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

'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 206 posts

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#111

Post by ratelimitsteve »

bluGill wrote: post #41
MatekCopatek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are you getting at? Datacenters do use potable water from municipal sources for evaporative cooling. Are you claiming that's not true? Here's a recent source: https://pacinst.org/publication/how-much-water-do-data-cente...

They do use water, and the numbers look very large which makes for big scary headlines. However people who actually know how water is used in a city are used to numbers much larger than that.

it's the demand delta, not the total demand, that's concerning. Also not all use cases are created equal: using water to keep people alive is legitimate and using water to build a machine that can automatically almost count the number of vowels in a sentence is not legitimate, especially when that usage drives up demand and makes it harder to use water to keep people alive.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#112

Post by asciimike »

jpalawaga wrote: post #38
MatekCopatek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are you getting at? Datacenters do use potable water from municipal sources for evaporative cooling. Are you claiming that's not true? Here's a recent source: https://pacinst.org/publication/how-much-water-do-data-cente...

Some do, some use closed-loop systems that are essentially 'charge once'. higher energy use, but less water

Not sure why this is getting downvoted, most of the new facilities (e.g. Stargate) are running closed loop systems. PUE goes up a bit if you have to use chillers, but ultimately it's faster/easier to build a large facility in a closed loop fashion than get water (permitting, treatment, etc.). NVIDIA pushing 45C inlet temps is to allow facilities to run dry coolers instead of chillers and make this even easier! Two phase cooling (required above ~3kW TDP) would eliminate water use in the secondary loop (if not the primary, eventually).

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#113

Post by gruez »

citrin_ru wrote: post #101
semiquaver wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

golf courses use much more. But you don’t see massive resistance against new golf courses being planned. Farms use an order of magnitude more than either. You don’t see any demands whatsoever on agriculture to reduce water usage.

I would expect that a golf course construction is relatively rare event. And there is definitely no explosion of new golf courses. Total DC power consumption growth is practically exponential for the last 5 years.

>I would expect that a golf course construction is relatively rare event

That's just status quo bias, given that they're an ongoing source of water consumption. "oh it doesn't matter that [thing] is guzzling water, because it's already there!".

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#114

Post by lordgilman »

luxuryballs wrote: post #46
MatekCopatek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are you getting at? Datacenters do use potable water from municipal sources for evaporative cooling. Are you claiming that's not true? Here's a recent source: https://pacinst.org/publication/how-much-water-do-data-cente...

Why and how would they contaminate the water supply though? Sounds like a municipality problem, a water consumer shouldn't be feeding back into the system, or is it being caused by poorly executed construction practices? Maybe when they first pipe in or something is being left open during construction, this seems like it shouldn't happen if things are being done properly, water supply systems are not a new technology…

My understanding is that they don't but there's a measurable amount of the population that thinks they can.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#115

Post by gruez »

anon84873628 wrote: post #93
luxuryballs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why and how would they contaminate the water supply though? Sounds like a municipality problem, a water consumer shouldn't be feeding back into the system, or is it being caused by poorly executed construction practices? Maybe when they first pipe in or something is being left open during construction, this seems like it shouldn't happen if things are being done properly, water supply systems are not a new technology…

The construction itself absolutely alters local watersheds: 1. Replacing forests and fields with concrete buildings prevents rainwater from filtering into the soil, which stops local aquifers from recharging. 2. During storms the rain runs off impervious surfaces and can cause downstream flooding. 3. Heavy land grading washes loose sediment into nearby waterways, destroying aquatic habitats and turning private drinki…

>The construction itself absolutely alters local watersheds:

The first 3 apply to all construction. It's just being selectively applied because people hate datacenters.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#116

Post by daveguy »

gruez wrote: post #113
citrin_ru wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect that a golf course construction is relatively rare event. And there is definitely no explosion of new golf courses. Total DC power consumption growth is practically exponential for the last 5 years.

>I would expect that a golf course construction is relatively rare event That's just status quo bias, given that they're an ongoing source of water consumption. "oh it doesn't matter that [thing] is guzzling water, because it's already there!".

Exactly right. It's a lot easier to prevent an asshat venture than it is to dismantle it. Now that the public is aware, I wouldn't be surprised if new golf courses start getting the same treatment.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#117

Post by bothers »

gruez wrote: post #99
hightrix wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concerns about noise pollution and increased electricity costs are just morons? What about concerns about air pollution from unregulated diesel generators? Or using large amounts of water in drought prone areas?

All of those can be addressed by proper regulation. Banning them outright is the equivalent of banning all immigration just because there's some particular subgroup that people hate.

> All of those can be addressed by proper regulation.

No it can't. Regulation is already being flouted.

> Banning them outright is the equivalent of banning all immigration

Please be less obvious, this is just insulting.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#118

Post by lordgilman »

anon84873628 wrote: post #93
luxuryballs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why and how would they contaminate the water supply though? Sounds like a municipality problem, a water consumer shouldn't be feeding back into the system, or is it being caused by poorly executed construction practices? Maybe when they first pipe in or something is being left open during construction, this seems like it shouldn't happen if things are being done properly, water supply systems are not a new technology…

The construction itself absolutely alters local watersheds: 1. Replacing forests and fields with concrete buildings prevents rainwater from filtering into the soil, which stops local aquifers from recharging. 2. During storms the rain runs off impervious surfaces and can cause downstream flooding. 3. Heavy land grading washes loose sediment into nearby waterways, destroying aquatic habitats and turning private drinki…

All of this applies to all construction of all types. There are already plenty of environmental regulations around buildings and their construction. Maybe these aren't being enforced, maybe the laws need to be stricter. I'm not an expert but it sounds plausible. But if that's the case, we have to fix those problems otherwise you're just playing whack-a-mole with development. When you specifically focus on datacenters and stopping datacenters it gives away that environmentalism is just a fig leaf for your actual goals.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#119

Post by no-name-here »

leonidasrup wrote: post #54
no-name-here wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It typically takes 11-12 years for a nuclear plant to get built including planning and construction [1]. Is the idea that we'd build the data centers now, and finish the nuclear plants to power them 11-12 years from now? https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-timeline-of-a-nu...

For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years. An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years. https://jmhpower.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-wind-t...

Adding to the sibling comment, from your link:

* The longest piece for wind is "Approvals and permits" which takes up to 5 years of the 4-7y.

* The building part "takes approximately 3-6 months" for building wind.

So wind can be built far faster if we're willing to speed up approvals and permitting. And even if corners are cut for approvals/permitting, the worst case for a wind turbine failure is a lot better than a nuclear failure.

Re: 'People are going to get screwed' Pennsylvania voters unite against data centres

#120

Post by jamesmaniscalco »

bpodgursky wrote: post #87
cmiles8 wrote: post #84

You tell everyone AI is going to put them out of a job and then you’re surprised when working class communities say “no, please leave” when folks want to build a data center in their back yard. There are times when Silicon Valley looks out of touch and there are times when Silicon Valley just looks like idiots with hubris. This is more the later.

There are many surveys which make it clear, this is not the reason. They are straightforwardly (right or wrong) protesting the physical installations, their water and electricity use, and other hard-to-quantify vibes like radiation and noise (similar to 5g protests). They know very little about the job market impact of AI, and are mostly retired so they don't care anyway.

“Mostly retired” is a red herring. Protests of all kinds are always full of retirees. They can speak up for the community while the rest of us have to go to work.
Post reply on HN