31–40 of 87 posts
This article makes several disingenuous statements to paint an entirely false, emotion provoking narrative. First: Google is not "consuming" water any more than a water wheel or dam turbine "consumes" water as it passes by in a river. This is an objectively absurd framing. Second: Even if the water were consumed, which it isn't, 25% of a town of 16k is not a significant amount of consumption. Third: This article talk…
[deleted]
I understand Google is a major employer in the area, but the city acting like Google's minion seems wrong.
I mean so what they just pump it through and send it back to the river probably cleaner then it originally was. What’s the problem? The water is not being wasted
The heat has to go somewhere. If it’s going into the river that’s very bad ecologically. They don’t address this in the article though.
It's actually a bit of a problem now that the power plants are starting to shut down.
Delete your Gmail and save the planet!
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't even consume it. It sounds like they're measuring water passing through the facility as "use" -- possibly including for electrical generation. Imagine if people complained that the hoover dam used 100% of the Colorado river to power Las Vegas? In reality it uses 0%.
Every drop that evaporates from the reservoir, that would not have from the naked river, is consumed. Every drop pumped out of the reservoir to irrigate desert farms, that could not have been without the dam, is consumed.
Where does the water go after being used for cooling?
It evaporates, the heat is used to evaporate the water.
Seems like a waste of chlorine & flouride. Why Dalles & not say Hood River 24 mi downriver?
Local resident here: there's a hydroelectric facility that provides a lot of the power for the data centers in The Dalles. More generally, land is more plentiful and cheaper there than in Hood River.
This article makes several disingenuous statements to paint an entirely false, emotion provoking narrative. First: Google is not "consuming" water any more than a water wheel or dam turbine "consumes" water as it passes by in a river. This is an objectively absurd framing. Second: Even if the water were consumed, which it isn't, 25% of a town of 16k is not a significant amount of consumption. Third: This article talk…
"Water vapor rises above the cooling towers in The Dalles data center in Oregon. These plumes of water vapor create a quiet mist at dusk." https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/the-dalle... They are using evaporative cooling so the water isn't flowing downstream or going back into an aquifer or whatever. How is that not consumption?
Seems like a waste of chlorine & flouride. Why Dalles & not say Hood River 24 mi downriver?
Local resident here: there's a hydroelectric facility that provides a lot of the power for the data centers in The Dalles. More generally, land is more plentiful and cheaper there than in Hood River.