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

AI uses less water than the public thinks

californiawaterblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 425 posts

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#181

Post by msla »

dado3212 wrote: post #3

This is a bit of a dead horse, but the magnitude of how off the public is on this continues to amaze me. Pete Buttigieg did a Tulsa town hall a week or so ago where someone cited it taking "10,000 gallons of water just to generate one photo".[0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCc-ipWVShY&t=1h5m43s

The other part of this problem is the idea that if you disagree with someone about the facts you're interpreted as disagreeing with them about the thing they're mad about: You disagree that AI somehow destroys fifty billion-trillion gallons of pure water every time someone asks Claude something, therefore you're fully in favor of Grok making nudes of underage girls.

Some people get an Angry. They love their Angry, and nobody will take it from them.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#182

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

trvz wrote: post #168
lxgr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and now please cut the non-essential philosophical discussion, the server hosting this site doesn't run on thought experiments alone either. This comment could have been someone's hamburger!

This site, if not overly wasteful, fits onto a single 1U server. A single car is more damaging than such a server.

HN does untold societal damage.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#183

Post by Matticus_Rex »

dylan604 wrote: post #157
tptacek wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the counterexample is a huge component of US agriculture, massively dwarfing data centers in water use, doesn't serve the core needs proposed by the top comment.

The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is. I'd be on board if for every data center a farm gave up the amount of water to use in that data center. Instead of carbon offsets, we'll let them purchase water offsets. Of course that's not a serious answer.

If our water rights system required farmers to actually pay anything approaching market rates for the water they used, it actually would be a serious answer!

Farmers grow alfalfa in the desert and drain the western US's aquifers and rivers because we have insane water rights doctrines that entitle them to trillions and trillions of gallons of free or almost-free water far in excess of what the watershed regions can bear.

If we don't change that system, data center water usage is a rounding error that is barely noticeable at the scale of the problem. If we do change that system, data center water usage isn't a problem at all.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#184

Post by [deleted] »

bluGill wrote: post #109
teamonkey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s understandable that people blame AI for economic issues when so may CEOs are publicly stating that “increased efficiencies due to AI” is the reason for laying off staff.

They blamed the latest fad for layoffs in the last one as well. Every company and project I know of has a long list of things they want to do that they believe would be good for customers - but they cannot afford the people needed, and the risk is too high to borrow. That is if AI was really increasing efficiency in a good economy they would be keeping everyone and getting more work done with them. Of course in reali…

[deleted]

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#185

Post by loeg »

AustinDev wrote: post #64
loeg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absolute strongest complaint is that DCs consume treated, potable water, which is less abundant / easily re-created than any old non-potable source. (Of course the easy solution here is DCs just ingest / treat their own non-potable source. Or utilities charge rates sufficient to price in the externality of drawing down more potable water. The economics still work for DCs if they need to treat their own water -- t…

Why don’t data centers use gray water more often? Wouldn’t that be better for basically everyone? My guess is it’s some combination of the infrastructure not existing, the distribution being bad, and the treatment costs not penciling out. But that feels like the kind of thing municipal utilities could solve with pricing. Potable water should probably be priced differently for residential use than for big commercial/i…

> Why don’t data centers use gray water more often?

DCs will just use the cheapest source that meets their needs. If they have to treat greywater and that costs more than municipal potable water, they'll use the potable water. (In part this is utilities selling their potable water too cheaply.)

> Wouldn’t that be better for basically everyone?

No; if it was cheaper for DCs, they'd already be doing it. But it isn't an insurmountable cost -- DCs still pencil with slightly more expensive cooling.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#186

Post by redox99 »

jakevn wrote: post #133
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Meat can be "produced" in a location where water is not as scarce. Rural areas. Datacenters "like" to grow in urban areas. This source says that a 100 prompt spends half a liter of water https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-co... I remember this year google reported one google search spend a drop of water (or 5 drops, around that)

This beef industry organization cites 3 studies: https://www.beefresearch.org/resources/beef-sustainability/f... > U.S. specific estimates put beef water use at 317, 441 and 808 gallons per pound of boneless beef when precipitation water is not accounted for in calculations. So, let's just say around 400 gallons of water per pound of beef if you don't include rainfall use.

It's kinda crazy not accounting for precipitation. In fact in my country (Argentina) irrigation for livestock farming is basically non existent.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#187

Post by pigeons »

Levitz wrote: post #161
AmbroseBierce wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was massive controversy about that so I don't know how good counterexample it's that. Unless the argument is "we already waste a lot why would you care about wasting more??" Which is not a great argument.

It's not explicitly a great argument, but it's an excellent premise to set. Because this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or water. It has to do with people hating AI and looking to portray it negatively. The proof is that if they actually cared, there's a million better places to put their efforts into. It is not an honest issue and it deserves no attention. The vast, vast majority of people t…

There aren't a million better places to put efforts into. This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched, and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#188

Post by rsoto2 »

legitster wrote: post #70

> Using the prompt, “How much water is likely to evaporate from data centers in California per year, assuming they are all using mostly evaporative cooling?” several free AI websites provided ranges of estimates, below. These AI also can provide ranges and sources for calculation assumptions. Data centers with closed loop cooling systems are absolutely built all of the time. Total evaporative cooling has the advantag…

[flagged]

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#189

Post by adrr »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #69

Comparing water usage of AI to agriculture and cities is a little misleading. The cities' water usage is to keep people alive with basically mandatory things, like hygiene, and drinking. Agricultural water usage is required because we have to eat to live. Don't compare something optional to something mandatory. Instead, compare AI water usage to that of optional things in a city, such as car washes and water parks. O…

What about golf courses which use up 476 Billion of water every year? Way more than data centers. People complain about Nestle using water in californa for bottled water but it doesn't compare to what single golf course uses in a year.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#190

Post by SoftTalker »

mrinterweb wrote: post #9

If data center water use is such a concern, why not require that data centers invest in closed-loop cooling systems? By closed-loop, I'm talking about re-condensing evaporated water and allowing the water to cool. Cooling the water would be more expensive in hotter environments, but still achievable. These data centers seem to have wild amounts of money for investment, why not just mandate conservation requirements?

Condensing/cooling the water takes even more electricity though. So you're trading water savings for increased energy use. Maybe OK if it's all renewable, but in most areas it's not.
Post reply on HN