- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- microsoft@lemdro.id
- energia@feddit.it
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- microsoft@lemdro.id
- energia@feddit.it
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
People should be getting priority over AI.
When the robot revolution begins, they’re going to come after you.
This is why I say please and thank you to Alexa (also to model appropriate behavior for my young kids).
I live here and people are getting priority over AI?
Iowa isn’t like many states where there is water scarcity. This cooling water isn’t even being consumed. It’s used for cooling and returned to the waste water system.
deleted by creator
Pretty much, unfortunately.
Nobody wants to talk about all the wind energy used to run these data centers either, because that won’t generate any outrage.
We live in a society
That would be considered consumed.
Not really. At least not in the sense that it’s a net loss of water downstream.
It’s not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned.
It is removed from the system. It’s not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent.
If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling.
That’s not what I’m talking about though. I’m talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water.
There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It’s not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it’s not net zero either
At Meta we have a massive system for cutting out our net effect on water for the local area. I’m in NM and the DC here is almost actually adding to the water. I can’t imagine Microsoft would behind as to not do this. It’s an open design.
The water isn’t dirty. It’s warm. It would use even more energy to cool it. It’s a lose-lose.
deleted by creator
Warm water is the waste product because it’s easier dump the water than to cool the water. Returning the warm water to a usable state is much more expensive at scale.
deleted by creator
you might be right but some numbers might back up your claim. I doubt that servers could heat water as much as a nuclear reactor. datacenter coolers certainly don’t have to pressurize the water to prevent it from boiling, it doesn’t get that hot.
I feel like we’re missing the forest for the trees here, this is all in service of a feature in bing that was supposed to revolutionize search but actually caused a 0% increase in Bing’s market share from q1 to q3 https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/bings-search-market-share-fails-to-budge-despite-ai-push/
AI Tools - plural. ChatGPT (and OpenAI as a whole) predominantly runs on Azure infrastructure. Microsoft also owns GitHub with its associated copilot. And now all the Microsoft product specific copilots.
Not trying to defend their usage, but there are several forests here that are quite visible.
Oh wow didn’t know github was owned by Ms
I’d use it all the time if it didn’t require an account.
I’ve been using the Codium plugin in VSCode for a little bit now and find it useful. It’s free, but does require an account.
If it’s just for cooling, wouldn’t they just be able to pull water directly from a lake and then return the same water into the lake? Why is any consumption happening?
In theory, yes. Of course, the same holds true for a lot of things which we currently use clean water for! The water needs of agriculture, toilets, carwashes, and many more could be addressed through so-called graywater (e.g.: pumped lakewater, rooftop rainwater) if we really sat down and wanted to make it happen.
The reason that we don’t do these things is rather mundane: it’s cheaper and easier to tap into the shared drinking water infrastructure than it is to collect your own water and roll your own silos/filtration tech. That might change as the world changes – something has to give eventually if we use more groundwater than we replenish, but much like clean drinking water, I don’t think it’s a problem we should ask individual entities to solve. Governments would generally be much more suited to efficiently collecting drainwater, scrubbing it, distributing it, and mandating usage in wasteful commercial applications.
A lot of problems we don’t solve boil down to “it’s boring and expensive” lol it’s sad when you think about it. Everyone says they want infrastructure investment because they think it sounds mature or whatever, but when the day comes, they shake their heads.
I wonder what the practical implementation would be here. I assume current water infrastructure is two sets of pipes, one for clean water and one for wastewater. Would the solution here be to add a third parallel set of pipes for greywater?
It probably doesn’t make sense to do infrastructure -wide duplication for a greywater system. That would be a lot of pipe and possible leaks in places where that resource isn’t needed.
Smaller loops make more sense for specific needs like this. It just needs to be legislated - over a certain size, you need to pump, filter if required for your application, and then dump in accordance with whatever rules we set. If local governments want, they can subsidize this through tax breaks - we already have robust systems for giving corporations money back, we just need to tie it to the types of performance we need to see, whether that be environmental improvements, job creation/retention, etc.
Dirty water is bad for cooling equipment
Well, building on that question, why do they need a constant supply of clean water? My desktop PC has a water cooler, and it just recirculates the same water.
Because that’s expensive to build on this scale. They’d have to cool the water back down again.
It’s cheaper to just run cold tapwater in at a fast rate, and dump the hot water intothe sewer.
Which is why we need laws that go after industries that use insane amounts of water, if we don’t it causes shortages and everyone’s rate to go up
It’s cheaper to just run cold tapwater in at a fast rate, and dump the hot water into the sewer.
There should be a cost to corporations using municipal water supplies for purposes unrelated to direct consumption for drinking, cooking, washing, toilets. You shouldn’t be able to use it for cooling only, and you shouldn’t be able to bottle and resell it.
you shouldn’t be able to bottle and resell it.
Dasani and Aquafina in shambles
Nestlé heavy breathing
We should make it exponentially more expensive the more you use.
There’s probably some alternate uses for the heat if these things were well designed. There’s some building in denver that is near a major sewer and in the winter they use a heat exchanger to extract that energy and use it to heat the building.
Nah, it’s because of the volume.
You don’t cool down hot water with the same amount of cool water. You use a shit ton of cool water, because the larger the difference in temps the faster the heat exchange.
So the discharge isn’t water that’s really hot. It’s just warmer than when it went in.
Maybe 5-10 degrees, which is enough for a negative environmental impact if constantly discharged into a lake/ocean/river, but not hot enough to be good for anything.
They could do large underground reserve for cold water, cool their servers with it, then dump it into a second tank that eventually cools and is added to the reserve. It’s not complicated, but it is a huge upfront cost.
Companies aren’t going to do it when they can pay a fraction of the cost even tho it fucks over everyone else. This is capitalism, we need regulations forcing them to do the right thing over the cheap thing.
I suppose that’s very true. But it could be done - if a data center needs megawatts of cooling and is in an area where buildings need to be heated in the winter, then there should be a legal obligation to not just dump that heat.
Sounds like they are using evaporation cooling towers for the air chillers.
It’s evaporative cooling, big cooling towers
Power plants use lake water directly for cooling - they use a heat exchanger
deleted by creator
The water isn’t being consumed. It’s going through the same process all the water in the city is going through.
Pulled from the river, cleaned, used for cooling at the data centers, and returned to the river via the waste water system.
The only loss is the energy/resources to treat the water.
I gotta wonder though, water used for server cooling is basically just run through metal fixtures and returned right? Couldn’t it be possible to force some kind of maintenance and cleanliness standards onto the equipment and just have the water return to the supply? Is there any reason that water wouldn’t be just as drinkable after?
They use evaporative cooling on days where it is over 85f
Microsoft’s data centers currently use adiabatic cooling, which relies on outside air to cool down temperatures inside. It’s a system that uses less electricity than air conditioning and less water than cooling towers. But when temperatures rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, outside air isn’t very helpful. At that point, an evaporative cooling system kicks in, which uses water. It works like a “swamp cooler” — cooling the air by pushing it over or through water-soaked screens.
https://local.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Datacenter-water-consumption-fact-sheet.pdf
They probably treat the water to prevent mineral and bacterial build up. No matter how sanitary it is it will probably require some amount of treatment before it can be put back into public drinking supplies.
Well, all sewer water requires treatment before it’s used again but this water doesn’t go into the sewer, it’s evaporative cooling so it goes into the air.
No, but I assume you’d have to build extra infrastructure for that, which is expensive. They might now consider it worth it if they continue to need that much water, though.
if you think that’s wild, animal agriculture uses 13 TRILLION litres or gallons of water a year. Compared with fracking, which uses 220 billiion.
i don’t think that’s right. can you substantiate that?
oh, you know what? it’s actually worse. significantly worse. It’s 34-76 trillion gallons annually, https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts
Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually. [ii] [xv]
“Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005”. United States Geological Service
Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues”. BioScience. (2004) 54 (10): 909-918
here’s the relevant section from the pimentel paper
Water use in livestock production. The production of animal protein requires significantly more water than the production of plant protein (Pimentel et al. 2004). Although US livestock directly uses only 2% of the total water used in agriculture (Solley et al. 1998), the indirect water inputs for livestock pro- duction are substantial because of the water required for forage and grain crops. Each year, a total of 253 million t grain are fed to US livestock, requiring a total of about 25 × 1013 L water (Pimentel et al. 2004). Worldwide grain production specifically for livestock requires nearly three times the amount of grain that is fed to US livestock and three times the amount of water used in the United States to produce grain feed (Pimentel et al. 2004).
Animal products vary in the amounts of water required for their production (table 2). For example, producing 1 kg chicken requires 3500 L water, whereas producing 1 kg sheep (fed on 21 kg grain and 30 kg forage) requires approximately 51,000 L water (table 2; USDA 2003, Pimentel et al. 2004). If cattle are raised on open rangeland and not in confined feed- lot production, 120 to 200 kg forage are required to produce 1 kg beef. This amount of forage requires 120,000 to 200,000 L water per kg (Pimentel et al. 2004), or a minimum of 200 mm rainfall per year (Pimentel et al. 2004).
Agricultural production in the United States is projected to expand to meet the increased food needs of the US pop- ulation, which is expected to double in the next 70 years (USBC 2003). Developing countries are expected to feel the impacts of this food crisis to a greater extent as demands ap- proach those of developed countries and populations continue to rise (Rosegrant et al. 2002). Increasing crop yields neces- sitate a parallel increase in the use of fresh water in agricul- ture. Therefore, increased crop and livestock production during the next 5 to 7 decades will significantly increase the demand on all water resources, especially in the western, southern, and central United States (USDA 2003) and in many regions of the world with low rainfall.
so it looks like the methodology isn’t even explicit in this paper, and we need to see pimentel’s OTHER 2004 publication to understand how he arrived at the water values. MY SUSPICION is that he includes the water used in, for instance, cotton production to add to the sum used in livestock. that’s at best an oversight: that “use” is actually a conservation of resources. given that i do see soy mentioned, i would also guess that it’s including the waste product from soybean oil production, which accounts for 85% of the global crop weight but only 17% of the end use weight. the remaining ~68% of the global crop weight would be waste if not fed to livestock.
i can dig into the further methodology after work, but you should be dubious about these claims, especially the original source, which seems to be intentionally misrepresenting the USGS paper.
the USGS paper says almost no water goes to livestock
Combined withdrawals for livestock and aquaculture were less than 3 percent of the total water withdrawals in 2005. Livestock withdrawals include water for livestock, feedlots, and dairy operations, and accounted for 2,140 Mgal/d, most of which (60 percent) was supplied by groundwater.
both of those are 20 years out of date but I’ll look at the methodology. it still seems off by orders of magnitude
Rain World moment
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But one thing Microsoft-backed OpenAI needed for its technology was plenty of water, pulled from the watershed of the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers in central Iowa to cool a powerful supercomputer as it helped teach its AI systems how to mimic human writing.
Few people in Iowa knew about its status as a birthplace of OpenAI’s most advanced large language model, GPT-4, before a top Microsoft executive said in a speech it “was literally made next to cornfields west of Des Moines.”
In response to questions from The Associated Press, Microsoft said in a statement this week that it is investing in research to measure AI’s energy and carbon footprint “while working on ways to make large systems more efficient, in both training and application.”
Microsoft first said it was developing one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers for OpenAI in 2020, declining to reveal its location to AP at the time but describing it as a “single system” with more than 285,000 cores of conventional semiconductors, and 10,000 graphics processors — a kind of chip that’s become crucial to AI workloads.
It wasn’t until late May that Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, disclosed that it had built its “advanced AI supercomputing data center” in Iowa, exclusively to enable OpenAI to train what has become its fourth-generation model, GPT-4.
In some ways, West Des Moines is a relatively efficient place to train a powerful AI system, especially compared to Microsoft’s data centers in Arizona that consume far more water for the same computing demand.
The original article contains 1,229 words, the summary contains 252 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
For a second, I thought that Keegan-Michael Key was gonna have to lecture someone
Rain World time
