|
> Others are clearly exaggerating or making mistakes. I'd be interested to hear a specific example, so I can get a sense for what you mean. > But he jumps from that to the incorrect conclusion that “data centers don’t use water”. He doesn't ignore the amount they are using, though — he goes to great lengths to contextualize how much water that actually is, compared to other industries (at a national scale) and other industries and recreational things (like golf courses and water parks and so on) at the local scale, specifically to point out that "25B gallons is actually still quite small in the big picture," as you yourself say — and yes, the water usage is growing "fast," but I don't know that anyone's actually quantified that growth rate, and it's still small in comparison to plenty of other industries that also grow year over year, and I neither he nor I think it'll continue to grow forever (AI bubble and all that). > And in the local regions where these data centers are built that can be a huge strain on the water supply. He explicitly deals with this, and as far as I can tell he's also right here, that there isn't a meaningful strain on most local water supplies either, as a fraction of total water production or in comparison to other industries those places also choose to host that are water intensive, despite being in arid climates, like the aforementioned golf courses, water parks, and other more industrial things. He goes through all the specific news headlines that claim that the water thing is a serious issue, and show that either they're talking about something different (like data center construction temporarily dirtying well water in nearby houses) or just pointing out that data centers "use water" and are also in arid areas, as if that's self-evidently bad, when other water using industries are already there and it isn't a big issue. If you could point me to sources that he missed that disprove this, I'd be open to it for sure — I'm open to being wrong, and not committed to absolutely defending the honor of a guy I've never met on the internet against all odds. But I'm not personally aware of any contradictory evidence. I've been linked to a few reports from various foundations before, but they always are referencing numbers from other reports that link to other reports that, if you follow the whole process to the end, bottoms out in random news articles with unsubstantiated numbers that don't line up with what any actual math or other reports say. > So I would say Masley is biased in his reporting, and should be read critically. I read everything very critically, especially when it seems "too good to be true," like a lot of the stuff he says, but I might've missed something? |