No part of our planet is going to stay close to 77K without a staggering amount of effort.
Arizona is seismically stable, a low flood risk, and has abundant solar power. It's probably not a terrible choice. Mix in laxer regulations than you'd see in California, and an innate hucksterism? It's a great fit!
> Why? It doesn't take exponential effort to cool a space. It's linear.
It’s not linear at all. Going from 300 K to 250 K is much easier than going from 100 K to 50 K. If it were linear, going all the way to 0 K would be trivial.
The reason why it does not matter much is that average temperatures are not that different (Arizona is 29°C; Iceland is 14°C); the difference is not going to matter when cooling something from 300 K to 80 K. Besides, atmospheric temperature does not matter too much for underground facilities, and there Iceland is more active (thus warmer) than Arizona.
That said, things like proximity of an ocean, something with a huge heat capacity and decent thermal conductivity that could be used to dump heat more efficiently than in the atmosphere would be a plus.
Thermal radiation goes by the fourth power, (Stefan-Boltzmann law for blackbody radiation), so a few degrees does make a meaningful difference, but because it's a scam it's much safer to be based in a locale with friendly law enforcement.
If it's estimated several centuries are necessary for technology to advance enough for reanimate them, this rounding off error adds up to quite significant.
If the Moon could be used for it that it would be probably the closest to an ideal place. In some craters you would not even need energy for refrigeration. Just ambient temperature would be enough. I wonder how many years saving freezer electricity bills would be necessary to offset launch and descent fuel costs.
