Live data from Hacker News

AI uses less water than the public thinks

californiawaterblog.com

341–350 of 425 posts

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#341

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…

Meat is optional.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#342

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…

> Instead, compare AI water usage to that of optional things in a city, such as car washes and water parks.

There's some irony here with my local situation (in Calgary, AB) where one of the main feeder mains is in critical disrepair - as a result there've been a couple major pipe failures, and a planned maintenance shutdown, each instance resulting in multi-week-long periods where the overall water treatment capacity of the city is greatly degraded.

Throughout it all, car washes have remained fully open, and the city has been reduced to begging people to keep their showers to 3 minutes and to not flush their toilets so much. (Lest the system gets under-pressurized, resulting in boil-water advisories and insufficient water for (sub)urban fire emergencies.)

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#343
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and those are regularly treated as sacred They indeed are treated as sacred, it's enshrined in the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. The big problem in the American West it that the model of property rights in water sources makes it very difficult as a technical matter to put a price on a specific claim and to adjudicate disputes, without triggering a cascade of pricing and rights dilemmas upstream and downstr…

Can you explain the issue from a more basic level for people who don’t know? what i’m imagining is that, like, an aquifer might connect over a very large area and every property owner in the area has the right to extract as much water as they want from it? Leading to a tragedy of the commons situation that states are unable to regulate for some reason?

Short answer: it's complicated. A somewhat longer answer: "Cadillac Desert". Marc Reisner. 1986.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#345
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In other words it's not the car and its energy use, but rather its occupants.

A Night at the Roxbury comes to mind. Except, way less cool.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the endgame of postmodernist and constructivist thinking that exalts narrative and story as the ground source of truth. In some ways what we are seeing is a return to religious and superstitious thinking where sufficient belief in a dogma or a pantheon is enough to reify those narratives into consensus reality. I suspect the mistake here is imagining a past era in which humanity formed "consensus reality" o…

> I suspect the mistake here is imagining a past era in which humanity formed "consensus reality" out of evidence and reason. It can certainly appear that way to us today due to some super-strong publication bias effects since the Enlightenment era. At least from the Newtonian perspective, reality definitely unfolds either one way or the other, and it's not a matter of opinion. > There has never been a prior time in…

> from the Newtonian perspective, reality definitely unfolds either one way or the other, and it's not a matter of opinion.

You won't hear me claim otherwise.

> This is definitionally Harari's naive view of information

That seems unlikely to me as I didn't say anything about "power" or "wisdom".

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#347

> 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…

> People have no reality of how cheaply priced industrial water is in this country. Driving between SF and LA, you see a gazillion signs from water leeches complaining that the government won't give them yet more nearly-free water. No, I don't want to go without fresh crops. But yes, I absolutely believe that, say, growing almonds in basically a desert should be a financially expensive operation, and if that makes th…

Yeah, there is ton of good farmland in the Northern US that has essentially free water because it rains enough to not need irrigation, but because desert water is sold for so cheap and can run year around, many more sustainable farms and land are sitting fallow and unused.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many gallons of water are you assuming are in that burger patty? Because, while cows do drink water that falls from the sky and lands on fields where it was going to land anyway, they also urinate most of it back out. Very little water that would have been used for any other purpose, or isn’t naturally returned to the water cycle, ends up being consumed in the production of the burger patty. To be clear I think y…

Cows drinking isn't the major pie anyways. Cow feeding on Alfalfa which has been grown and irrigated with huge amount of water is the problem.

That largely depends on where the alfalfa is grown. A lot of the alfalfa grown in deserts is shipped as combination ballast weight for leaving cargo ships and to feed foreign cows and not used for domestic cattle. While nobody around or east of the Great Lakes irrigates alfalfa and is essentially a free product requiring no pesticides and no fertilizer and even adds extra nitrogen fertilizer to the soil. It is just plant, cut, and bail and is otherwise basically a wonder crop for sustainable agriculture anywhere that gets rain once a month or more.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#349
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the issue is not systematically using a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds. We don't do this for gasoline (in most countries), even though it is also vital for life. And yet people can still drive, afford to eat food grown with fertilizers, use plastic, and so on. Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. But when they're not left alone…

> We don't do this for gasoline No, but commercial trucks use diesel, which carries about 25% higher taxes per gallon. And vehicle registration on semi-trailer trucks is significantly higher as well. They pay, on average, between $25,000 and $30,000 in taxes and fees each year. > Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. No, they aren't. They're ridiculously bad when you leave them alone because so…

"Someone captures the market" is the thing that happens when the government micromanages them. Laws that charge more per unit to high users aren't anti-trust laws. A farm doesn't have higher market share in food than Google has in a tech market just because it uses more water.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#350

I don’t really get the water concerns in datacenter cooling. Even if a lot of water was used for cooling with every prompt (which he argues against here, but, even if )… water “used up” by cooling just comes out a little hotter, right? Maybe evaporated. Then it’ll come back in the form of rain. This isn’t an industrial chemistry process that leaves some toxic waste in the water. Or an agricultural one that puts water…

For many places that could be the reality, however many data centers aren't pulling surface water for cooling even if it is available, they are pulling it from underground aquifers that can take hundreds of years or more to refill, but could be drained in just a few decades if enough water is pumped out. This is doubly problematic for desert climates that generally have even lower aquifer replenishment rates, with a few areas being questionable to draw from even using efficient underground irrigation lines growing human edible foods.
Post reply on HN