Thread

1. tptacek · 1791145040 · focus · HN ↗

   So, basically, not a meaningful amount of water at all. Credit to the story authors for taking the time to frame what 13MM gallons actually works out to.

   1. demibabs · 1791145540 · focus · HN ↗

      “Fireball Group LLC, the Google Data Center in Papillion… reports 547.88 megagallons for their 2025 Annual Water Consumption”.

      I think the 13M is referring to “during peak times”, whatever that means.

      1. XMPPwocky · 1791145767 · focus · HN ↗

         It looks to me like there's two Google DCs with different LLCs?

         > However, using a computer cursor to highlight the redacted text box in the report to DWEE, then copying and pasting it into a separate document reveals that *Agate LLC* is reporting 52.65 megawatts of electricity during peak electrical demand and 13.299 megagallons of water between cooling towers, evaporative systems and site operations in the last year. That totals out to 13 million gallons of water.

         > For context, 13 million gallons is enough to fill around 20 Olympic-size swimming pools, and is less than half of what the City of Lincoln reports using on Sept. 29.

         > The *six* data centers reporting as of Sept. 30 show a total use of 765 million gallons of water last year, enough water to fill 1,159.93 Olympic-size swimming pools.

         > More improper redaction shows that the data center using the most water annually is *Fireball Group LLC*, the Google Data Center in Papillion. Fireball LLC reports 547.88 megagallons for their 2025 Annual Water Consumption.

         1. tptacek · 1791146051 · focus · HN ↗

            Even that 765 is like 0.04% of the water needed to irrigate Nebraska's ethanol corn crop alone. And ethanol is basically an agricultural proof-of-work function.

            1. bpodgursky · 1791154627 · focus · HN ↗

               Also even in the totally fake scenario where that water completely evaporates, it's just gonna rain on Iowa a bit more.

               1. rtpg · 1791158171 · focus · HN ↗

                  I guess it has to be said: it is not guaranteed that the water rains in the "right" spots for it to be useful freshwater again anymore. Dumb example: maybe the wind currents mean that the water simply comes back down downstream.

                  One shouldn't assume that evaporated water comes back into the system in the place you want it to. Water management orgs try to reduce loss from evaporation for a reason!

                  1. bpodgursky · 1791158743 · focus · HN ↗

                     OK sure but this is like defense in depth. It's a negligible amount of water, most of it doesn't evaporate, and most of what does rains somewhere it's useful anyway. The actual damage here is microscopic.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.