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

71–80 of 84 posts

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

#71

Post by whimsicalism »

danaris wrote: post #69
whimsicalism wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My comment was in reply to the self-built renewable bit at the very end.

In terms of water, I also think that water is severely underpriced for a scarce resource.

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

#72

Post by nevir »

matt-p wrote: post #57
nevir wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hook into industrial water supplies (usually not potable, unless the utility has no other option)

I would say that is the exception rather than the rule (potable is normal).

You can drink it, but the utilities don't rate it for that / guarantee (complete) treatment, IIRC.

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

#73

Post by jsbisviewtiful »

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…

> This water usage argument against data centers is so specious

Conditions for drought have been increasing across the US, including an increase in literal droughts. The ecosystem needs water to survive. We need to give a shit about our water supply. I live in a region that just had a public emergency declared due to drought and our area is upstream on the river that feeds many other states. If we have to watch our water consumption, those other states should be panicking. The power consumption is also a problem, but a lack of water is potentially worse, depending on the circumstances.

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

#74

Post by rich_sasha »

AmazingTurtle wrote: post #44

I was wondering "use" means here, as-in.. does it not recirculate? And apparently the answer seems to be: it's circulated/vaporized into the air. It may fall down as rain somewhere else, not necessarily in the local area where the water was withdrawn from, effectively draining the water from the local area at least. Also, I was wondering, what does 2.5B gallons of water equate to? Here's the answer for curious minds:…

> So the AWS data centers make up roughly an additional 0.01% of daily water usage.

I suppose this 1bn people are spread around the world, but the water use is extremely concentrated. The few sites of DC might cause real localised issues even if per-global-user number is small.

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

#75

Post by danaris »

whimsicalism wrote: post #71
danaris wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My comment was in reply to the self-built renewable bit at the very end. In terms of water, I also think that water is severely underpriced for a scarce resource.

The problem with trying to price it is that literally everyone needs it to live. Access to clean drinking water is, and must be, a human right.

We need to find a way to limit its use for profit, while still allowing actual humans who need it to get as much of it as they need.

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

#76

Post by myaccountonhn »

whimsicalism wrote: post #61
majorbugger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't be so sure, AI companies are working around the clock to make sure they're up there with the others.

Beef consumption wasn't a problem in the 70s either.

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

#77

Post by whimsicalism »

danaris wrote: post #75
whimsicalism wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was in reply to the self-built renewable bit at the very end. In terms of water, I also think that water is severely underpriced for a scarce resource.

The problem with trying to price it is that literally everyone needs it to live. Access to clean drinking water is, and must be, a human right. We need to find a way to limit its use for profit, while still allowing actual humans who need it to get as much of it as they need.

Ultimately 'profit' is the result of transitive dependencies on things people want fulfill what they are willing to pay for. But I agree that we should subsidize residential water and electricity usage. But the base price before subsidy should reflect the externalities.

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

#78

Post by jason_oster »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #66
chasebank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "wort…

Your argument is something along the lines of:

1. People dislike X, so a small amount of water being used for X is bad.

2. People like Y, so a large amount of water being used for Y is good.

You can't draw any conclusions from this, apart that people dislike some things and like other things.

The argument establishes no relation to water usage. That makes the argument against AI "an ethical one because of water usage" just a trope.

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

#79

Post by HDThoreaun »

danaris wrote: post #75
whimsicalism wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was in reply to the self-built renewable bit at the very end. In terms of water, I also think that water is severely underpriced for a scarce resource.

The problem with trying to price it is that literally everyone needs it to live. Access to clean drinking water is, and must be, a human right. We need to find a way to limit its use for profit, while still allowing actual humans who need it to get as much of it as they need.

Georgists have figured this out long ago. To make a regressive tax progressive all you need to do is turn the revenue gained from it into a flat per capita tax rebate. Also residential water use is tiny. Maybe your water bill goes up $400 a year but that doesnt matter when you get a $1000 rebate because most of the tax is paid by agriculture.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #66
chasebank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "wort…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN