this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
89 points (94.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5189 readers
507 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So when computer systems use water, it's typically in a closed cooling loop. The water is heated by the computer components and then cooled in a radiator before being returned to the computer components to absorb more heat and the cycle repeats.
So why do these articles always read like it's consuming water in a way that eliminates it from existence?
As far as I'm aware they're not taking water and turning it into something else like concrete, so what exactly is happening that it's reducing our fresh water supply on Earth?
Data center water cooling isn't a closed loop. They generally don't use it like PC water cooling. There are exceptions, but servers are typically air cooled.
What they did is look for a less energy intensive way to cool the air than traditional air conditioning. So they turned to evaporative cooling, and also misting the incoming air. This reduced their energy use, but at the expense of water use.
It shows up in the inflow and outflow of water:
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/sip-or-guzzle-heres-how-googles-data-centers-use-water
They're evaporating away a lot more water than they return.
Ok, but the point is once water evaporates it doesn't stay evaporated forever. It condenses and turns into rain or snow.
Where exactly do people think this water is going when it evaporates? Space?
"why does a decline in freshwater supply matter when it all ends up in the sea anyway?"
Cute, but it doesn't answer the question.
Yes, it does. Rain that falls on the sea--which is most rain--has to be desalinated to be drinkable.
We don't have an overall water shortage. We have a shortage of water we can drink.
We don't have a shortage of water we can drink, we have the potential for drinking water shortages in the future assuming that only demand continues to grow. We don't even really have industrial and agricultural shortages anywhere either, not in the developed world at least - we have areas where we're utilizing a high percentage of available water and where water use is regulated for large consumers and areas where ground water tables are being diminished which is the only real problem.
The other key thing to remember is that water supply is incredibly geographic, the Arizona River basin for example is a common example of a water system in danger which is why someone placing a facility that uses a lot of water is unlikely to build there if they're doing a non location specific thing like running a date center. You'd be far more likely to put it somewhere like Virginia near the Potomac where there's no shortage at all or in germany and Ireland where again they have huge amounts of water. (I use these examples because it's where aws data centers are)
If I don't flush my toilet then it's not going to help the watertable in Capetown or Arizona, but if an Arizonian telephones me and says 'I want to do some math but my calculator uses too much water' then I can do that math for him using the huge amount of water endlessly falling from the sky here and that will save water in Arizona.
According to the UN development program the most common form of water scarcity is economic, largely due to the complexity of infrastructure projects - the chicken and egg braindrain problem where no one that has the education to build and run such systems wants to live in such difficult areas. The internet is already moving towards improving this. Remote learning is allowing people to study to a worldclass level without needing to physically have that infrastructure locally, ai improves this hugely as it can explain things in people's first language and as it's abilities continue to grow this will only continue. Likewise automation of construction and monitoring allows high efficiency and environmentally sustainable facilities to be established so water availability and quality can be improved thus reducing the global water scarcity.
Also in developed nations reduced cost of infrastructure makes it ever easier to create more water efficient systems especially with active monitoring of agricultural crops and targeted water supply, etc. And as you rightly point out places with limited supply can always just build a desalination plant, they're getting cheaper all the time and the ones currently in operation are working really well, Isreal and Jordan for example working together to refil the sea of Galilee (a fresh water lake that was declining due to over use).
These stories have no substance, they exist because ai is trending news story and everyone loves to find reasons to bad mouth anything new. Yes, It's a valid concern that must be taken into consideration but an article is junk if it doesn't start by explaining using water in areas with huge amounts of it isn't even slightly a problem and that this is of course standard operating procedure when locating data centers.
Freshwater is not an infinite source. It's something that I was taught in school in the 90s when people actually gave a shit about the planet and each other.
Yes they tell you a lot of simplified things in school, I went to school in the 90s too so I remember the lessons on the water cycle and water table depletion and stuff... back then people were worried about water wars between Isreal and Jordan for example but they now work together on a desalination project which is refilling the Sea of Galilee. Things have changed since we were in school.
Freshwater is just clean water, we have loads of it fall from the sky and we can take dirty water and clean it even when it's salty. As long as we have dirty water we can make clean water and the planet is like 70% dirty water so honestly we're more likely to run out of pretty much anything else. P
It does if you're not being willfully obtuse
No. People are tracking useable water supplies. If it gets out of that, we don't care what happens to it.
We're draining aquifers to give people and industry drinkable, useable water (no matter how we feel about that). The water "still existing" somewhere else is an entirely pedantic point, and a huge waste of everyone's time.
I think it goes out of the cycle somewhat, kinda like all that is held up
If 100L rain down a day, and you use 10L for cooling then you will have still have 100L flowing but now only 90L for actual use. And then datacenters take up a significant amount of the total then you have a lot less to use elsewhere such as watering fields for example.
Where I live we have this huge river around our city that provides most of the province with freshwater (along with all of the rivers that feed into it, but the population concentrates around that one big river)
That one big river is also a place for ships to go through, and an ecosystem (despite all of the disruption).
More water in use by all kinds of facilities still manages to lower the level of the river significantly, to the point where there have been worries raised about the ecosystem and where shipping capacity was reduced.
If you're taking water and putting it in a closed loop, you're effectively removing it from the natural water cycle until you remove it from said closed loop, no?
I agree the articles make it sound more like they are just burning water out of existence lol.
Right, but the way the article is worded it makes it sound like they're adding 500 mL of water to the loop every single time you enter a prompt.
Right. Makes not sense at all, but people gobble it up the same way they blame bitcoin for the environment because the narrative is that it uses a lot of power. It’s not about the power, it is about how carbon intensive the generation method is. Such a great distraction.
Except you're both fundamentally wrong about how data center cooling works. It's not closed loop water cooling, they use evaporative cooling by misting the cooling air. There's no 'great distraction' here, just some attention to one of very many problems with how we run large data centers.
Google’s data centres use 4.3B gallons of water a year which is about the same as a city of 100,000 people. I think we have bigger things to worry about. Like MUCH bigger things than a literally drop in the bucket.