A data center like Meta’s, which was completed last year, typically guzzles around 500,000 gallons of water a day. New data centers built to train more powerful A.I. are set to be even thirstier, requiring millions of gallons of water a day
Option B is an open-loop system where you run a million gallons of water through exchangers, heat it up, then dump the hot water and find a way to get a new million gallons of water from the local municipality.
Option B is cheaper, so they do that. Higher water prices would change that equation, but that's not what we have now, and it's hard to pitch an Option A project if anyone else is willing to offer rates that make Option B work. The Prisoner's Dilemma strikes again.
That is only ~2,000 m^3/day (~2 acre*foot/day). Even if they exclusively used the most expensive source of water, seawater desalination, that would only be ~800 $/day.
Your average almond tree uses 3-4 acre*foot per year [1]. So the yearly water consumption of the data center is ~200 almond trees. Your average almond tree produces ~50-60 pounds per year [2] and ~4500 pounds per hectare (2.5 acres), so that is the water consumption of a tiny 5 acre almond farm producing ~10,000 pounds of almonds per year.
The internet indicates the wholesale price of almonds is ~2 $/pound, so you can either have a data center or 20,000 $ worth of almonds.
[1] https://www.c-win.org/cwin-water-blog/2022/7/11/california-a...
[2] https://wikifarmer.com/library/en/article/almond-tree-harves...
</SCNR>3-4 acre*foot per year per acre of almonds results in the data center consuming ~200 acres of almond. ~4500 pounds per hectare results in ~1800 pounds per acre. So, that would produce about 360,000 pounds of almonds or ~720,000 $ worth of almonds.
That is certainly vastly less economically productive per unit of water consumed compared to a 750,000,000 $ data center which probably has a expected payback period of 10-20 years or about 37,500,000-75,000,000 $ of produced value per year.
I guess the theory here is that the amount of water being cycled is stirring up sediment somehow? But if that’s the theory they don’t really say that or talk to anyone who says why or how that’s happening. Is the consumed water being returned to the aquifer somehow and churning up sediment with a lot of added turbulence? Is the volume being consumed creating some sort of suction effect that’s pulling sediment up? Was this project one of the ones that required “dewatering” as described in the article? Is the theory that is the thing that caused the problem and if so, does that mean the approving process for that needs an overhaul?
Not to say there aren’t issues to be addressed here, but the big “gallons of water” number seems to be tossed around a lot in these discussions with no quantification about what that actually means. The solution to the problem is different if that means gallons of water being pulled from the ecosystem entirely , or if it means gallons of water being heated and having effects on the ecosystem, or it means gallons of water burning through processing and treatment plant resources faster.
Small changes can make a big difference, I had to replace my submersed well pump, and even though it should be at the same depth as the old one, I still get a lot more sediment, even years later.
I'll say that it's pretty shocking that a data center was built so close to at least one home. I'd expect there to be more of a buffer between industrial and residential, especially in such a low density setting.
I think this is something I find immensely frustrating with the NYT and major media these days. Even the most basic sort of follow up questions never seem to be asked by their reporters. We're told "500,000 gallons of water" can be consumed, but noticeably lacking is any information about whether or not this particular data center consumers that much water. We're told that they use "about 10%" of the county's daily use. But we're also told that a pending request for 6 million gallons is "more than the county's entire daily use". So for ease of numbers let's say that the county's entire daily use then is a nice round 5 million gallons. That would indeed put the data center usage at 500,000, but if that's the true number, why not say that? Also the article starts by telling us that "Months after construction began in 2018" their well problems started, but the end of the article tells us that Meta bulldozed the forest by their house in 2019, and that their troubles started after that. The article also says that while construction began in 2018, the facility wasn't finished until last year. Even if the facility is consuming 500,000 gallons of water a day today, there's no possible way it was dong that "months" after construction started if construction only finished last year.
Also, if Google satellite imagery is to be believed, the part of the property that Meta built on near their home only just started getting cleared in 2019, and was still just clear cut land and dirt roads in April of 2021. Buildings started going in sometime between that time and February 2023. In late 2019 when they were already replacing appliances, the nearest heavy construction on the data center property was a half a mile from their property.
Of interest is that in that same area, just south of the new data center is also a brand new (as of 2022) water reclamation facility. A facility on which construction started in 2020, but for which there was already an existing pumping station and plans for work there had been in the works since around 2005. (https://www.covnews.com/news/new-newton-water-reclamation-fa...). Again if google satellite imagery is to be believed, work on that pumping station looks like it started in 2013 sometime, and ground breaking and clearing for the new expanded facility also started in 2019. Did that cause problems with the ground water? It seems like it treats water and discharges out into the river basin so maybe not? But also seems like the sort of thing a reporter might want to follow up on.
None of this is to dismiss the very real problem these people are facing, but at the same time, this reporting is frustratingly vague about both A) what the actual timeline of events and proposed mechanism of action is and B) any external evaluation of those claims and examination into other possible causes.
> I'll say that it's pretty shocking that a data center was built so close to at least one home. I'd expect there to be more of a buffer between industrial and residential, especially in such a low density setting.
This actually got me wondering, is a data center considered "industrial" for zoning purposes?
I would think highly likely. Most housing developments are going to be wood framed buildings, maybe a couple heavy trucks. Otoh, a datacenter is going to be a lot of concrete, probably a bunch of HVAC on the roof, brought in with a crane. Maybe more digging because you probably want to put fuel storage in the ground; otoh, housing development where there's people on wells is likely to have digging for placing septic tanks.
> This actually got me wondering, is a data center considered "industrial" for zoning purposes?
Some municipalities have specific zoning for data centers, but I think it would generally fall under light industrial or warehouse zoning otherwise. Data centers can also fit in commercial, but it's not a great fit.
Keep reading. The article details that this is a problem for entire cities, not just the one home introduced at the beginning of the article.
There are also heat exchanges that mist water over the air it pulls in to lower the air temperature. Data centers use these all the time.
Look into adiabatic cooling.
For something truly shocking look into "once through cooling". It's being/been phased out but is a disgusting waste of water.
Yes AI is wasteful, but if they couldn't get water they wouldn't build there.
acaloiar•6mo ago