jain.com — data centers, connectivity and security, analyzed daily

Tag: closed-loop cooling

  • Applied Digital’s Harwood, ND AI Data Center (Polaris Forge 2): Site, Power, Cost

    Applied Digital’s Harwood, ND AI Data Center (Polaris Forge 2): Site, Power, Cost

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Two buildings north of Fargo, North Dakota are nearly finished, and together they are bigger than the largest building in the state, an Amazon warehouse two miles away. About 1,800 workers are on site.

    The buildings will hold computers that run artificial intelligence, and they will draw about as much electricity as a small city. The local council approved the project in September 2025, and part of it is supposed to be running by the end of this year.

    The company building it, Applied Digital, has not said which businesses will rent the space.

    InForum reported that Applied Digital’s Polaris Forge 2 campus in Harwood, North Dakota is nearing completion, with roughly 1,800 workers finishing two buildings of 907,000 square feet each. The Harwood City Council approved the $3 billion project on September 10, 2025. Part of the campus is on pace to become operational by the end of 2026, with the remainder opening in early 2027, according to Nick Phillips, Applied Digital’s executive vice president of public affairs and real estate acquisition.

    The site is a 280-megawatt facility drawing power from Cass County Electric, and Applied Digital is paying $112 million for the substation and transmission upgrades that serve it. The company has not disclosed which companies will occupy the buildings. It expects 200 to 250 permanent employees once the campus opens, on 400 acres of which about 300 have been graded.

    Executive Summary

    Harwood is Applied Digital’s third North Dakota project, after Jamestown and the Polaris Forge 1 campus at Ellendale, with a fourth under construction near Center. Ellendale, announced in late 2024, is partially operational. The pattern across all four is the same wager: build large blocks of power-dense capacity in a cold, cheap-power state and race to energize them while demand for artificial intelligence compute outruns supply.

    What makes Harwood worth studying is the calendar. From a municipal approval on September 10, 2025 to first operational capacity at the end of 2026 is roughly fifteen months for a 280-megawatt campus. In a market where developers routinely quote three to five years between site control and delivered power, that interval is the entire product. “Time to power” is the industry’s shorthand for how long a tenant waits between signing and switching on machines, and it has become the variable that decides which sites win contracts.

    The unresolved half of the story is commercial rather than physical. Steel, generators, cooling loops and a substation are visible and verifiable. Leases are not. Applied Digital has not named a tenant for Harwood, has not disclosed how much of the 280 megawatts is contracted, and has not detailed how the $3 billion build is financed. Those omissions do not undermine the construction progress, but they determine whether the speed converts into revenue.

    Fifteen Months From Vote to Volts

    The construction detail in the account is mostly a lesson in sequencing. Eight generator rooms in each building hold twelve units apiece, which is 96 generators per building and 192 across the campus, a level of on-site backup that signals a design intended for tenants who will not tolerate interruption. Roughly 86,000 electrical connections and several miles of copper cable have to be terminated and tested before any of it carries load. Workers wear helmets with augmented reality systems that check whether components are installed in the right place and whether crews are tracking to schedule, which is less a gadget than an admission that verification, not fabrication, is the thing most likely to slip.

    Phillips describes the split inside each building as about 25% data halls and 75% supporting systems. That ratio is the clearest single indicator of how the economics have shifted. In a conventional enterprise facility, the computer room dominates the floor plan. In a building designed for dense artificial intelligence racks, the electrical rooms, switchgear, uninterruptible power supply gear and cooling plant swallow three-quarters of the envelope. Applied Digital is not really building a warehouse for servers. It is building a power conversion and heat rejection plant that happens to have servers in the middle of it.

    The arithmetic underlines the point. If 280 megawatts is measured at the computers, spread across roughly 453,000 square feet of data hall, that is on the order of 600 watts per square foot, an order of magnitude above the densities most existing commercial data centers were designed for. Applied Digital has not specified whether the 280-megawatt figure is the load delivered to equipment or the total drawn from the utility, and the distinction changes that number materially. Either way, the campus is firmly in the density range that only recently became buildable at scale.

    The $112 Million Sentence

    The most consequential figure in the account is not the $3 billion headline but the $112 million Applied Digital says it will pay for the substation and transmission upgrades. That is roughly $400,000 per megawatt of connection, and it is the developer, not the utility’s other customers, footing the bill. Grid connection cost allocation is the live political question in nearly every jurisdiction now absorbing large computing loads, because the alternative structure, in which network upgrades are socialized across the rate base, is what makes residents worry about their bills. Harwood drew protesters on exactly that concern.

    Applied Digital’s counter-claim is that its facilities do not raise electricity bills, and Phillips cited more than $46 million in savings for customers across North Dakota and South Dakota since the Ellendale project began. The underlying mechanism is plausible in principle: a very large, very steady customer spreads a utility’s fixed costs across more kilowatt-hours, which can lower the per-unit cost everyone pays. But the claim as stated is not yet verifiable by a reader. It does not identify which utility’s customers, over which period, measured against which counterfactual, or whether the figure is an avoided increase rather than a reduction. Those are answerable questions, and regulated utilities generally have to answer them in rate proceedings.

    It is worth being precise about what each side is arguing, because they are not arguing about the same thing. The savings claim is retrospective and concerns Ellendale. The objection at Harwood is prospective and concerns what happens when a second large load lands on a different distribution system. A past result under one set of contracts does not settle the future question, and neither does a protest settle whether the mechanism works. The $112 million commitment is the strongest evidence Applied Digital has offered that it intends to carry its own interconnection costs, which is the part of the dispute that can actually be documented.

    Air, Not Water, and Why North Dakota Rewards That Choice

    Cooling is where siting logic becomes visible. Branden Cummins, the company’s civil structure architecture superintendent, described a closed loop that circulates fluid through six data halls in each building, carries it to the roof, and uses large fans to shed the heat before recirculating it. Because the loop is sealed, Applied Digital says water consumption will be comparable to a household. That is a meaningful claim in an industry now facing real scrutiny over evaporative cooling, which chills equipment by boiling away water and can consume millions of gallons a year at this scale.

    The trade is not free. Rejecting heat to air rather than to evaporating water costs electricity for fans, and the penalty grows with ambient temperature. In a Texas or Arizona summer, that penalty is severe enough that many operators accept the water consumption instead. In eastern North Dakota, where cold hours dominate the year, the fan energy penalty is small and the water savings are close to pure gain. The closed loop is not primarily an environmental gesture; it is the design that the climate makes cheapest, and the environmental benefit follows from the geography.

    Noise and setback receive the same treatment. Silencing equipment and sound barriers on the generator plant, with the nearest home about half a mile away and the town of Harwood more than a mile off, reflect a siting choice made before mitigation was needed. Developers increasingly buy distance rather than engineer around its absence, because generator testing and rooftop fan arrays are the two complaints most likely to follow a facility through its operating life.

    A Builder Without a Named Tenant

    Applied Digital is a merchant developer, meaning it builds capacity and then leases it, as opposed to a hyperscaler building for its own use. That model turns on a single question: how much of the capacity is committed before it is energized. The company has not disclosed which companies will occupy Harwood. Until it does, an observer cannot distinguish between a campus built against signed leases and one built on conviction about demand.

    The local economics are more legible. Roughly 1,800 construction workers will give way to 200 to 250 permanent employees, a ratio close to eight to one that is typical of the sector and worth stating plainly: data centers are enormous construction projects and modest employers. The durable local benefit is tax base rather than payroll. Polaris Forge 1 at Ellendale paid about $4.3 million in property tax for 2026, Harwood is receiving no tax incentives or abatements according to the company, and Phillips estimated Applied Digital would become the largest single taxpayer in the state by 2029, while acknowledging that Harwood’s own assessment is not yet estimated because the building is not finished.

    The absence of abatements is the notable item. Large data centers are frequently recruited with property tax exemptions that hollow out the fiscal case communities were sold, and a project that forgoes them changes the arithmetic for the county. It also suggests the developer’s binding constraint was schedule rather than subsidy. When capacity delivered in 2026 is worth materially more than the same capacity delivered in 2029, a year of negotiation over abatements costs more than the abatements are worth.

    Background

    Applied Digital is a Texas-based developer that builds and leases data center capacity rather than operating computing services itself, a model the industry calls merchant development. Its North Dakota expansion began with a facility in Jamestown, followed by the Polaris Forge 1 campus at Ellendale announced in late 2024 and now partially operational, the Harwood project approved in September 2025, and a fourth site under construction near Center, about 40 miles northwest of Bismarck.

    The expansion tracks a broader shift in where computing gets built. Training and running large artificial intelligence models requires racks that consume several times the power of conventional servers, which has turned electrical capacity, rather than fiber or floor space, into the binding constraint on the industry. Developers have responded by moving to regions with available generation, cold climates that reduce cooling costs, and utilities able to energize large loads quickly. That has brought industrial-scale construction to rural communities with no prior exposure to it, along with recurring local debates over electricity rates, noise, water and tax base that Harwood has seen in full.

    Sources

    Source: An inside look at the Harwood data center as it nears completion — InForum’s report from Applied Digital’s Polaris Forge 2 construction site in Harwood, North Dakota, with detail on schedule, power, cooling, staffing and taxes from company executives.

  • Michigan’s 2M-Gallon Water Cap Would Push Data Centers to Closed-Loop Cooling

    Michigan’s 2M-Gallon Water Cap Would Push Data Centers to Closed-Loop Cooling

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Michigan lawmakers have proposed a set of rules for data centers, the giant warehouses of computers that run apps, cloud services and artificial intelligence.

    The biggest of these buildings can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day, about seven Olympic swimming pools. One bill would limit the water a site can permanently use up to about three pools’ worth a day. Another would require cooling systems that reuse the same water over and over.

    Developers would also need a signed deal with the local town before they could build or connect to the power grid.

    Michigan Democrats introduced a package of bills in early July 2026 to regulate data centers’ energy use, water use, noise, labor standards and use of nondisclosure agreements, MultiState reported. The centerpiece would require operators to sign legally binding community benefit agreements with local governments before they receive site plan approvals, permits or utility interconnection. An interconnection is the approval to connect a facility to the power grid.

    The package contains competing Senate and House versions on energy and water. Senate Bill 1047 would require 20-year utility contracts and 90% clean energy procurement. House Bill 6135 would create a new large-load rate class with 15-year contracts and no clean energy mandate. On water, Senate Bill 1046 would cap consumptive use at 2 million gallons per day. The House is considering a requirement for closed-loop cooling or municipal water only.

    Executive Summary

    Michigan’s package goes beyond one-off siting fights. It would write conditions on energy, water, labor and local benefits into state law. Most permitting disputes are settled project by project in township meetings. These bills would instead set a statewide floor that every large facility would have to clear. None of the bills has passed, and the Senate and House versions differ in important ways.

    The water provisions matter most for how facilities are designed. Large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons a day. The Senate would cap consumptive use at 2 million gallons, and the House would require closed-loop cooling or municipal water. The two chambers take different routes, but both would steer developers toward cooling that evaporates less water. The community benefit agreement requirement would change the order of development. A signed local deal would come before the grid connection, not after it.

    Michigan is not alone. Six other states have considered community benefit agreement mandates this year. Twelve have weighed closed-loop cooling requirements, and twelve have weighed decommissioning rules. What stands out in Michigan is how many of these ideas arrive together in a single package.

    Two Competing Water Bills, One Direction

    Senate Bill 1046 would create a new state permit for anyone using, or expecting to use, 550,000 gallons of water or more per day. Applicants would have to hold at least three public hearings before they apply. Permit holders would face a cap of 2 million gallons per day of consumptive use. Consumptive use means water that leaves the local supply and is not returned, mostly through evaporation in cooling towers. For comparison, large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons a day. At that scale, a design that depends on evaporating large volumes of water would struggle to fit under the cap.

    The House approach is blunter. New data centers would have to use closed-loop cooling, which recirculates the same water instead of drawing and discharging fresh supply. The only alternative would be to take water solely from a municipal system. The mechanisms differ: the Senate sets a volume limit, while the House mandates a technology or a water source. The engineering result is similar. Developers planning large campuses in Michigan would be pushed toward low-evaporation cooling, whichever version prevails.

    This follows a shift the industry has already started. Operators are actively adopting less water-intensive cooling. The effects spread beyond the building itself. Cooling equipment suppliers would gain a more predictable market. Municipal water utilities could become the default supplier under the House option. Closed-loop and dry cooling generally save water but use more electricity. That puts water policy in direct contact with the energy bills moving alongside it.

    The Local Deal Would Come Before the Grid Connection

    House Bill 6137 and Senate Bill 1050 would reorder the development process. No local site plan approval, no local permit and no Public Service Commission approval of an interconnection could be issued until the local government approves a community benefit plan. For developers, the negotiation with the host community would move onto the critical path, ahead of the utility process that usually sets project timelines.

    The agreements would have to cover at least half of five listed topics, which in practice means three. The topics are local hiring, water use, cost allocation for electrical or water upgrades, community investment funding, and home efficiency improvements. A separate pair of bills, House Bill 6140 and Senate Bill 1049, would bar elected officials and operators from signing nondisclosure agreements about construction when a project receives a tax incentive. Intellectual property could still be redacted. Together, these bills would make the terms of the local negotiation largely public for subsidized projects.

    Two Chambers, Two Ways to Price Power

    The energy bills share one principle: data centers should pay for their own power, so that other ratepayers do not absorb the cost. Senate Bill 1047 would set firm terms. Contracts would run at least 20 years, customers would be billed for at least 90% of their contracted demand whether they use it or not, and applications would cost $100,000. That billing floor is aimed at the risk of a utility building for a large load that never fully arrives. The Senate bill would also require operators to procure clean energy equal to 90% of their annual usage and to join a demand response program, which pays or credits large users for cutting consumption when the grid is strained.

    House Bill 6135 would create a large-load commercial rate class with contracts of at least 15 years. Its financial terms are less strict, and it has no clean energy requirement. On the House side, House Bill 6142 would require every Public Service Commission-approved data center contract to include a decommissioning plan. The plan would need financial assurance, meaning money set aside, sufficient to cover dismantling the facility, and it would be reviewed every three years. Developers comparing states would treat the choice between these two frameworks as a real cost difference, not a technicality.

    Labor Standards, and No Moratorium

    House Bill 6141 and Senate Bill 1048 would bar the Public Service Commission from approving data center contracts unless construction and maintenance work is done under a labor agreement or collective bargaining agreement. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has urged members to oppose moratorium legislation. The union argues that data centers bring well-paid construction jobs and long-term union employment. That position helps explain the package’s shape: it regulates how data centers are built, not whether they can be built.

    The package contains no moratorium and no tax incentive changes. Those questions are being handled in separate Michigan bills. They include proposals to repeal incentives, to exclude data centers from certain property tax exemptions, and to extend a brownfield-zone exemption. The package’s premise is that data centers will keep coming to Michigan and the state should set the terms, which is a middle position between welcoming them unconditionally and blocking them.

    Background

    Data centers house the servers behind cloud computing, streaming and artificial intelligence. The largest require power on the scale of a small city, and some draw millions of gallons of water a day for cooling. As construction has spread into new regions, state legislatures have moved from offering incentives to setting conditions. States considered hundreds of data center bills last year. This year, six states other than Michigan have weighed community benefit agreement mandates, twelve have weighed closed-loop cooling requirements, and twelve have considered decommissioning rules.

    Michigan’s legislature has been active on the issue throughout 2026. Separate bills address data center tax incentives: some would repeal them, one would narrow property tax exemptions, and others would extend a brownfield-zone exemption. The July package is the state’s broadest attempt yet to set operating conditions for the industry. At the federal level, a proposal from Representative Robert Bresnahan would tie federal data center tax credits to community benefit agreements.

    Sources

    Source: Michigan Data Center Legislation Targets Energy Use and Community Benefits (MultiState), an overview of Michigan’s proposed data center bills on energy, water, community benefits, noise, nondisclosure agreements and labor standards.

  • Microsoft’s Restaurant-Sized Water Claim: Testing the Closed-Loop Cooling Math

    Microsoft’s Restaurant-Sized Water Claim: Testing the Closed-Loop Cooling Math

    Microsoft’s chief executive said the company’s newest AI data centers consume as little water annually as a typical restaurant, crediting a closed-loop cooling design that recirculates the same fluid indefinitely rather than evaporating fresh water to reject heat. The claim, reported June 3, 2026, positions the design as a step-change from conventional facilities that can draw millions of gallons per year.

    Executive Summary

    The comparison is striking by design: restaurants are among the most water-intensive small businesses people intuitively understand, and equating a hyperscale AI facility to one reframes the water debate around data centers. The engineering behind the claim is real and well understood — closed-loop (or liquid-to-chip, sealed-circuit) cooling fills the system once and rejects heat to the outside air through dry coolers or chillers, eliminating the continuous evaporation that makes traditional cooling towers thirsty.

    Why it matters: water has become a genuine siting constraint for AI infrastructure. Communities from the American Southwest to drought-prone regions abroad have pushed back on data center projects over aquifer draw, and utilities increasingly ask about consumptive water use before power. If Microsoft can credibly demonstrate restaurant-scale water budgets at gigawatt-scale campuses, it changes the permitting conversation for the whole industry.

    The caveat: the claim as reported applies to new facilities built to the closed-loop design, not Microsoft’s existing fleet, and the reported remarks do not specify how many sites qualify, how the restaurant benchmark is defined, or whether the figure counts the water embedded in the extra electricity that dry heat rejection typically requires.

    The Engineering Is Credible — the Accounting Is the Question

    Closed-loop cooling is not a moonshot; it is a design choice with known trade-offs. In a conventional data center, cooling towers chill water by evaporating a portion of it — that evaporation is the “consumption” that shows up in the millions-of-gallons figures. A sealed circuit avoids this entirely: coolant is filled at commissioning, circulates across cold plates or heat exchangers at the servers, and dumps heat to ambient air. On-site water use then falls to domestic needs — restrooms, humidification, kitchens — which is plausibly restaurant-scale.

    The honest question is boundary-drawing. Site water use is only one ledger. Dry heat rejection generally consumes more electricity than evaporative cooling, especially in hot climates, and most grid electricity has its own water footprint at the power plant. A facility that saves water on site but draws more thermally generated power may shift consumption upstream rather than eliminate it. The reported remarks, as relayed, do not say whether Microsoft’s restaurant comparison is site-only or includes that indirect water. Neither answer would be wrong — but they are very different claims.

    Water Is Becoming the Second Currency of AI Siting

    For years, the binding constraint on data center development was power: megawatts available, interconnection queue position, substation timelines. Water has quietly become the second gate. Local opposition to AI campuses increasingly centers on aquifer and municipal-supply impacts, and several jurisdictions now require consumptive-use disclosures in permitting. A hyperscaler that can walk into a county hearing with a restaurant-equivalent water budget has a materially easier approval path — and that is worth real money in schedule terms, since permitting delay is often costlier than construction premium.

    This creates competitive dynamics beyond Microsoft. If closed-loop designs become the de facto community expectation, operators running evaporative plants may face pressure to retrofit or to defend designs that were unremarkable five years ago. Cooling vendors, dry-cooler manufacturers, and liquid-cooling integrators stand to gain; regions that marketed abundant water as a siting advantage lose a differentiator.

    Marketing Benchmarks Deserve the Same Scrutiny as Critics’ Numbers

    The water debate around AI has featured loose numbers on all sides — viral estimates of water “per chatbot query” have often rested on contested assumptions, and industry rebuttals have sometimes cherry-picked their best sites. A restaurant comparison is vivid but imprecise: restaurant water use varies enormously by size and type, and the reported claim does not state which benchmark Microsoft used. The fair posture is symmetrical skepticism. Critics’ worst-case figures should be tested against actual metered data; Microsoft’s best-case figure should be tested against fleet-wide averages, third-party verification, and the full indirect footprint. Until per-site water data is published, both the alarm and the reassurance rest partly on trust.

    Background

    Microsoft is one of the largest builders of AI infrastructure in the world, expanding data center capacity at historic pace to serve AI training and cloud workloads. The company has long publicized environmental commitments — including goals around water stewardship — and in recent years began promoting data center designs that minimize or eliminate evaporative water use, as rising rack densities pushed the industry from air cooling toward liquid cooling.

    The water question grew alongside the AI boom: as hyperscale campuses multiplied in water-stressed regions, consumptive use became a flashpoint in local permitting battles and media coverage. The June 2026 remarks land in that context — an industry seeking to prove that AI growth and water stewardship are compatible, before regulators decide the question for it.

    Source: Microsoft CEO says new AI data centers use as little water annually as a restaurant — report of Microsoft chief executive’s remarks on closed-loop cooling for new AI data centers, published June 3, 2026.