> 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 cooling is basically gone locally.
It matters a whole lot for where you are. If you‘d do evaporative cooling with salt water from the ocean, nobody would bat an eye. The problem is that it is done with fresh water, which is becoming increasingly scarce in an increasing number of regions around the world.
In an increasing number of regions, yes, but not where AWS data centers are located. People are not dying of thirst because of us-east-1. The one has nothing to do with the other.
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.
> In addition, water is almost never wasted, only moved around.
Technically yes, vapor goes to the atmosphere etc. But in certain areas, data centers are effectively removing water that was previously used for farming.
It should be inconsequential. Sometimes it isn't. If you're pumping water from an aquifer in the desert for evaporative cooling, that's highly consequential.
Unfortunately, media sound bites can't distinguish meaningless water usage from meaningful usage.
You might have a point if it was wheat for human consumption vs datcenter, but those aren't the water hogging plants, which are stuff like almonds, alfalfa (for export)[1]. Comparing those instead, it's unclear whether those are "more important and more beneficial to humanity" than AI, which also genuinely provides utility to people (as evidenced by its popularity).
Honestly, it's hard to tell. Humanity benefits a lot from the massively complex set of technologies that require the existence of big data centers. Including agricultural production itself.
The water usage for these new numbers of power consumption, in the GW range, is thousands of tonnes per day (if my maths is right haha). It's a HUGE amount of water.
Both in terms the amount of food we grow and the types of food we choose to produce we are way past the necessity of feeding ourselves and firmly in the territory of producing luxury goods that harm both ourselves and our environment. It's not as different as it seems at first glance
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 to meet demand, there is also the danger of disturbing the local environment and reducing the quality of local water.
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.
Our city is known for its soft water. It's one of the only nice things about the city. Well, we have a local Exxon plant that sits right on top of the highest point in our water table. For oil refinement, the purer the water, the better.
For decades, the vacuum created by this plant's continuous suction has created fault lines that have been leeching increasing amounts of sediment and salt water into our water table, ruining the drinking water and in some cases making it entirely undrinkable.
"In Louisiana, industry uses more groundwater than in any other state except California, according to the US Geological Survey. For decades, industrial users have been able to pump water out of Baton Rouge’s aquifer effectively without limitations – no withdrawal caps on individual wells and no metering requirement"
When you try to push against them and raise awareness, you get discredited or sued. They are dedicated to protecting their unfettered access to our clean drinking water through whatever means necessary. I do not for a moment think Amazon any different. They are an ethically bankrupt company.
> 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.
Yes, the materials I have seen have not convinced me, either.
That's why I thought to offer an example from my own backyard that I can verify myself, and has a much clearer story and is also in a non-datacenter industry as to avoid hype and focus on the importance of reasonable water usage restrictions.
Useage is one issue and should be monitored, but I think you have to understand that in some cases the tech company purchases the water supply and towns become dependant or placed at will of the tech company's interest. On top of that, there is a cost increase to utilities even if the water is moving around a closed loop.
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 cooling is basically gone locally.
It matters a whole lot for where you are. If you‘d do evaporative cooling with salt water from the ocean, nobody would bat an eye. The problem is that it is done with fresh water, which is becoming increasingly scarce in an increasing number of regions around the world.