Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

Post by goda90 » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 4:06 AM UTC

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.

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Fri, Jun 12, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The comments in this thread are hilarioisly nonsensical All the way up to the top comment that refers to a "water usage argument" Whats the argument Its an article reporting Amazon's data center water usage. It does not express an opinion on that number. It discusses so-called "tech" companies' reluctance to release water usage numbers 2.5B gallons. Its a number not an argument Facts are not arguments Why the secrecy…