Amazon Says Its Data Centers Use 2.5B Gallons of Water

MrWiffles

https://archive.ph/47ra0 Edit: seems even this is just the summary first two paragraphs.

himata4113

Roughly 736* of US households assuming it's 2.5B per year, 100 gal per person. I can't read the article because I got what it feels like 17 popups that nearly gave me epilepsy. edit: corrected to 736, its per year.

Aurornis

2.5 billion gallons per year. The US uses about 2 billion gallons of water per day on golf courses.

tekne

It's not in the title, but this is 2.5 billion gallons per year . For context, the city of London uses about 2.6 billion liters, or about 680 million gallons, per day. So that's about four days of London water usage per year, give or take -- or just over 1% of London's water usage.

rafram

> 2.5 billion gallons of water worldwide last year, or about 5% of the amount metro Seattle consumes annually That doesn't seem like that much, really. The Seattle metro area isn't huge; that consumption is only 0.7% of New York's, and Amazon runs the largest network of data centers in the world.

hyperhello

What is it for data centers to use water, precisely? To take cool water in and run it through pipes to produce warm water, then send it to rivers?

ElijahLynn

I'd like to see that compared to Total us water consumption for animal agriculture.

whimsicalism

i find the climate/environment concern around AI so clearly performative and poorly calibrated that it actively angers me. moral panics are weird

postalrat

If measured the same way the sun uses about as much water as 60,000,000 large data centers.

adjejmxbdjdn

The entire environmental argument against data centers is largely bullshit. Sure, they shouldn’t be powered by gas or coal. And the local effects are significant. But the macro environmental effects are minor and the local effects can be resolved with the most trivial regulations.

bensyverson

I spoke to someone who owns data centers recently. He said that in hot climates, they run closed-loop to preserve water, so the actual water use is virtually nothing. In Chicago (where we have no water shortage), they consume water—but it just evaporates and re-enters the water cycle.

jawns

I am curious about the energy/expense of getting water that has been "consumed" by data centers ready for other use (e.g. drinking water), versus the energy/expense of getting water that has been "consumed" by residential users ready for the same use. To my understanding, the only thing that changes when water is used for data centers is its temperature. That's a lot different than residential use, where it's used in toilets and needs to undergo significant wastewater treatment to be cleaned enough to be re-used. So how do we compare apples to oranges for these very different use cases? Update: It appears my assumption about the only thing changing in the data center case is temperature. For much of that water, a phase change occurs (evaporative cooling), so it is no longer accessible to be recycled.

scrumper

This water usage argument against data centers is so specious I almost think it's spread as a deliberate talking point by DC proponents. Power consumption and effect on electricity infrastructure is so, so, so much more consequential and dangerous. It alone is way more than enough on which to base a very solid anti-DC campaign. The water argument weakens the whole anti-DC position by being so refutable. EDIT: with probable exceptions in specific local instances where water supply is already very constrained, like Utah.

morpheos137

the water cycle exists. unless data centers are being built in deserts or run off fossil aquifers the or other water constrained circumstance the waste is supurious. As other commenters have said closed loop cooling exists. Billions of motor vehicles run on water based cooling and consume virtually nothing once filled.

ksec

IF a DC does evaporative cooling, which is said to be the cheaper option, I wonder by what percentage compared to close loop cooling.

AmazingTurtle

I was wondering "use" means here, as-in.. does it not recirculate? And apparently the answer seems to be: it's circulated/vaporized into the air. It may fall down as rain somewhere else, not necessarily in the local area where the water was withdrawn from, effectively draining the water from the local area at least. Also, I was wondering, what does 2.5B gallons of water equate to? Here's the answer for curious minds: > Using EPA’s cited 82 gallons per person per day figure, 2.5B gallons/year equals the annual household water use of about 83,500 people. I did some further math... If 1bn users world wide leverage AWS services in their daily routine (netflix, whatever, ...), the formula becomes this one: 2.5B gallons/year ÷ 1B users = 2.5 gallons/user/year > Compared with the EPA-style U.S. household benchmark we used earlier of about 82 gallons/person/day, that would be: > > 0.00685 ÷ 82 ≈ 0.0084% So the AWS data centers make up roughly an additional 0.01% of daily water usage. Why is this worth a bloomberg article?

1vuio0pswjnm7

Defensive HN replies about "AI" water use seem more incriminating than the title or even the contents of this article There is nothing to indicate 2.5B is too much, too little or just right. This is just reporting data. But HN replies are extraordinarily defensive. Why The replies are reminiscent of those in threads under submissions reporting facts about "crypto" not too long ago, before SBF went to prison and the crypto hype subsided

endymi0n

The whole use of the word “use” throws me off. It’s not like the water just disappears. It’s still very much there, just… well, yep, what exactly? Dirtier? Evaporated? Warmer? We’re drinking water every day from the tap that has previously been “used” as fish pee, nuclear plant cooling water and sawmill fuel. I’m not too dead yet and I think it would be great to get a more scientific discussion from public media.

josefritzishere

This presents an existential threat to the survival of the human species.