Regarding water usage, in general data centers do not use more water than other types of heavy manufacturing
> The Georgia data center is only using ~2% of the county’s water. For comparison, a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant is using ~4% of the county’s water. A construction plant for Rivian cars is using about the same amount of water as Meta’s data center. The data center is functioning like any other normal industry in the county.
Regarding data centers increasing ambient temp, the paper is simply measuring the surface temperature of the buildings, going against the claim that a data center, merely by its presence in a community, raises the ambient temperature by a few degrees or more
>Regarding water usage, in general data centers do not use more water than other types of heavy manufacturing
Are the claims really that "Data centers use more water than other types of heavy manufacturing"? I dont think so.
Even if thats true, that doesn't mean they cant have a disastrous effect on the local water supply. This isnt a good rebuttal.
Frankly I tend to think the anti-datacenter crowd is overreacting. But I don't think you've addressed the real criticisms being levied.
In some passing research I saw the datacenters do continuously consume water (its not a one time cost like some claims I've read). And smaller size ones may use water equivalent to around 1000 households, and larger ones may consume closer to the equivalent of around 20,000 households. Evidently the massive one in Utah will at least double the state's entire consumption of water.
Can all of these places handle it?
I dont know. But that's the question, not if other types of heavy manufacturing have higher demands. And frankly it's inevitable that at least some locations cannot handle it. Which doens't mean you should be anti-datacenter in general. It means you can't just blanket dismiss the water concern for all locations.
Data centers do use water, and a lot of it, but the claims being made are hyperbolic and not squared with reality.
One criticism I often see is that data centers somehow pollute the local water supply. Data centers use water in a closed loop, their impact on local water quality is negligible. Industrial manufacturing and even agriculture have a far greater deleterious effect.
> The EPA’s national assessments repeatedly identify agriculture as the leading source of impairment for rivers and streams due to nutrient and sediment runoff, with continued nitrogen and phosphorus problems that affect drinking water and coastal ecosystems.
The thing is, AI data centers bring in far more tax revenue than other water-guzzling domains (like golf courses), but use less water overall. Extreme panic over specifically their water use is disproportionate
> How much of this will be AI? Almost all this growth will be driven by AI, but because AI is only 20% of data center power use, its growth will have to be huge to triple total power usage. One forecast says AI energy use in America will be multiplied by 10 by 2030. Because water use is proportionate to energy use, we can multiply AI’s water use by 10 as well.
> So in 2030, AI in data centers specifically will be using 0.08% of America’s freshwater. This means it will rise to the level of 5% of America’s current water used on golf courses, or 5% of U.S. steel production, or be about 173 square miles of irrigated corn farms.
> The average American’s consumptive lifestyle freshwater footprint is 422 gallons per day. This means that in 2023, AI data centers used as much water as the lifestyles of 25,000 Americans, 0.007% of the population. By 2030, they might use as much as the lifestyles of 250,000 Americans, 0.07% of the population. Not nothing, but 250,000 people over 5 years is just 4% of America’s current rate of population growth. If you found out that immigration plus new births in America would increase by 4% of its current rate, would you first thought be “We can’t afford that, it’s way too much water”?
> This means that in 2023, AI data centers used as much water as the lifestyles of 25,000 Americans, 0.007% of the population. By 2030, they might use as much as the lifestyles of 250,000 Americans, 0.07% of the population.
A 10x increase in AI data center buildout between 2023 and 2030 seems unlikely, given the large number of AI data centers either in progress, or in the planning stages.
"Closed loop" doesn't mean no net water use after filling. There are leaks, and the water in the system needs to be processed for reuse, and that processing needs clean water.
Even if there is no next water use, "closed loop" refers to cooling the data center proper, and excludes the water for the (primarily) thermoelectric power plants which power those data centers - a power load which is higher due to using closed loop cooling instead of evaporative cooling.
Given that many of these are the same companies which once promised net-zero CO2 emissions by 2030, you'll excuse me if I insist on full information about the total environmental impact and tearing up all of the NDAs they require from local governments.
How many liters per kilowatt-hour does each site use? How much CO2, NOx, and particulates are produced? What are the power sources? Why are EPA waivers needed and appropriate?
This should ideally include the supply chain - those GPUs need a lot of very pure water, and 83.2% of Taiwan's power and almost 60% of South Korea's comes from fossil fuels.
> their impact on local water quality is negligible.
So there should be absolutely no issues in publishing all this information, right?
> far more tax revenue than other water-guzzling domains (like golf courses),
Which people already complain about because they use too much water, and often exist only because rich people got special arrangements. For some examples of the antipathy for the Santa Fe Country Club and golf courses in general, see https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaFe/comments/w9g4ak/the_city_of... .
But even the Santa Fe Country Club case highlights how tax revenue is only part of the total economic benefit. For example, they were allotted 700,000 gallons of treated effluent per day, in exchange for public golf access with reasonable fees. While data centers typically used treated water, not treated effluent, and don't allow public access or activities.
For that matter, local birders visit the municipal course, Marty Sanchez Links, to see the birds using the water features and irrigation pond. Not a benefit a data center will offer.
From what I hear, surrounding residential prices go up around a golf course, and down around a data center, so looking at just a single entity's tax revenue isn't enough. To say nothing of the special tax deals the data centers insist on.
Under NDA, of course, which should be illegal for this sort of issue.
> AI in data centers specifically will be using 0.08% of America’s freshwater
Since you think these centers can be sited anywhere, why are these data centers being put in water constrained places like Utah, rather than water rich places like Michigan?
> The average American’s consumptive lifestyle freshwater footprint is 422 gallons per day.
Sante Feans use under 100 gallons per capita per day.
If you think the average American use is relevant, then put the data centers some place where there's water.
> If you found out that immigration plus new births in America would increase by 4% of its current rate, would you first thought be “We can’t afford that, it’s way too much water”?
Water use per capita has been decreasing over time due in part to mandated water-efficient fixtures and appliances, but also (at least in New Mexico) to changing practices like allowing xeriscaping in places which once mandated lawns, rain barrel and cistern rebates, mandated toilet retrofits, and water use awareness programs.
>One criticism I often see is that data centers somehow pollute the local water supply.
Yes, I think this one is completely misinformed. For example AOC held up some dirty water from a local resident's tap. Fine, that's bad. But it was a result of digging during the construction process and the fact that it was a data center was irrelevant. And the implication that it permanently ruined local's water supply was just wrong.
>The thing is, AI data centers bring in far more tax revenue than other water-guzzling domains (like golf courses), but use less water overall. Extreme panic over specifically their water use is disproportionate
I guess that's not surprising to hear. A lot of people against data centers are probably also against golf courses though. I think AI is valuable but a lot of opponents see it as a net negative. Not saying they are right - this is definitely a point against the anti datacenter crowd. But it is consistent from their perspective so I dont think this point will persuade them. Would need to attack the claim that AI is a net negative.
> > The Georgia data center is only using ~2% of the county’s water. For comparison, a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant is using ~4% of the county’s water. A construction plant for Rivian cars is using about the same amount of water as Meta’s data center. The data center is functioning like any other normal industry in the county.
How much employment and localized value/tax revenue is created by the pharma plant compared to the data center to offset the environmental effect?
> The Georgia data center is only using ~2% of the county’s water. For comparison, a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant is using ~4% of the county’s water. A construction plant for Rivian cars is using about the same amount of water as Meta’s data center. The data center is functioning like any other normal industry in the county.
https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake
Regarding data centers increasing ambient temp, the paper is simply measuring the surface temperature of the buildings, going against the claim that a data center, merely by its presence in a community, raises the ambient temperature by a few degrees or more
https://andymasley.com/writing/data-centers-heat-exhaust-is-...
I know both sources are from the same guy, but he cites many primary sources in his articles