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

Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#61

Post by whimsicalism »

majorbugger wrote: post #27
whimsicalism wrote: post #12

i find the climate/environment concern around AI so clearly performative and poorly calibrated that it actively angers me. moral panics are weird

What angers me on the other hand is calling something "performative" while completely ignoring the facts. Have you checked the projected impact of new data centers on CO2 emmissions?

Yes, I'm extremely climate conscious and change my behavior around many things that I think have particularly high climate externalities. But ultimately, most of the people I know who are really concerned about this engage in extremely high externality behavior (flights, beef eating, etc.) regularly without even thinking about it. AI doesn't even come close and beyond that potentially enables a lot of solutions.

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#62

Post by whimsicalism »

MBCook wrote: post #20
whimsicalism wrote: post #12

i find the climate/environment concern around AI so clearly performative and poorly calibrated that it actively angers me. moral panics are weird

I don’t think it’s performative. That seems really uncharitable. Seems like most “performative“ accusations are. I think a ton of people were REALLY misinformed about how much water AI data centers use. I know I was at one point. Now there may be people pushing that narrative still on purpose because it clearly works. But I don’t think the average person who uses that talking point is doing anything other than expres…

I stand by it. If you only care about the climate for things that are socially rewarded (being anti-AI is, telling your friends to about the impact of eating beef or taking flights or other day to day activities is boooo you're being a buzzkill), you are being performative.

There's a reason certain types of misinformation become popular and others fizzle. The environmental concerns around AI are starting from the goal 'disliking AI' and going in search of a reason for many people. The environment is a convenient reason because it links to an existing left-wing cause & doesn't require conceding the frame of AI rapidly becoming extremely capable (scary! don't like to think about that!) so it's all comfort and outrage without stakes.

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#63

Post by nh23423fefe »

mattcantstop wrote: post #21
chasebank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another data point. California pistachios consume about 500–600 billion gallons of water per year.

I've always found this a weird comparison. There is no more important use of water than providing food. I love tech and earn my living from it, but the importance of food cannot be overstated.

Hyperbolic people help me ignore their fake concerns.

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#64

Post by whimsicalism »

goda90 wrote: post #52
scrumper wrote: post #29

This water usage argument against data centers is so specious I almost think it's spread as a deliberate talking point by DC proponents. Power consumption and effect on electricity infrastructure is so, so, so much more consequential and dangerous. It alone is way more than enough on which to base a very solid anti-DC campaign. The water argument weakens the whole anti-DC position by being so refutable. EDIT: with pr…

We should never assume any aquifer can be used up lightly, whether Utah or in a rainforest. Droughts are going to become more common, and not only does a lower water table impact other human activities, but also plants that have deep roots and anything relying on natural springs that might dry up faster if we're wasting a bunch on evaporative cooling. Demanding closed loop cooling is just as important as demanding se…

Just friggin tax carbon. The notion that we pick disfavored new industries and require them to bear the brunt of our renewable buildout is absurd and effectively a tax on the 'new'.

I see no reason we should grandfather in 'heritage carbon emitters' when we are emitting way more than we ought to.

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#65

Post by whimsicalism »

kilroy123 wrote: post #38
scrumper wrote: post #29

This water usage argument against data centers is so specious I almost think it's spread as a deliberate talking point by DC proponents. Power consumption and effect on electricity infrastructure is so, so, so much more consequential and dangerous. It alone is way more than enough on which to base a very solid anti-DC campaign. The water argument weakens the whole anti-DC position by being so refutable. EDIT: with pr…

Didn't OpenAI say they thought it was foreign interference? Personally, I find it ironic to see people going on and on about data centers on platforms like Threads, Reddit, and X. It's like, do you know where your data is going when you press that button?

I hear that, but of course GPU compute is much more intensive than CPU & SSDs so they are touching on something real.

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#66

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

chasebank wrote: post #14
rafram wrote: post #6

> 2.5 billion gallons of water worldwide last year, or about 5% of the amount metro Seattle consumes annually That doesn't seem like that much, really. The Seattle metro area isn't huge; that consumption is only 0.7% of New York's, and Amazon runs the largest network of data centers in the world.

Another data point. California pistachios consume about 500–600 billion gallons of water per year.

The pistachio meme

How that data point is interpreted may depend on whether the reader or someone they know likes pistachios or not

It might also depend on how the person views farmers versus how they view Silicon Valley companies

And so on

It's not intrinsically clear how a reader is going to interpret that data point without knowing something about the reader

Will they opine that water use for some purpose is "worth it" or "not worth it"

What do they think of pistachios

What do they think of "AI"

People might be OK with water use for pistachios but not for "AI"

The _amount_ of water use may not be the differentiator. The differentiator might be the _purpose_ of the water use

Food versus computers

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#67

Post by _DeadFred_ »

scrumper wrote: post #29

This water usage argument against data centers is so specious I almost think it's spread as a deliberate talking point by DC proponents. Power consumption and effect on electricity infrastructure is so, so, so much more consequential and dangerous. It alone is way more than enough on which to base a very solid anti-DC campaign. The water argument weakens the whole anti-DC position by being so refutable. EDIT: with pr…

Everywhere I live water supply has been constrained. Where I live now gets a ton of snow/rain but we have entire subdivisions planned that can't get built because we don't have water hookup/infra capacity, not a shortage of water. Many areas have had water rights changes that have impacted ag/business/homeowners negatively, to the point people aren't allowed to drill wells on their property. And a lot of this is in communities with plenty of water but the water rights has been assigned 'downstream'.

And yet data centers don't seem to be operating under the same rules at a time when people have it shoved in their faces the techbro billionaires and their bought politicians don't have to follow the rules. That people can't get more housing built but somehow billionaires can magically get datacenters is going to cause resentment.

It doesn't help that data centers do everything in secrecy and then just break ground (because they don't want pushback) so it appears that they haven't followed any of the processes everyone else has to (specifically for limited/coveted/people have been waiting years water hookups). This is why they list the number of houses worth of water used. Because that number of housing could have been built instead or now can't be built without upgrading the municipal water system (at huge expense to the local community that already paid to build out the capacity the datacenters took for their remote billionaire owners' enrichment not local community benefit).

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#69

Post by danaris »

whimsicalism wrote: post #64
goda90 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should never assume any aquifer can be used up lightly, whether Utah or in a rainforest. Droughts are going to become more common, and not only does a lower water table impact other human activities, but also plants that have deep roots and anything relying on natural springs that might dry up faster if we're wasting a bunch on evaporative cooling. Demanding closed loop cooling is just as important as demanding se…

Just friggin tax carbon. The notion that we pick disfavored new industries and require them to bear the brunt of our renewable buildout is absurd and effectively a tax on the 'new'. I see no reason we should grandfather in 'heritage carbon emitters' when we are emitting way more than we ought to.

Water isn't carbon.

Leaving aside whether a carbon tax would be an effective solution to CO2 (I genuinely don't know), there's no reason to suspect it would be an effective solution to our water crisis, particularly given the huge growth in solar recently.

Datacenters don't need cooling because they're burning gas for their power. They need cooling because computation produces heat. Even if they were feeding as much clean solar power back into the grid as they were using, we would still need to find a solution to their voracious thirst.

Re: Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

#70

Post by RankingMember »

kilroy123 wrote: post #38
scrumper wrote: post #29

This water usage argument against data centers is so specious I almost think it's spread as a deliberate talking point by DC proponents. Power consumption and effect on electricity infrastructure is so, so, so much more consequential and dangerous. It alone is way more than enough on which to base a very solid anti-DC campaign. The water argument weakens the whole anti-DC position by being so refutable. EDIT: with pr…

Didn't OpenAI say they thought it was foreign interference? Personally, I find it ironic to see people going on and on about data centers on platforms like Threads, Reddit, and X. It's like, do you know where your data is going when you press that button?

Sure, but people who use platforms can still advocate against the negative impact of their infrastructure. It's like how participating in an unjust society doesn't negate arguments you make towards bettering it.
Post reply on HN