`
|
||||
- **Population**: `total_population`, `population_density_sq_mi`
|
||||
- **Age**: `median_age`, `under_18_pct`, `over_65_pct`
|
||||
- **Race/Ethnicity**: `white_nh_pct`, `black_nh_pct`, `asian_nh_pct`, `hispanic_pct`
|
||||
- **Economics**: `median_household_income`, `per_capita_income`, `poverty_rate`
|
||||
- **Education**: `bachelors_or_higher_pct`, `high_school_or_higher_pct`
|
||||
- **Housing**: `median_home_value`, `median_rent`, `homeownership_rate`
|
||||
- **Broadband**: `broadband_pct` - Households with broadband subscription
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: ACS 2024 5-year estimates
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- 18 of 1,833 facilities failed tract join (geocoding issues)
|
||||
- Data from `_dc_census_tract_acs_2024` base table
|
||||
|
||||
### `data_center_watershed_huc8`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,833
|
||||
**Purpose**: Per-facility watershed assignment
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- All columns from `master_data_centers`
|
||||
- `huc8` (TEXT) - 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
|
||||
- `watershed_name` (TEXT) - Watershed name
|
||||
- `watershed_area_sq_km` (DOUBLE PRECISION)
|
||||
- `states` (TEXT) - States intersecting watershed
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: 257 unique HUC8 watersheds contain at least one data center
|
||||
|
||||
### `data_center_nri_exposure`
|
||||
**Rows**: 1,833
|
||||
**Purpose**: Per-facility FEMA National Risk Index hazard exposure scores
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- All columns from `master_data_centers`
|
||||
- `nri_id` (TEXT) - Census tract GEOID (matches `geoid` from demographics)
|
||||
- `risk_score` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Overall NRI risk score
|
||||
- `social_vulnerability` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Social vulnerability index
|
||||
- **Hazard-specific risk scores** (18 hazards):
|
||||
- `avalanche_risk`, `coastal_flooding_risk`, `cold_wave_risk`
|
||||
- `drought_risk`, `earthquake_risk`, `hail_risk`
|
||||
- `heat_wave_risk`, `hurricane_risk`, `ice_storm_risk`
|
||||
- `landslide_risk`, `lightning_risk`, `riverine_flooding_risk`
|
||||
- `strong_wind_risk`, `tornado_risk`, `tsunami_risk`
|
||||
- `volcanic_activity_risk`, `wildfire_risk`, `winter_weather_risk`
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: FEMA National Risk Index (December 2025 release)
|
||||
|
||||
### `data_center_rdh_precinct_vote_matches`
|
||||
**Rows**: Varies
|
||||
**Purpose**: Per-facility precinct-level election results
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- Data center identifiers
|
||||
- `precinct_name`, `precinct_id`
|
||||
- `election_year`, `office`
|
||||
- `candidate`, `party`, `votes`
|
||||
- `vote_share_pct`
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: Redistricting Data Hub precinct shapefiles
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: Spatial join to voting precincts (point-in-polygon)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Base Layer Tables
|
||||
|
||||
### `_dc_census_tract_acs_2024`
|
||||
**Rows**: 85,382
|
||||
**Purpose**: ACS 2024 demographics for all Census tracts in states with data centers
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `geoid` (TEXT) - 11-digit tract GEOID (PRIMARY KEY)
|
||||
- `name` (TEXT) - Tract name
|
||||
- `state_fips`, `county_fips`, `tract`
|
||||
- **Full ACS 5-year estimates** (85+ columns):
|
||||
- Population by age, sex, race/ethnicity
|
||||
- Households, families, housing units
|
||||
- Income, poverty, education, employment
|
||||
- Housing values, rents, costs
|
||||
- Broadband, computer access
|
||||
- Commuting, vehicles
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: Census ACS 2024 5-year estimates API
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: Universe limited to 46 states with data centers (excludes DC-free states)
|
||||
|
||||
### `_dc_census_tract_boundaries_2024`
|
||||
**Rows**: 85,058
|
||||
**Purpose**: TIGER 2024 tract polygons for data center states
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `geoid` (TEXT) - 11-digit tract GEOID
|
||||
- `name` (TEXT) - Tract name
|
||||
- `state_fips`, `county_fips`, `tract_code`
|
||||
- `geom` (GEOMETRY) - Polygon geometry (EPSG:4326)
|
||||
- `area_land_sq_m` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Land area in square meters
|
||||
- `area_water_sq_m` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Water area in square meters
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: Census TIGER/Line 2024
|
||||
|
||||
### `ruca_codes_2020_tract`
|
||||
**Rows**: 85,528
|
||||
**Purpose**: USDA Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes for metro/rural classification
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `geoid` (TEXT) - 11-digit tract GEOID (matches Census tracts)
|
||||
- `ruca_code` (TEXT) - Primary RUCA code (1-10)
|
||||
- `ruca_category` (TEXT) - Simplified category:
|
||||
- `Metropolitan` (codes 1-3)
|
||||
- `Micropolitan` (codes 4-6)
|
||||
- `Small town` (codes 7-9)
|
||||
- `Rural` (code 10)
|
||||
- `ruca_description` (TEXT) - Full RUCA code description
|
||||
- `population_2020` (INTEGER)
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: USDA Economic Research Service RUCA 2020
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- Based on 2020 Census tracts and 2010-2020 commuting patterns
|
||||
- 7 data centers failed RUCA join (Puerto Rico / non-US)
|
||||
|
||||
### `watershed_huc8`
|
||||
**Rows**: 2,139
|
||||
**Purpose**: USGS HUC8 subbasin polygons for water-stress analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `huc8` (TEXT) - 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (PRIMARY KEY)
|
||||
- `name` (TEXT) - Watershed name
|
||||
- `geom` (GEOMETRY) - Polygon geometry (EPSG:4326)
|
||||
- `area_sq_km` (DOUBLE PRECISION)
|
||||
- `states` (TEXT) - Comma-separated state codes
|
||||
- `dc_count` (INTEGER) - Number of data centers in watershed
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- 257 of 2,139 watersheds contain at least one data center
|
||||
- Top 15 watersheds contain 50% of all US data centers
|
||||
|
||||
### `nri_census_tracts`
|
||||
**Rows**: ~84,000
|
||||
**Purpose**: Full FEMA National Risk Index by Census tract
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `nri_id` (TEXT) - Census tract GEOID
|
||||
- `state_name`, `county_name`, `tract_name`
|
||||
- **460+ columns** including:
|
||||
- Overall risk scores and ratings
|
||||
- Expected annual loss (dollars and building value %)
|
||||
- Social vulnerability components (15 factors)
|
||||
- Community resilience score
|
||||
- Individual hazard risk scores (18 hazards)
|
||||
- Exposure, annualized frequency, historic loss ratios per hazard
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: FEMA National Risk Index v2.1 (December 2025)
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- Massive table with comprehensive natural hazard risk data
|
||||
- Join to data centers via `geoid` field
|
||||
- See [FEMA NRI Technical Documentation](https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Infrastructure Tables
|
||||
|
||||
### Energy Infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
#### `energy_eia_operating_generator_capacity_flat`
|
||||
**Rows**: 4.7 million
|
||||
**Purpose**: EIA generator inventory with lat/lon/MW (monthly 2008-2026)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `plant_id` (INTEGER) - EIA plant ID
|
||||
- `generator_id` (TEXT) - Generator unit ID
|
||||
- `plant_name` (TEXT)
|
||||
- `latitude`, `longitude`, `geom`
|
||||
- `state`, `county`
|
||||
- `utility_name`, `operator_name`
|
||||
- `nameplate_capacity_mw` (DOUBLE PRECISION)
|
||||
- `technology` (TEXT) - Generation technology
|
||||
- `energy_source_1`, `energy_source_2` - Primary fuel codes
|
||||
- `operating_month`, `operating_year` - When unit became operational
|
||||
- `status` (TEXT) - Operating, standby, retired, etc.
|
||||
- `report_month`, `report_year` - Data snapshot date
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: EIA Form 860 via API
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- "Flat" means denormalized for fast spatial queries
|
||||
- Each generator-month is a row (4.7M rows from monthly snapshots)
|
||||
- Use for proximity analysis (e.g., "all generators within 50 km of data center")
|
||||
|
||||
#### `energy_eia_facility_fuel_flat`
|
||||
**Rows**: Varies
|
||||
**Purpose**: Monthly generation by plant/fuel
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `plant_id`, `plant_name`
|
||||
- `report_month`, `report_year`
|
||||
- `energy_source` (TEXT) - Fuel code
|
||||
- `net_generation_mwh` (DOUBLE PRECISION)
|
||||
- `fuel_consumed_mmbtu` (DOUBLE PRECISION)
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: EIA Form 923 via API
|
||||
|
||||
#### `energy_eia_seds_flat`
|
||||
**Rows**: 2.57 million
|
||||
**Purpose**: Annual state energy consumption/production (1960-2024)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `state_code` (TEXT)
|
||||
- `year` (INTEGER)
|
||||
- `msn` (TEXT) - Mnemonic series names (e.g., `TETCB` = total energy consumption)
|
||||
- `value` (DOUBLE PRECISION) - Energy in trillion BTU
|
||||
- `unit` (TEXT)
|
||||
- `description` (TEXT) - Human-readable MSN description
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: EIA State Energy Data System (SEDS)
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- Annual aggregates by state
|
||||
- Use for state-level energy context analysis
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Connectivity Infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
#### `internet_cables`
|
||||
**Rows**: 693
|
||||
**Purpose**: Submarine cable routes
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `cable_id` (TEXT) - Unique cable identifier
|
||||
- `cable_name` (TEXT) - Official cable name
|
||||
- `geom` (GEOMETRY) - LineString geometry (EPSG:4326)
|
||||
- `rfs_year` (INTEGER) - Ready For Service year
|
||||
- `length_km` (DOUBLE PRECISION)
|
||||
- `owners` (TEXT[]) - Array of owner names
|
||||
- `landing_points` (TEXT[]) - Array of landing point names
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: TeleGeography-style cable database
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- 693 unique submarine cables
|
||||
- Geometry is approximate route (not exact seabed path)
|
||||
|
||||
#### `internet_cable_landing_points`
|
||||
**Rows**: 3,361
|
||||
**Purpose**: Cable landing points (where cables come ashore)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `landing_point_id` (TEXT) - Unique identifier
|
||||
- `name` (TEXT) - Landing point name
|
||||
- `city`, `country`
|
||||
- `latitude`, `longitude`, `geom`
|
||||
- `cables` (TEXT[]) - Array of cable names landing at this point
|
||||
- `cable_count` (INTEGER)
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: TeleGeography-style cable database
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**:
|
||||
- Used for proximity analysis (how close are data centers to cable landings?)
|
||||
- **Key finding**: Data centers are NOT systematically closer to cables than ordinary US cities
|
||||
|
||||
#### `internet_city_dominance`
|
||||
**Rows**: 4,552
|
||||
**Purpose**: City-level IPs/capacity (internet hub strength proxy)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `city` (TEXT)
|
||||
- `country` (TEXT)
|
||||
- `latitude`, `longitude`, `geom`
|
||||
- `ip_addresses` (INTEGER) - Number of routable IP addresses
|
||||
- `capacity_rank` (INTEGER) - Relative capacity ranking
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: Internet topology datasets
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: Proxy for "internet hub" strength (not directly used in main analyses)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Broadband
|
||||
|
||||
#### `fcc_bdc_location_provider_aggregates`
|
||||
**Rows**: Varies
|
||||
**Purpose**: FCC BDC provider availability aggregated by county/tract
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- `geoid` (TEXT) - County or tract GEOID
|
||||
- `geography_level` (TEXT) - `county` or `tract`
|
||||
- `provider_count` (INTEGER)
|
||||
- `technology_counts` (JSONB) - Count by technology type
|
||||
- `max_download_mbps`, `max_upload_mbps`
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: FCC Broadband Data Collection (BDC)
|
||||
|
||||
#### `fcc_bdc_broadband_connection_table`
|
||||
**Rows**: Varies
|
||||
**Purpose**: Per-data-center broadband provider availability
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Columns**:
|
||||
- Data center identifiers
|
||||
- `provider_id`, `provider_name`
|
||||
- `technology` (TEXT)
|
||||
- `max_advertised_download_speed`, `max_advertised_upload_speed`
|
||||
- `low_latency` (BOOLEAN)
|
||||
|
||||
**Source**: FCC BDC, joined to data center locations
|
||||
|
||||
**Notes**: Built by `build_fcc_bdc_broadband_connection_table.py`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Commonly Used Joins
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Center to Demographics
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
SELECT
|
||||
dc.*,
|
||||
ct.median_household_income,
|
||||
ct.bachelors_or_higher_pct,
|
||||
ct.broadband_pct
|
||||
FROM master_data_centers dc
|
||||
JOIN data_center_census_tracts_2024 ct
|
||||
ON dc.id = ct.id;
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Center to Watershed
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
SELECT
|
||||
dc.*,
|
||||
w.huc8,
|
||||
w.watershed_name
|
||||
FROM master_data_centers dc
|
||||
JOIN data_center_watershed_huc8 dw ON dc.id = dw.id
|
||||
JOIN watershed_huc8 w ON dw.huc8 = w.huc8;
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Center to Energy Infrastructure (50 km radius)
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
SELECT
|
||||
dc.id,
|
||||
dc.name,
|
||||
SUM(eg.nameplate_capacity_mw) AS total_capacity_50km
|
||||
FROM master_data_centers dc
|
||||
JOIN energy_eia_operating_generator_capacity_flat eg
|
||||
ON ST_DWithin(
|
||||
dc.geom::geography,
|
||||
eg.geom::geography,
|
||||
50000 -- 50 km in meters
|
||||
)
|
||||
WHERE eg.status = 'OP' -- Operating only
|
||||
GROUP BY dc.id, dc.name;
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Center to FEMA Hazard Risk
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
SELECT
|
||||
dc.*,
|
||||
nri.risk_score,
|
||||
nri.wildfire_risk,
|
||||
nri.drought_risk,
|
||||
nri.heat_wave_risk
|
||||
FROM master_data_centers dc
|
||||
JOIN data_center_census_tracts_2024 ct ON dc.id = ct.id
|
||||
JOIN nri_census_tracts nri ON ct.geoid = nri.nri_id;
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Table Naming Conventions
|
||||
|
||||
- **`master_*`** - Canonical, deduplicated tables (use these for analysis)
|
||||
- **`data_center_*`** - Data center-specific enrichment tables
|
||||
- **`_dc_*`** - Base layers scoped to data center states (underscore prefix = private/internal)
|
||||
- **`energy_eia_*`** - EIA energy data
|
||||
- **`internet_*`** - Connectivity infrastructure
|
||||
- **`fcc_bdc_*`** - FCC Broadband Data Collection
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Indexes and Performance
|
||||
|
||||
All tables have spatial indexes on `geom` columns for fast spatial joins:
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
CREATE INDEX idx_tablename_geom ON tablename USING GIST(geom);
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Key `geoid` columns are indexed for fast demographic joins:
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
CREATE INDEX idx_tablename_geoid ON tablename(geoid);
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Maintenance Notes
|
||||
|
||||
### Updating Data Centers
|
||||
1. Run `load_postgis_osm_data_centers.py` to refresh OSM data
|
||||
2. Run `build_master_data_centers.py` to rebuild master table
|
||||
3. Run enrichment scripts to update joins
|
||||
|
||||
### Updating Demographics
|
||||
1. Update `_dc_census_tract_acs_2024` from Census API
|
||||
2. Run `create_data_center_census_tract_table.py --replace-final`
|
||||
|
||||
### Updating Energy Data
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
python3 ingest_eia_energy_layers.py --category power --update
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Schema Export
|
||||
|
||||
To export the full schema:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
pg_dump -h $PGWEB_HOST -U $PGWEB_USER -d data_centers --schema-only > schema.sql
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
To list all tables:
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
SELECT schemaname, tablename, pg_size_pretty(pg_total_relation_size(schemaname||'.'||tablename))
|
||||
FROM pg_tables
|
||||
WHERE schemaname = 'public'
|
||||
ORDER BY pg_total_relation_size(schemaname||'.'||tablename) DESC;
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Contact
|
||||
|
||||
For database access or questions, contact the repository owner.
|
||||
524
research-ideas.md
Normal file
524
research-ideas.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,524 @@
|
||||
# Research Ideas & Future Work
|
||||
|
||||
This document outlines potential research directions, data improvements, and analyses that could extend the current US Data Centers geospatial research infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Priority Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Backfill Power Capacity Data
|
||||
**Status**: Only 5.9% of facilities have `power_mw` values (108/1,833)
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Scrape Baxtel data center database (requires paid subscription)
|
||||
- Use Data Center Map API/scraping
|
||||
- Cross-reference with utility interconnection queue filings
|
||||
- FOIA requests to state utility commissions for large loads
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Impact**:
|
||||
- Enable capacity-weighted concentration metrics (current analyses are facility-count only)
|
||||
- Correlate power capacity with demographic/environmental variables
|
||||
- Identify "hyperscale" facilities (>100 MW) vs. edge/enterprise (<10 MW)
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation**:
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# Add capacity-weighted HHI calculation to analyze_dc_tract_concentration.py
|
||||
capacity_weighted_hhi = sum((mw_i / total_mw) ** 2 for mw_i in tract_capacities)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Operator Name Deduplication
|
||||
**Status**: String fragmentation inflates operator counts ("Meta" vs. "Meta, Inc.", AWS variants)
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Create `operator_mapping` table with canonical names
|
||||
- Use fuzzy matching (e.g., `fuzzywuzzy` library) to standardize
|
||||
- Add `operator_canonical` column to `master_data_centers`
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Impact**:
|
||||
- Accurate hyperscaler market share analysis
|
||||
- Study operator-specific siting strategies (AWS hydro, Microsoft nuclear, Meta solar)
|
||||
- Enable "operator power" political economy analyses
|
||||
|
||||
**Script**:
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# operators_dedupe.py
|
||||
import pandas as pd
|
||||
from fuzzywuzzy import process
|
||||
|
||||
# Load unique operators
|
||||
operators = pd.read_sql("SELECT DISTINCT operator FROM master_data_centers", conn)
|
||||
|
||||
# Manual + fuzzy matching to canonical names
|
||||
canonical_map = {
|
||||
"Meta": ["Meta", "Meta, Inc.", "Meta Platforms", "Facebook"],
|
||||
"Amazon Web Services": ["AWS", "Amazon", "Amazon Web Services"],
|
||||
# ... etc.
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Water Stress Overlay
|
||||
**Status**: 257 HUC8 watersheds contain data centers; 15 watersheds hold 50% of facilities
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Join to USGS WaterWatch streamflow data
|
||||
- Add USGS Drought Watch indicators by HUC8
|
||||
- Correlate data center density with:
|
||||
- Groundwater depletion rates
|
||||
- Surface water withdrawal permits
|
||||
- Drought frequency/severity (USDM historical data)
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Are data centers sited in water-stressed watersheds?
|
||||
- Do high-density clusters (Loudoun County, Columbus OH) face water constraints?
|
||||
- Compare water stress in hyperscaler non-metro sites (Columbia River corridor) vs. metro clusters
|
||||
|
||||
**Tables to Create**:
|
||||
- `watershed_water_stress` - HUC8-level water stress indicators
|
||||
- `data_center_water_risk` - Per-facility water-stress exposure
|
||||
|
||||
**Notebook**: `water_stress_analysis.ipynb`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Opposition Cases Overlay
|
||||
**Status**: Anecdotal evidence of community opposition to new data centers
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Compile cases of rejected/delayed data center proposals (news archive scraping)
|
||||
- Geocode opposition cases, join to demographics/hazards
|
||||
- Test hypotheses:
|
||||
- Do wealthier/more educated communities successfully block projects?
|
||||
- Are opposition cases more common in water-stressed or drought-prone areas?
|
||||
- Do smaller non-metro communities have less bargaining power?
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- What predicts opposition success?
|
||||
- Are opposition cases spatially clustered?
|
||||
- Do demographics differ between accepted vs. rejected sites?
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**: `opposition_cases_analysis.md`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. IM3 Forward Projection Integration
|
||||
**Status**: IM3 model includes projected data center demand growth
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Load IM3 projected demand scenarios (2030, 2040, 2050)
|
||||
- Overlay projected growth with:
|
||||
- Current grid saturation (% of generation within 50 km)
|
||||
- Water stress indicators
|
||||
- Land availability (zoned industrial parcels)
|
||||
- Identify regions where projected demand may exceed infrastructure capacity
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Which states face grid saturation from data center growth?
|
||||
- Are projected sites in water-stressed watersheds?
|
||||
- Does IM3 assume spatial distribution patterns consistent with current siting?
|
||||
|
||||
**Notebook**: `im3_projection_overlay.ipynb`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Methodological Extensions
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Time-Series Analysis of Cluster Growth
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Use `rfs_year` (ready for service) from cable data and EIA generator vintage
|
||||
- Reconstruct data center siting over time (requires RFS dates for facilities)
|
||||
- Animate cluster formation in interactive map
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Did Ashburn VA become dominant before or after major cable landings?
|
||||
- Do clusters grow via agglomeration (new facilities near existing) or simultaneous build-out?
|
||||
- Correlation between energy infrastructure build-out and data center growth
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Needed**:
|
||||
- Facility RFS dates (scrape from press releases, Baxtel historical data)
|
||||
- Historical tract demographics (decennial Census + ACS back to 2000)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Network Effects: Fiber Route Proximity
|
||||
**Status**: Current analysis tests submarine cable proximity (negative result)
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Obtain fiber optic backbone route GIS data (from FCC, carriers, or Infrapedia)
|
||||
- Test proximity to long-haul fiber routes (not just submarine cables)
|
||||
- Hypothesis: Data centers cluster near fiber, not cables
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- FCC Form 477 fiber deployment data
|
||||
- Infrapedia fiber route database
|
||||
- State-level fiber maps (e.g., Virginia Broadband Map)
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Result**: Positive correlation (unlike submarine cables)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Land Use & Zoning Analysis
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Join data centers to local zoning classifications (industrial, commercial, etc.)
|
||||
- Analyze land prices in data center tracts before/after facility construction
|
||||
- Correlate with property tax revenues
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Do data centers drive local property value increases?
|
||||
- Are they preferentially sited in already-zoned industrial areas?
|
||||
- Do host communities capture tax base growth?
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) by ZIP
|
||||
- ATTOM property tax assessments
|
||||
- Municipal zoning GIS layers (city-specific, requires scraping/FOIA)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Environmental Justice Scoring
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Compare data center host tracts to EPA's EJScreen indices
|
||||
- Add CalEnviroScreen-style burden/benefit framework
|
||||
- Test if data centers increase cumulative environmental burdens
|
||||
|
||||
**Metrics**:
|
||||
- Air quality (PM2.5, ozone)
|
||||
- Hazardous waste proximity
|
||||
- Superfund site proximity
|
||||
- Heat island effect (LST from Landsat)
|
||||
- Noise pollution (traffic, cooling systems)
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Challenge**: Data centers may improve local metrics (compared to heavy industry) but increase water/energy consumption
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Policy & Political Economy Research
|
||||
|
||||
### 10. Tax Incentive Analysis
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Compile state/local tax incentives for data center siting (property tax abatements, sales tax exemptions)
|
||||
- Create `data_center_incentives` table with per-facility incentive details
|
||||
- Correlate incentive generosity with:
|
||||
- State fiscal health
|
||||
- Local government bargaining power
|
||||
- Facility size/operator
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Do weaker fiscal states offer larger incentives?
|
||||
- Are incentives regressive (larger for hyperscalers)?
|
||||
- Do incentives predict siting decisions (natural experiment approach)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- Good Jobs First Subsidy Tracker
|
||||
- State economic development agency press releases
|
||||
- Local news archives
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 11. Employment & Labor Market Effects
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Join to BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) by ZIP/county
|
||||
- Identify "data center construction boom" periods (before/after major facility openings)
|
||||
- Analyze employment effects in:
|
||||
- Construction (NAICS 23)
|
||||
- Transportation/warehousing (NAICS 48-49)
|
||||
- Professional services (NAICS 54)
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Do data centers create durable local employment?
|
||||
- Are jobs filled by local residents or commuters?
|
||||
- Wage effects in host tracts?
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- BLS QCEW
|
||||
- Census LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 12. Energy Cost Pass-Through
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Join to state-level electricity rate data (EIA, utility rate tracker)
|
||||
- Test if data center density correlates with residential rate increases
|
||||
- Natural experiment: Compare rate trajectories in high-DC vs. low-DC states
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Do data centers drive residential rate increases (capacity cost allocation)?
|
||||
- Are rate increases concentrated in utility service territories with large data center loads?
|
||||
- Do states with retail choice (deregulated markets) see different effects?
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- EIA Form 861 (retail rates by state/utility)
|
||||
- Utility rate case filings (state public utility commissions)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Data Quality & Infrastructure Improvements
|
||||
|
||||
### 13. Address Validation & Geocoding Refinement
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Re-geocode the 45 facilities using city-precision fallback
|
||||
- Use USPS address validation API
|
||||
- Cross-reference with Google Maps satellite imagery (manual review)
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation**:
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# Re-run geocoding with stricter thresholds
|
||||
python3 load_postgis_data_centers.py --revalidate-addresses
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 14. OSM Continuous Monitoring
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Set up automated Overpass API queries (daily/weekly)
|
||||
- Detect new OSM data center tags
|
||||
- Alert for review + merge into `master_data_centers`
|
||||
|
||||
**Implementation**:
|
||||
- Cron job running `load_postgis_osm_data_centers.py --update-only`
|
||||
- Slack/email notification on new facilities
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 15. Broadband Speed Validation
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Cross-reference FCC BDC provider data with Ookla Speedtest results
|
||||
- Test if data center host tracts have faster actual speeds (not just availability)
|
||||
|
||||
**Hypothesis**: Data center presence correlates with infrastructure investment → higher speeds
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- Ookla Open Data (aggregated Speedtest results by tile)
|
||||
- FCC Measuring Broadband America
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Visualization & Communication
|
||||
|
||||
### 16. Interactive Story Map
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Build Scrollama.js narrative map
|
||||
- Sections:
|
||||
1. National overview (cluster map)
|
||||
2. Ashburn VA zoom (dominance of single region)
|
||||
3. Demographics comparison (host vs. national)
|
||||
4. Water stress hot spots
|
||||
5. Energy infrastructure saturation
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**: `story_map.html` (standalone web page)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 17. Policy Brief Generation
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Auto-generate policy briefs from analysis outputs
|
||||
- Targeted audiences:
|
||||
- State legislators (energy/water policy)
|
||||
- Local governments (tax incentive negotiation)
|
||||
- Environmental justice advocates
|
||||
|
||||
**Template**:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Data Center Siting in [STATE]: Key Facts for Policymakers
|
||||
|
||||
- **[STATE] hosts X% of US data centers** (rank: #Y)
|
||||
- **Host communities are Z% wealthier** than state average
|
||||
- **A% of state generation is within 50 km of a data center**
|
||||
- **Top watershed holds B facilities** (water stress: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW])
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 18. Comparative International Analysis
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Extend methodology to EU, Canada, Australia
|
||||
- Compare siting patterns (e.g., Nordic countries = renewable energy, cold climate)
|
||||
- Test if "concentrated costs / dispersed benefits" holds internationally
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- OpenStreetMap (global coverage)
|
||||
- Eurostat demographics
|
||||
- IEA energy data
|
||||
- TeleGeography global cable data (already available)
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Are US patterns unique (tax-driven siting) vs. EU (regulatory constraints)?
|
||||
- Do Nordic countries see more equitable distribution?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Speculative / Long-Term Ideas
|
||||
|
||||
### 19. AI Demand Forecasting
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Train ML model to predict data center siting
|
||||
- Features: demographics, energy capacity, fiber proximity, tax rates, water availability
|
||||
- Test on historical data (train on pre-2015, test on 2015-2025)
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case**:
|
||||
- Identify "likely future sites" for proactive policy intervention
|
||||
- Warn communities of potential incoming projects
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 20. Cooling Technology Analysis
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Classify facilities by cooling type (air, water, hybrid)
|
||||
- Correlate with:
|
||||
- Climate (CDD: cooling degree days)
|
||||
- Water availability
|
||||
- Facility size
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- Manual classification from news/press releases
|
||||
- FOIA requests to water utilities (cooling water withdrawal permits)
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Are water-cooled facilities concentrated in water-stressed regions (paradox)?
|
||||
- Do hyperscalers use more efficient cooling (e.g., Meta's Prineville OR evaporative cooling)?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 21. Bitcoin Mining Facilities
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Overlay cryptocurrency mining facilities (subset of "data centers")
|
||||
- Compare siting patterns: Bitcoin mines prefer low electricity costs (WA, TX, NY hydro)
|
||||
- Test if Bitcoin mines face more opposition (negative perception)
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (has facility locations)
|
||||
- News archives of mining farm proposals/rejections
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 22. Disaster Resilience & Redundancy
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Model simultaneous hazard exposure across data center clusters
|
||||
- E.g., "What % of US data centers are in wildfire risk zones?"
|
||||
- Identify single points of failure (e.g., Ashburn VA = 20% of US capacity)
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Is the current spatial distribution resilient to climate change?
|
||||
- Should policy incentivize geographic diversification?
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**: `disaster_resilience_report.md`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 23. Edge Data Center Network
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Separately analyze edge facilities (<1 MW) vs. hyperscale (>100 MW)
|
||||
- Test if edge DCs follow different siting logic (population density > energy cost)
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Challenge**: Current inventory does not distinguish edge vs. hyperscale (need `power_mw` backfill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 24. Carbon Intensity of Host Grids
|
||||
**Approach**:
|
||||
- Join to EPA eGRID subregion carbon intensity (lb CO₂/MWh)
|
||||
- Calculate per-facility estimated carbon footprint (if `power_mw` available)
|
||||
- Compare to corporate renewable energy procurement (RECs, PPAs)
|
||||
|
||||
**Research Questions**:
|
||||
- Are data centers disproportionately in high-carbon grids?
|
||||
- Do hyperscaler renewable commitments offset grid carbon?
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources**:
|
||||
- EPA eGRID
|
||||
- Corporate sustainability reports (Google, Microsoft, Meta, AWS)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Collaboration Opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
### Academic Partnerships
|
||||
- **Energy researchers**: Joint analysis of grid saturation + IM3 projections
|
||||
- **Environmental justice scholars**: EJScreen overlay + opposition case studies
|
||||
- **Political scientists**: Tax incentive analysis + local government bargaining power
|
||||
|
||||
### Policy Stakeholders
|
||||
- **State energy offices**: Share grid saturation maps
|
||||
- **Water resource agencies**: Watershed analysis for permitting
|
||||
- **Local governments**: Demographic/tax revenue analysis for negotiation leverage
|
||||
|
||||
### Industry Engagement
|
||||
- **Data center operators**: Validate facility data, discuss siting criteria
|
||||
- **Colocation providers**: Access to tenant mix data (multi-tenant vs. single-tenant)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tools & Infrastructure Improvements
|
||||
|
||||
### Database Enhancements
|
||||
- Add `version` column to track data vintage
|
||||
- Implement `audit_log` table for data lineage
|
||||
- Set up automated backups to S3/Azure Blob
|
||||
|
||||
### Code Quality
|
||||
- Add unit tests for geocoding functions
|
||||
- Create `config.yaml` for database credentials (replace hardcoded env vars)
|
||||
- Dockerize analysis environment for reproducibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Documentation
|
||||
- Add JSDoc-style comments to all Python functions
|
||||
- Create `CONTRIBUTING.md` for external collaborators
|
||||
- Record Jupyter notebook walkthroughs (video tutorials)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Unfunded / Ambitious Ideas
|
||||
|
||||
### 25. Real-Time Energy Monitoring
|
||||
- Partner with utility to get live load data from data center substations
|
||||
- Build dashboard showing real-time energy consumption by facility
|
||||
- Correlate with AWS/Azure/GCP service outages (reverse-engineer capacity from brownouts)
|
||||
|
||||
### 26. Social Media Sentiment Analysis
|
||||
- Scrape Twitter/Reddit for mentions of local data center projects
|
||||
- NLP sentiment analysis: support vs. opposition
|
||||
- Correlate sentiment with facility approval outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
### 27. LIDAR Analysis of Cooling Infrastructure
|
||||
- Use aerial LIDAR to measure rooftop cooling equipment volume
|
||||
- Proxy for facility size (cooling = f(IT load))
|
||||
- Build predictive model: cooling equipment → power capacity
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Contact & Contributions
|
||||
|
||||
If you're interested in collaborating on any of these research directions, please contact the repository owner.
|
||||
|
||||
**Priorities for external collaboration**:
|
||||
1. Power capacity data acquisition
|
||||
2. Water stress/drought overlay
|
||||
3. Opposition cases database compilation
|
||||
4. International comparative analysis
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## References for Future Work
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Sources to Explore
|
||||
- **Department of Energy**: Grid resilience reports, interconnection queues
|
||||
- **NREL**: Renewable energy potential by HUC (solar, wind)
|
||||
- **USDA**: Agricultural water use by county (competition for water)
|
||||
- **NOAA**: Climate normals + projections by grid cell
|
||||
- **BLS**: QCEW employment data, wage data
|
||||
- **EPA**: eGRID, EJScreen, Superfund sites
|
||||
|
||||
### Academic Literature Gaps
|
||||
- Limited peer-reviewed research on data center spatial concentration
|
||||
- No published studies on water stress exposure of data centers
|
||||
- Opportunity for "first mover" publication in major geography/planning journals
|
||||
|
||||
### Policy Levers to Investigate
|
||||
- State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) → data center siting
|
||||
- Federal infrastructure investment (IRA, CHIPS Act) → energy grid capacity
|
||||
- Local zoning reform (industrial land use restrictions)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Last Updated**: May 2026
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user