| > Data centers use water in a closed loop "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. Or see this projection for Utah, at https://lpputah.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Water-Use-Why... . Population go up. Per capital water use go down. No problem. Data center go up with nothing else going down? Problem. How much water will the Utah data centers use? You don't know. |