Live data from Hacker News

Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

source-material.org

131–140 of 242 posts

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#131
post #19

This is incredibly meaningless reporting. Water use for all of AI is inconsequential compared to agriculture. In addition, water is almost never wasted, only moved around. Energy is the important input.

I agree that the anti-datacenter hype is not much different than anti-nuclear or anti-vaccine insanity, and uses the same tactics of deception and obfuscation. But there is definitely an impact to pulling too much water out of one place too fast, which must be ethically addressed when building datacenters. Beyond potential impacts to other local residents in terms of reduced access to local water or price increases t…

> We've seen the stories about increased sediment in local residents' water supply after a new datacenter moves in next door, but I'd like to share an example from my own city.

If you're talking about the New York Times Article "Their Water Taps Ran Dry When Meta Built Next Door" described in https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake , that NYT article was so misleading I'd call it basically a deliberate lie. The article was about a household that used well water and started having more problems with sediment in their well water when Meta started constructing a data center within a mile of them (that was not operating yet because it wasn't done being built yet). It's unclear if the construction of the data center was actually related to their sediment issues, and even if it was, the fact that it was a data center being constructed as opposed to some other type of large building was irrelevant.

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#132
> Amazon’s data centres were projected to use 7.7 billion gallons of water a year by 2030, according to the leaked strategy memo, which was circulated within the company in 2022.

From https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/total-wate...:

> Water use in the United States in 2015 was estimated to be about 322 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d), which was 9 percent less than in 2010.

It doesn't seem to be very much water at all.

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#133
post #40
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangential to the point, I think we should be careful about the almond talking point. Insofar as it is used for milk, almond milk uses almost half as much water as dairy milk, uses 1/18 the land and emits 1/5 the amount of carbon. As food, it is eaten in such a vanishingly small quantity compared to other water-hungry foods (meat) as to be insignificant. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/environmental-footprint-m...

“Almond milk” is not milk. You know what else is less carbon-intensive than milk? Candy corn. But that is also _not milk_, and so equally irrelevant!

I mean I'm drinking a coffee with almond milk right this second.. which coincidentally replaced the dairy milk

Candy corn in my coffee wouldn't taste anywhere near as good

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#134
post #11

Water use is a pretty close proxy for power use which is a pretty close proxy for how much computation is happening. I can totally see why a company wants to keep this info secret. Competitors would really like to know.

Yes if we squint really hard then this could be the reason. It could also be because it's a PR disaster.

Only because people are innumerate, though.

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we need beef protein? What's wrong with chicken or eggs or beans? And also, what? You'll die if you don't eat meat today? Because that's what "immediately" means. That's news to all the world's vegetarians.

Yeah people who eat beef are actually healthier than vegetarians.

The difference in life expectancy between the USA (where beef is heavily consumed) and India (where you may get lynched on suspicion of eating it) is 78.39 - 72 = 6.39 years at birth.

Most people attribute this difference to the GDP/capita ($89,600 vs. $12,132 PPP) or the number of doctors per capita (36.082 vs. 7.265 per 10k), not the diet.

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#136
post #68
post #19

This is incredibly meaningless reporting. Water use for all of AI is inconsequential compared to agriculture. In addition, water is almost never wasted, only moved around. Energy is the important input.

> In addition, water is almost never wasted, only moved around. You can literally day the same thing about energy. Electricity is never wasted, its just different afterwards. Water use absolutely does matter, because „being moved around“ in the quantities we do, is far from trivial. Its also different than agriculture. Agriculture still has a somewhat closed local water cycle while the water used for evaporative cool…

You have to know this isn't a valid comparison. When people say the water isn't lost to cooling, they literally mean the water ends up back in the water table --- on a human time scale. When you burn fuel to generate electricity, you don't get the fuel back.

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#137
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why, but the fact that a "pro-almond group" exists chuckled me up.

There is corruption for everything money touches... I actually wonder if there is not single moderately sized industry that does not have some interest group...

This sounds a bit sensationalized, and I'm not sure if it's the source from which I originally learned of the issue, but:

>In a series of secret meetings in 1994, the Resnicks seized control of California’s public water supply. Now they’ve built a business empire by selling it back to working people.

https://perfectunion.us/how-this-billionaire-couple-stole-ca...

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#138
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is corruption for everything money touches... I actually wonder if there is not single moderately sized industry that does not have some interest group...

Industry advocacy groups ≠ corruption. They're basically necessary to do business in an advanced society that has rules governing every aspect of life. Those rules (even if good) often have unintended consequences and advocacy groups can help ensure that their industries are considered when rule-making.

Lobbying as practiced by these advocacy groups is basically American flavored corruption. If the system were in place anywhere else we’d call it corruption, but it’s our system so we call it Lobbying.

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least that is generally the case for calculating the ecological footprint of a person. I am critical of this metric though, since the water isn't really lost in many cases. Especially if datacenters use water never meant for consumption. If you look at it as a power generation problem it become much more plastic. That is of course as long as the water doesn't get expended in regions that lack it. Although if you w…

I generally find criticism of water waste misplaced. Water’s lifecycle is cyclic. The water isn’t lost unless it is being salted or otherwise poisoned. The real waste is the energy required to produce, clean, and transport the water that is being “wasted.”

aquifers deplete, the water table lowers, wells dry up

sustainability, availability and maximum marginal price matters, just as with electric power generation

Re: Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And cheaper cow production, focused on grain-feeding, uses even more water than grass feeding; after spending a month in Switzerland, it's wild to see how addicted we Americans are to cheap beef.

"It's wild to see how Americans are able to procure an extremely high quality protein source inexpensively"

without paying now for the externalities of its production
Post reply on HN