I agree entirely, and I do hope my comment didn't appear to try to justify this insane data center buildout. We don't need any more data centers, and we need to completely eliminate fossil fuel usage.

I would also think that the heat may dry and kill the flora in the vicinity, which could potentially increase fire risk. But I'm no expert.

Wrong.

While you’re correct, that much heat emitted in a local area prone to yearly fire seasons seems to be unwise.

The "23 atomic bomb" facility is ~20MW, equivalent to an extra 40,000m^2 (that's a 200m square) of sunlight falling on that area. Insignificant.

. If sparks from trains travelling around curves can start fires (Lytton seemingly every year), multiple nukes’ worth of heat daily might be worse.

Sparks from a train are pinpoints of incandescently hot metal, more than 500c, falling into dry grass. 20MW industrial building rejects its heat as air or steam in the 50-100c range.

Also, it’s still an increase of emissions, more is always worse than neutral in this scenario. Yes, there are more polluting things to worry about, but we need to be reducing emissions, not increasing them.

At least you got one right.