▲ 421 ▼ A.I. tools fueled a 34% spike in Microsoft’s water consumption, and one city with its data centers is concerned about the effect on residential supply (fortune.com) submitted 2 years ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world 53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 136 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) I live here and people are getting priority over AI? Iowa isn't like many states where there is water scarcity. This cooling water isn't even being consumed. It's used for cooling and returned to the waste water system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Pretty much, unfortunately. Nobody wants to talk about all the wind energy used to run these data centers either, because that won't generate any outrage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago We live in a society permalink fedilink source parent [–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) That would be considered consumed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really. At least not in the sense that it's a net loss of water downstream. It's not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is removed from the system. It's not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent [–] stigmata@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago At Meta we have a massive system for cutting out our net effect on water for the local area. I'm in NM and the DC here is almost actually adding to the water. I can't imagine Microsoft would behind as to not do this. It's an open design. permalink fedilink source parent [+] hglman@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The water isn't dirty. It's warm. It would use even more energy to cool it. It's a lose-lose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] else@lemdro.id -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Warm water is the waste product because it's easier dump the water than to cool the water. Returning the warm water to a usable state is much more expensive at scale. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zima@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don't have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn't get that hot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) I live here and people are getting priority over AI? Iowa isn't like many states where there is water scarcity. This cooling water isn't even being consumed. It's used for cooling and returned to the waste water system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Pretty much, unfortunately. Nobody wants to talk about all the wind energy used to run these data centers either, because that won't generate any outrage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago We live in a society permalink fedilink source parent [–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) That would be considered consumed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really. At least not in the sense that it's a net loss of water downstream. It's not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is removed from the system. It's not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Pretty much, unfortunately. Nobody wants to talk about all the wind energy used to run these data centers either, because that won't generate any outrage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago We live in a society permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Pretty much, unfortunately. Nobody wants to talk about all the wind energy used to run these data centers either, because that won't generate any outrage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) That would be considered consumed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really. At least not in the sense that it's a net loss of water downstream. It's not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is removed from the system. It's not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really. At least not in the sense that it's a net loss of water downstream. It's not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is removed from the system. It's not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is removed from the system. It's not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stigmata@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago At Meta we have a massive system for cutting out our net effect on water for the local area. I'm in NM and the DC here is almost actually adding to the water. I can't imagine Microsoft would behind as to not do this. It's an open design. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] hglman@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The water isn't dirty. It's warm. It would use even more energy to cool it. It's a lose-lose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] else@lemdro.id -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Warm water is the waste product because it's easier dump the water than to cool the water. Returning the warm water to a usable state is much more expensive at scale. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zima@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don't have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn't get that hot. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] else@lemdro.id -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Warm water is the waste product because it's easier dump the water than to cool the water. Returning the warm water to a usable state is much more expensive at scale. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zima@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don't have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn't get that hot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] else@lemdro.id -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Warm water is the waste product because it's easier dump the water than to cool the water. Returning the warm water to a usable state is much more expensive at scale. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zima@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don't have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn't get that hot. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bob_wiley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zima@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don't have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn't get that hot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zima@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don't have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn't get that hot. permalink fedilink source parent