Just skipping to the Conclusions section, I find this article to be wildly biased toward space data centers. Some of this reasoning is ridiculous, insane.

For one thing, I think there's a huge assumption that we just can't make energy cheap on earth (Cost per GW). Solar/battery costs are plummeting, nuclear energy is still a great option (see: the quantity of in-progress Chinese nuclear power plant builds in progress, I think around 30 projects under construction right now), and we might just figure out fusion reactors one day soon.

"Favors: Earth today; Space later" - seems way too confident.

Land Use: Does this article just not realize how large the earth is? The earth will never run out of space for data centers. You can even put them in skyscrapers if you want.

Long-run scaling: How does this row make a lick of sense? This is a lot like saying that if I build my house in space then I could have 100 parking spots in my driveway. The problem is, I don't need 100 parking spaces in my driveway. Like, yeah, we know that there's infinite room to put stuff in space.

Carbon / local environmental burden: Another insane take on this subject. Are we really going to hand-wave over burning a shitload of rocket fuel to put stuff in space? "Favorable vs gas-backed terrestrial buildout" why are we comparing against a gas-backed buildout?