Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

postandcourier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#71

Post by PakG1 »

ryandvm wrote: post #3

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

China recently is cracking down on golf courses in order to preserve water. I imagine the game of golf is not actually worth the cultural heritage and entertainment it provides if you want to think about the water it uses. At least the Chinese government has concluded this and it's facing a severe potable water shortage issue in the future.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-golf-water-land-shortages...

As well... water balloons and water guns? Baths as opposed to showers? The list goes on. Google's ads provide a service the general public finds useful.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#72

Post by icelancer »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #69
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but > The Google aquifer permit application states it will reuse water before eventually discharging it to the sewer system, but the company did not provide details when asked by The Post and Courier. And 2 paragraphs down > Groundwater can be returned to the aquifer after use, but some is lost to evaporation and the operation is costly, according to industry sources. There are other alternatives. The National…

I wonder why they don't just pump the heated water back down into the aquifer. That would make it basically an open-loop geothermal heat pump.

This almost certainly has some negative environmental effects.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#73

Post by [deleted] »

themihai wrote: post #70
kjksf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…

The government could change the economics with a tax on cooling down the servers with water so I believe the morality can beat pure economics.

[deleted]

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#74

Post by cryptarch »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #21
cryptarch wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bang! You're no longer dead! (maybe) That's exactly what I mean though you posted it with a click-baity lead-in.

Click baity how? And that comment is valuable because it shows that it's feasible to do with data center water, which is much less hot than the industrial sources you mentioned.

Huh, I think I read it as "It's amazing how Seattle is is heating their new buildings:".

That remark of mine was unwarranted, while I don't agree the comment makes it clear that it's special to use water from data centers, I didn't get that from it.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#75

Post by Magnap »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #66
kjksf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…

> Economics beats morality. I can't tell if you're summarizing the problem or actually making a straight-faced assertion.

I read it as them saying "In practice, economics beats morality (so we'll have to change the economics of the situation if we want to fix this)".

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#76

Post by jankey »

revelation wrote: post #4

Water is great for cooling, but who the hell dumps it afterwards?! I don't think they quite understood what "water cooling" is..

It's not being dumped, it evaporates.

Check https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/be... and https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/internal... .

(Disclaimer: I work in (another) Google datacentre)

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#77

Post by jankey »

jsjohnst wrote: post #39

Google is continually touted as the industry leader in efficient DC design, yet they do wasteful operations like this. I just don't get it. On the other hand, Yahoo is constantly shat on (sometimes validly), yet they solved this years ago. Their Lockport, NY data center does not need air conditioning because of its design and the cool local weather. It uses 50 percent less electricity and 99 percent less water compar…

We are industry-leading efficient, the water is used for evaporative cooling, very efficient. Other sites use water from an industrial canal or cold sea water.

Look here: https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/internal... . PUE globally is 1.06, compared to Yahoo/Cap Gemini Lockports 1.08.

(Disclaimer: I work in (another) Google datacentre.)

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#78

Post by throw2016 »

kjksf wrote: post #28
ryandvm wrote: post #3

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…

Maybe there is a balance to be found. I think at the moment there is overwhelming interest in proper policy on environment and resources.

There are tons of restrictions like zoning, and nearly any environmental, industrial, safety, labour regulation that sit outside the economic context.

Post reply on HN