31–40 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Air cooling doesn’t scale. Try having thousands of computers all in your room.
Well sure but why does it need to be open cycle and actually consume water? That’s the problem part, not internal water cooling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or rather, a hypothesis disguised as an explanation. It ultimately said these nitrates come from farms, and this new datacenter is exacerbating it. The root cause is still the farms, though.
An explanation is just a theory that accounts for the facts. A hypothesis is a theory that accounts for the facts while also providing falsifiability and testability . They provide an explanation, not a hypothesis.
This article is misleading. The data centers role here was to evaporate a tiny bit of already polluted water and increase the concentration of the pollutant. The increase is estimated to be around .1% with reasonable assumptions. The primary driver of pollution was agriculture but the data centers can be attributed to .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion.
> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal.
This article is misleading. The data centers role here was to evaporate a tiny bit of already polluted water and increase the concentration of the pollutant. The increase is estimated to be around .1% with reasonable assumptions. The primary driver of pollution was agriculture but the data centers can be attributed to .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion.
> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal.
So... a short flight? There's background radiation everywhere, and less radiation protection higher up.
This article is misleading. The data centers role here was to evaporate a tiny bit of already polluted water and increase the concentration of the pollutant. The increase is estimated to be around .1% with reasonable assumptions. The primary driver of pollution was agriculture but the data centers can be attributed to .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion.
> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal.
Why would that be a big deal? It is a .1% increase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal.
>.1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal. So... a short flight? There's background radiation everywhere, and less radiation protection higher up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> .1% at most. Is it a big deal? Not in my opinion. Depends. .1% increase in the number of calories going into my body? Not a big deal. .1% increase in the number of radioactive particulates going into my body? Big deal.
Can you frame it into more concrete terms like how much more likely it is to cause harm? And put agriculture by side.
Maybe they're (ab)using the findings of the data centers to get better water treatment, maybe they could have done more effort themselves?
But of course money and laws are far more important than healthy citizens, so why do anything about it when you don't have to?
Companies kinda tend to forget that if there is nobody left to consume stuff, you're also out of business. Governments kinda tend to forget that if there is nobody left to pay the taxes, they're also out of business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you frame it into more concrete terms like how much more likely it is to cause harm? And put agriculture by side.
The risk from nitrates is cumulative. .1% may not seem much, but it can be well be the trigger for enormous problems. My best guess is that the limit was already very close at its max of 10 mg/L (10 ppm) and the data center tipped the scale. Maybe they're (ab)using the findings of the data centers to get better water treatment, maybe they could have done more effort themselves? But of course money and laws are far mo…