> When I hear reports that AI power demand is overloading electricity infrastructure ...
It feels like dog-whistle tactics. "Aren't the technology companies bad for the environment!" "What about the water usage?" "What about the electricity?"
For me the peak of this is complaining about water consumption at the Dalles datacentre [0]. The buildings are next to the Colombia river and a few miles away from the Dalles Dam [1] which generates an average of 700MW. The river water should be used for cooling, taking out some of the water, warming it up by a few degrees and returning it to the river; one might argue that this is simply returning the heat to the river that would have come from the water flowing downhill.
What's the dog whistle? People are concerned about the impact industry has on the environment, and they are stating those concerns plainly. I don't think the non-profit WaterWatch's true goal is to destroy big tech.
I think you're oversimplifying the "just use rivers" idea. Most data centers (80% for Google) require potable water for cooling, and it can't come straight from a river. Plus, using potable water in cooling adds mineral deposits to the water and will require treatment to be consumable again.
"Aren't technology companies terrible. They destroy the natural environment for their profit. Look at these large numbers out of context."
> Most data centers (80% for Google) require potable water for cooling, and it can't come straight from a river.
Well, there are two kinds of water that are required for cooling; that which circulates around the datacentre, and the water used to take away the excess heat. These can be different, using heat exchangers to move the heat from one to the other.
> I think you're oversimplifying the "just use rivers" idea.
The most difficult bit appears to be dealing with conservative (with a little c) people and environmental regulation.
> Plus, using potable water in cooling adds mineral deposits to the water
Because in most cases it kind of is. It's not that the H2O molecules are forcefully disintegrated, but most data centers use evaporative cooling, meaning that whatever water is fed to the datacenter through the municipal water system ends up as moisture in the atmosphere. This is in effect equivalent to a sizable leak in the water infrastructure.
Yes, but you can neither drink rainwater nor use it to cool a data center. And the rain may end up falling thousands of miles away. Excessive use of water reduces flow in natural bodies of water and can mess up local ecosystems.
Not sure I'd drink most river water either, and I would hope most data centers don't pull water straight from the aquifer (though maybe they do). Fair points though.
I'd guess that you're not from somewhere that water is scarce. In the American West there's not really a lot of water. I won't turn this into a multi paragraph lecture, but I'll give a few bullet points to give you a sense of what it's like:
- There's an entirely different legal framework around how water from rivers is allocated. The "normal" flow of the most important river, the Colorado River, was calculated during a time of unusually high flow, so there's a lot of tension between different states about whether they're getting their fair share.
- To give you a sense of how "thirsty" the west is, the Colorado River rarely reaches the ocean anymore.
- groundwater use is generally much less regulated, which is causing issues like the Oglala aquifer to drop at an alarming rate. Many aquifers are damaged if they're overpumped, because the weight of the ground above them will crush empty spaces.
- bad actors in the groundwater space can lower the water table and make other peoples' wells run dry
- this is made more complicated by the fact that surface water and ground water interact with each other. Reducing stream flow can affect groundwater, and using groundwater can affect streamflow.
If you want an approachable and entertaining introduction to some western water issues (including the backstabbing and plotting that inspired Chinatown!), I'd suggest reading Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner.
Surely all uses of water are part of the closed-loop water cycle? Other than launching it into space for astronauts to drink, and using it in permanent reactions like concrete hydration?
Drinking water, spraying it on crops, using it to clean a car, or using it to flush a toilet all end up with the water evaporating, or making its way to the ocean and evaporating from there.
Ultimately, if a river provides a certain number of acre-feet of fresh water, evaporating it to cool a data centre uses it just as much as to evaporating it to grow alfalfa in a desert, except perhaps more usefully.
Fresh water isn't meaningfully a closed loop. We are draining fresh water aquifers, causing the land above them to sink downwards eliminating the voids where fresh water was stored, and moving the formerly fresh water into the ocean where it is no longer drinkable, usable for growing crops, or for most industrial purposes.
We do get new fresh water at a reasonable pace thanks to rain - but in many parts of the world we are using it faster than that, and not just depleting the stored volume of fresh water but destroying the storage "containers" themselves.
That's not what a dog whistle is. A dog whistle is when someone isn't doing something, but their ideological opponent wants to imply they are doing that thing, so they accuse them of "dog whistling" the thing. Like if Elon Musk says something that categorically isn't racist but his opponents want to call him racist anyway then they just say he's "dog whistling" to racists.
That's not what "dog whistles" are, lol. Dog Whistle means "coded language" basically.
Dog whistles are where someone says something that their audience will understand to mean a specific thing, but will be inaudible or neutral sounding to people who are not in their audience. They are named that because they are like the whistles only dogs can hear, while most people cannot.
"Inner city" is a canonical example of a dog whistle. Where the literal meaning is the districts in a city in the urban center, but is often used to denote poor minority communities. (If the literal meaning is only "city centers", then would you describe Manhattanites as inner city?)
On the left, "tax the rich" might be a dog whistle that carries a similar literal meaning disjoint from the understood meaning within the community.
> Dog whistles are where someone says something that their audience will understand to mean a specific thing, but will be inaudible or neutral sounding to people who are not in their audience. They are named that because they are like the whistles only dogs can hear, while most people cannot.
That's basically what I said, except you're missing that more often than not it's an intentional stretching of a literal phrase in order to cast aspersions on someone who didn't do the thing you're mad about.
For example, here was one of the top results when I googled "trump dog whistle",
> In February 2018, during Trump’s first term as president, the Department of Homeland Security issued a 14-word press release titled “We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again.” I and other investigators of far-right extremism attributed this phrase’s use to a clear dog whistle of the common white supremacist saying known as “the 14 words” – “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
Or this top result from the search "musk dog whistle",
> Omar Suleiman has called on Elon Musk to stop blowing political "dog whistles of Islamophobia"
> Yet, for the past week, you have blown every conceivable dog whistle of Islamophobia, by highlighting a select group of (horrifying) incidents supposedly in the name of Islam
In this case absolutely no examples were given, but that's the great thing about accusing someone of dog whistling - you don't need to provide any evidence! In fact, literally any evidence you can provide would only serve to weaken your accusation because by definition anyone who isn't whichever -ist you're accusing them of will literally be unable to decode the -ism in their phrasing. If it sounds obviously -ist then by definition it can't be a dog whistle.
Just because you can find a bad article with bad examples, and some are for sure coincidences, but that doesn't mean its not true. Musk did heil, Musk does post well known white supremacy signals. Trump might be a racist and like the fascist power but he is not a white supremacist christian like the rest of his cabinet of project2025 people.
It feels like dog-whistle tactics. "Aren't the technology companies bad for the environment!" "What about the water usage?" "What about the electricity?"
For me the peak of this is complaining about water consumption at the Dalles datacentre [0]. The buildings are next to the Colombia river and a few miles away from the Dalles Dam [1] which generates an average of 700MW. The river water should be used for cooling, taking out some of the water, warming it up by a few degrees and returning it to the river; one might argue that this is simply returning the heat to the river that would have come from the water flowing downhill.
[0] https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2022/12/googles-wa...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dalles_Dam