That’s a lot.
yes, there probably aren't data centers in the Death Valley and Mojave. they're being built where water is cheap. water is cheap where it's abundant.
>That’s a lot.
an 1/400th water usage increase is not the catastrophe the public is being manipulated into believing.
If that 1 bucket is 1 of 2 available to you then it’s a huge issue with climate change increasing risk of draught and extreme weather events.
And cheap water is a very tiny factor in locating a data centre.
Certainly not all of them. Several AI data centers in my state have been built near small communities where water is scarce. Those communities believed the companies building them about how the water impact would be limited and wouldn't result in a serious impact.
That has turned out not to be the case. The water usage of these centers has been terrible and is increasing, and the cost of trying to find and develop alternate water sources (this means trucking water in) is being placed squarely on the shoulders of the community -- and these are small towns without a great deal of financial resources.
[citation needed]
There have already been stories about residents in some areas having to ration water due to drought, but the recently-built datacenters still guzzling water.
And, AIUI, the only reason they use up any water, rather than using a completely closed-loop system, is because it's cheaper that way.
common sense? businesses like making money and don't like spending money. why build glorified warehouses where it isn't economical to do so?
>And, AIUI, the only reason they use up any water, rather than using a completely closed-loop system, is because it's cheaper that way.
evaporative cooling takes way less power to operate.
"The data center can get water cheap" is not the same as "water is generally cheap in the area the data center is built."
"Water is cheap in the area" is not the same as "water is plentiful in the area."
You talk like you think economics in the real world works like "spherical-economy-in-a-frictionless-vacuum" Econ 101 terms. I assure you, it does not. There are lots and lots of exceptions.
> evaporative cooling takes way less power to operate.
So build the datacenter with a bunch of extra solar panels and batteries.
Or will that cut too deeply into the poor, starving billionaires' bonuses?
if a small town is worried about its local water supply because a large AI DC is being built next to it, it doesn't matter whether AI only consumes 0.25% of water usage in the USA (if that's even true), they will be negatively affected and they have a right to oppose it. your stats are offensive to them because you're basically telling them that they should bear the negative consequences so people can have ChatGPT. It's not like they should suffer so that we can cure cancer or something useful like that.
> dishonest atrocity propaganda campaign against it
If anyone's being dishonest, it's the AI companies.
We're supposed to be _significantly reducing_ our energy consumption to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences, and instead here we are _significantly increasing_ our energy use (and water use, for which we don't have a "renewable" solution), and for what? so you and I can code faster with CC/Codex? I feel like all these "it's not so bad" people have developed collective amnesia about the climate change crisis.
the legacy media is running an unapologetically dishonest atrocity propaganda campaign against it. just consider how much we hear about AI guzzling water, while in reality all US data centers account for 0.25% of US water usage and dedicated AI data centers account for a fraction of that. the rest of their arguments are similarly deceiving.
>In the US, it had an approval level comparable to Iran.
Iran had also been a target of atrocity propaganda campaign back in January when CIA and Mossad were preparing the American public for the imminent war.