Thread

1. aliasxneo · 1791145670 · focus · HN ↗

   I lived in a smaller rural town near a Google datacenter. During my career there I had routinely come across some outlandish accusations made about our water/power usage from the locals. But for obvious reasons I could never dispute them. I remember we hired a local who'd grown up in the town and he was "really surprised" when he started to see what we were doing to remain efficient.

   The current data center craze just feels like the same thing but on a bigger scale.

   1. bix6 · 1791146583 · focus · HN ↗

      Ok and? This wouldn’t be an issue if google et al would just share the numbers instead of hiding behind NDAs and whatever else.

      1. fastball · 1791146906 · focus · HN ↗

         Are you sure? People think water for data centers is "consumed", like the output is sewage or something. Giving those people concrete numbers is not gonna change such misconceptions (and that's assuming they look at such numbers in reasonable relative terms in the first place).

         1. collingreen · 1791148130 · focus · HN ↗

            Seems easy enough to report multiple numbers and be clear on what water comes in (can even separate initial filling/construction from ongoing usage) vs what gets lost and what comes out as waste. I think people can understand this and it isn't a good enough reason to not share the numbers.

            1. TehCorwiz · 1791148857 · focus · HN ↗

               There are so many facets that numbers alone don't cover:

               Are they drawing from a flowing source or an aquifer? Is it depleting a limited resource?

               Is it evaporative or does the waste get discharged?

               Is the waste water treated for the metal that it leaches from the cooling system?

               Is it allowed to reach thermal equilibrium first or is the water discharged warm which can cause algae blooms or other problems?

         2. bix6 · 1791148259 · focus · HN ↗

            Fair point. But if I had initially learned that google was putting data centers in and it recycled water and it was a minor amount I would be more receptive than hearing that google is bullying communities and hiding details behind NDAs.
         3. Lanktion · 1791150332 · focus · HN ↗

            It is consumed because they evaporate it away and remove it from the local environment.

            They easily could build near heating system or cooling the water down in another probably big facility close by and send it to the city

            1. fastball · 1791151085 · focus · HN ↗

               Evaporated water stays in the water cycle though. It comes back down as rain, and returns to the water sources that were depleted (assuming these data centers are generally not using underground aquifers, which I think is true).

               1. phatfish · 1791154121 · focus · HN ↗

                  You can't control the water cycle over a datacenter and its water source, it is a global system.
               2. kube-system · 1791170304 · focus · HN ↗

                  The issue for most (well, at least those who are informed and not just bandwagoning) is that it raises the prices of utilities, in which case it doesn't really matter that it stays in the water cycle. If your local municipal water authority has to expand operations to keep up with demand, that is going to incur capital costs which will either raise rates or require tax dollars.

                  While this water usage might be not a big deal in places with abundant water, it could be problematic in some areas of the US.

            2. timschmidt · 1791156478 · focus · HN ↗

               > They easily could build near heating system or cooling the water down in another probably big facility close by and send it to the city

               Nope. While it's technically possible via natural gas fuel cells which are near 100% efficient in combined cycle electric / heat recovery use as compared to our city's existing ~35% efficient combined cycle natural gas fired steam turbine. And one such installation was proposed for this city in the 24MW range. Our beloved local citizens believed it, without reason and in open opposition to openly shared information to the contrary, to be a water guzzling/polluting, pollutant belching, energy consuming, mass surveillance enabling dystopian thing.

               Flushed $120M in local investment down the toilet and signed up for worse air quality from ageing inefficient infrastructure because a datacenter is a big faceless thing that's safe to hate.

         4. embedding-shape · 1791150524 · focus · HN ↗

            > Are you sure? People think water for data centers is "consumed", like the output is sewage or something.

            Right, isn't that what sharing the information is about to show, that it isn't consumed? Show how much water they're adding to the ecosystem, since I'm guessing they'd have numbers on that, if that's how it works.

         5. tzs · 1791150619 · focus · HN ↗

            The majority of current large data centers use open-loop evaporative water cooling which does in fact consume water.

            Most of the consumer water is evaporated but that leaves behind dissolved solids and minerals and so some of the water is used to clean that out. That water also often contains additives like biocides, anti-scale agents, and corrosion inhibitors.

            This water is discharged into the sewer system or to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.

            Here's an article on the various ways data centers can be cooled and what effect each has on water usage [1].

            [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fwpcoa.org&#x2F;content.aspx?page_id=5&amp;club_id=859275&amp;item_id=130961" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fwpcoa.org&#x2F;content.aspx?page_id=5&amp;club_id=859275...

      2. anigbrowl · 1791147121 · focus · HN ↗

         Not sure why this is being downvoted. If you noticeably distort the local economy then people are naturally going to want to know what resources you&#x27;re consuming.

         but trade secrets

         I think all data centers and other industrial concerns above a certain size should have to publish that.

         1. bluecheese452 · 1791148092 · focus · HN ↗

            You have some very motivated people with deep pockets who do not like negative press. Say anything negative and the downvotes will roll in.

            1. WarmWash · 1791148559 · focus · HN ↗

               Surely the people who have worked in tech, with datacenters or even in them for decades are wrong, and the people who learned the word &quot;datacenter&quot; 6 months ago are right.

               1. phatfish · 1791154322 · focus · HN ↗

                  Facts and experience mean nothing when everyone knows you are a liar.

                  1. WarmWash · 1791160305 · focus · HN ↗

                     Anti-vaxxers favorite line...
         2. WarmWash · 1791148167 · focus · HN ↗

            The irony is that it is unlikely datacenters would hit that &quot;above a certain size&quot;

            The hysteria always gives datacenter usage numbers in a vacuum, never a comparison, for good reason; we might have to start protesting golf courses and paper mills instead.

            1. jacquesm · 1791149006 · focus · HN ↗

               People do just that.
            2. pooploop64 · 1791154494 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

         3. bix6 · 1791148477 · focus · HN ↗

            Industrial use should never get to hide. It’s such impactful use so every aspect should be scrutinized.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.