Meta announces new data centers(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Meta announces new data centers
https://www.engadget.com/ai/meta-announces-huge-new-data-centers-but-they-could-gobble-up-millions-of-gallons-of-water-per-day-174000478.html
62 comments
We largely stopped growing avocados in the US when water rates went up. With the increased rates, and NAFTA, US avocado ranchers could not compete. There is speculation that Mexican cartels own/operate much of the Mexican avocado industry that we rely on.
I say this as someone who whole heartedly believes in desalination as a way forward, but if we refuse to embrace desalination we need to recognize the tradeoffs like you point out.
I say this as someone who whole heartedly believes in desalination as a way forward, but if we refuse to embrace desalination we need to recognize the tradeoffs like you point out.
[deleted]
I think the problems with desalination are the cost (facilities, energy) and the leftover brine, which is damaging to the environment wherever it's dumped. It has its uses, of course, but not without drawbacks.
I've never fully understood this, shouldn't the brine be mixed in with wastewater? It's all a net-zero system, it's not like water is leaving the system.
The rest is just infrastructure (which is mostly political will).
The rest is just infrastructure (which is mostly political will).
If you are talking about using it for datacenters than that might be right, the person above is talking about farming, so they desalinate the water, the fresh water is used for crops, and the brine has to go somewhere. If you aren't really careful then dumping it back into the ocean will mess up the ocean in that area.
Who "gobbles" water? What a weird title by the site.
> Typical data centers guzzle around 500,000 gallons of water each day, but these forthcoming AI-centric complexes will likely be even thirstier.
Then they go on to say guzzling. Really personifying the monster. First, it's bigger than Manhattan... then it's gobbling and guzzling.
I wonder if the author or any people reviewing the piece 'fed' it into a 'starving' LLM?
> Typical data centers guzzle around 500,000 gallons of water each day, but these forthcoming AI-centric complexes will likely be even thirstier.
Then they go on to say guzzling. Really personifying the monster. First, it's bigger than Manhattan... then it's gobbling and guzzling.
I wonder if the author or any people reviewing the piece 'fed' it into a 'starving' LLM?
Ohio is not exactly short on water.
You've got Erie to the North, the Ohio to the South East, and about 40 inches of rainfall per year, or 81M acre-feet of water for the whole state in precipitation, or around ~80 BILLION gallons of rain water per day.
The water is returned to the atmosphere as vapor, not transmuted into bismuth and shipped overseas, never to be seen again.
You're talking about 1/20,000th of the rain water.
Okay, it's not nothing. But it's not going to ruin all the farms or something.
You've got Erie to the North, the Ohio to the South East, and about 40 inches of rainfall per year, or 81M acre-feet of water for the whole state in precipitation, or around ~80 BILLION gallons of rain water per day.
The water is returned to the atmosphere as vapor, not transmuted into bismuth and shipped overseas, never to be seen again.
You're talking about 1/20,000th of the rain water.
Okay, it's not nothing. But it's not going to ruin all the farms or something.
You would be surprised how little water drop is required to cause wells to "go dry". When wells are punched into an aquifer, they stop when they hit water, they don't keep going to be deeper. A water level drop of just 2 inches caused all sorts of issues for locals when Intel built its new Fabs in New Mexico.
Intel said that it wouldn't be an issue, yet when it happened, they did nothing to help and forced a huge number of people to have to put in new wells. The same will happen in Ohio.
Intel said that it wouldn't be an issue, yet when it happened, they did nothing to help and forced a huge number of people to have to put in new wells. The same will happen in Ohio.
Water availability is highly local unless you build massive canals or pipelines.
If I had to guess, the issue is that they are taking treated water and releasing it back into the environment. It is consumed in the sense that what comes out is not identical to what goes in in terms of its temperature and composition (e.g. what's dissolved in it). If they aren't treating their own water, it will also have an impact on local water treatment facilities.
It's boiling water with GPUs, I guess. Even a fancy anti-matter AI reactor will be boiling water and spin turbines in the future.
500,000 gallons of water per day is approximately 1 golf course. There are 400 golf courses in Georgia. But "we just don't have the water!" screech bad-faith reactionaries.
If the press insists on covering this, it should be in terms of competing economic interests bidding on water, not rapacious ecovillains.
If the press insists on covering this, it should be in terms of competing economic interests bidding on water, not rapacious ecovillains.
Golf courses are semi-regular targets of concern for both people concerned about water availability and housing. So while I’m not sure what your purpose for looping them in is, their existence hardly absolves other water-demanding industry much less establishes anything remotely like a sound basis for establishing bad faith.
We could use more media discourse on the current political realities of water use and potential improved economic structure though.
We could use more media discourse on the current political realities of water use and potential improved economic structure though.
The problem with "media discourse" is exactly that. The whole newspaper industry is permanently big mad about the success of the internet and can't be trusted to report on this fairly.
I would wager that the average person against the resource usage of AI datacenters are also against the resource usage for golf courses.
The difference being that those opposing view LLMs as an inherently negative technology, and thus it is a waste of resources for something that is actively detrimental to society. Whereas golf courses are just golf, so the negative aspect is merely the resource usage.
The difference being that those opposing view LLMs as an inherently negative technology, and thus it is a waste of resources for something that is actively detrimental to society. Whereas golf courses are just golf, so the negative aspect is merely the resource usage.
> Whereas golf courses are just golf, so the negative aspect is merely the resource usage.
Eh. I agree to your post in principle, but golf courses do have sociopolitical effects based on land values surrounding them. Original point stands though. That effect pales in comparison to the vitriol some have against LLMs.
Eh. I agree to your post in principle, but golf courses do have sociopolitical effects based on land values surrounding them. Original point stands though. That effect pales in comparison to the vitriol some have against LLMs.
If it's impacting water availability to residents, it's a problem, full stop.
If you actually read the original article, the well of the complaining person was destroyed by vibrations from construction, not from overdraft if the aquifer.
That's only one of several relevant complaints.
this whatsboutism comment reminds me of ralph wiggum ‘im helping’
the venn diagram of people supporting golf courses but objecting to data centers has a much smaller overlap than you think
the venn diagram of people supporting golf courses but objecting to data centers has a much smaller overlap than you think
It's not whataboutism. The point is it's a tradeoff. Would the whiners shut up if Facebook bought and shut down the local golf course? Probably not. Google remediated a flood-irrigated alfalfa farm (really!) near Las Vegas (I am not making this up) to zero out the water demands of their Henderson datacenter. This did not prevent the national press from making hay (did you see what I did there?)
Data center water usage should be reported in units of McDonaldses.
The constant drum of limited-pie headlines is getting really grating. Stock/Personal "paper-money" valuations coupled with Citizens United has really broken our brain into thinking that everything everywhere is just Billionaires stealing stuff, when realistically this is just water that will be recycled, available for anyone else to use.
But the imagery of Mark Zuckerberg personally guzzling 500,000 gallons of water to simply waste it away is too attractive to pass up.
Lets Anti-Trust! Let's Break Citizens United! But let's also stop with this sensationalist pablum.
P.S: In the dry western deserts, couldn't this just be salty ocean water just piped through too? Doesn't even need to be de-salinated? Or hell, use the heat to boil the water and de-salinate it. Win-Win!
But the imagery of Mark Zuckerberg personally guzzling 500,000 gallons of water to simply waste it away is too attractive to pass up.
Lets Anti-Trust! Let's Break Citizens United! But let's also stop with this sensationalist pablum.
P.S: In the dry western deserts, couldn't this just be salty ocean water just piped through too? Doesn't even need to be de-salinated? Or hell, use the heat to boil the water and de-salinate it. Win-Win!
If the water is only used for cooling then it should be a closed loop system and doesn't "used up" any water?
Unless Data Center uses water in a way we dont know?
Unless Data Center uses water in a way we dont know?
Hmm bit of googling indicates one example: at least some data centers use cooling towers which dissipate heat via evaporation, i.e. loss of some water from the system.
I suppose not all water cooling systems (especially of this scale) work exactly like e.g. a water-cooled PC.
I suppose not all water cooling systems (especially of this scale) work exactly like e.g. a water-cooled PC.
Some types of industrial cooling pull fresh water in and dump heated water back out as waste water. I don't know how Meta's datacenters are cooled, but such a thing does exist.
Describing it as "gobbling" is definitely odd, in either case.
Describing it as "gobbling" is definitely odd, in either case.
Sometimes the heated water is useful. I worked at a campus in a cold region where our on site DC's heated water was used to heat the floors.
Linus of LTT/LMG has a tiny version of this kind of thing at his home where the water cooling loop for servers in his basement ultimately heat his in-ground swimming pool.
I've not "done the math", but venting slightly warmer water vapor from a tower seems less ecologically damaging than releasing warm water back into an ecosystem that can't handle it, by diluting the waste energy over a wider area.
In the end it's about energy dissipation; that heat's got to go somewhere, and there's only so much you can recapture with cogeneration.
In the end it's about energy dissipation; that heat's got to go somewhere, and there's only so much you can recapture with cogeneration.
Drawing on ground water and releasing it into the atmosphere isn't great if the demand exceeds the aquifer's ability to recharge. Discharging heated water into a retention pond might allow it to recharge the aquifer (although some would evaporate), and form a less open loop. Or, discharging it into sewers might offset fresh water needs at a downstream treatment plant, and the temperature differential may or may not be important. Sometimes, reclaimed water from treatment plants can be used for cooling as well, and that's better than pulling fresh water directly.
It's also used for humidification to avoid static discharges, apparently: https://datacenters.microsoft.com/sustainability/efficiency/
Looking at the figures quoted there, this can explain why e.g. the Ariozona data center uses so much more water than the Singapore one, although evaporative (i.e. open loop) cooling probably also plays a role in many of these cases.
Looking at the figures quoted there, this can explain why e.g. the Ariozona data center uses so much more water than the Singapore one, although evaporative (i.e. open loop) cooling probably also plays a role in many of these cases.
From https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-co...
> Large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons per day, equivalent to the water use of a town populated by 10,000 to 50,000 people.
Doesn't seem to be a closed system.
> Large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons per day, equivalent to the water use of a town populated by 10,000 to 50,000 people.
Doesn't seem to be a closed system.
I guess this statement is technically correct, since a data center that needs a net of 5 million gallons of water per day would indeed be large, but I wonder if there are any such data centers in reality. None of the data center sites, which are agglomerations of data centers, rather than individual data centers, in Google's 2025 environmental report use that much. Google's worldwide footprint is a net 22 million gallons per day, and their largest complex of data centers in or near Council Bluffs, Iowa, uses less than 3 million gallons per day. So this supposed "large data center" would be something like 10x as large as any Google data center?
Cooling towers can take water from a stream for instance, and return it mostly to that stream (just a few °C hotter). The quantity of water that is lost to the atmosphere is quite small. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower it's less than 1% of the circulating water.
At first approximation, water "lost" to cool down industrial installation seems not a concern at all compared to water lost to grow corn to feed cows for human consumption.
At first approximation, water "lost" to cool down industrial installation seems not a concern at all compared to water lost to grow corn to feed cows for human consumption.
That article has been posted several times in this thread.
But that article lists out several solutions for using water cooling - one of which is evaporative. And another mentioned is closed loop.
How do we know which solution Meta is using here?
But that article lists out several solutions for using water cooling - one of which is evaporative. And another mentioned is closed loop.
How do we know which solution Meta is using here?
Engadget often has sensationalist, inaccurate headlines. I stopped reading them when I was intimately with the actual details of an article vs the way they framed/presented it. Also, what kind of water? Pure clean water, untreated water, Grey water, etc? Bottled water and other industries consume millions of gallons too. If its for cooling, I imagine water can be used that isn't being used for any other purpose. At least the water cycle is a thing, the alternative is A/C cooling which would be even more harmful. This is one of those cases where even if a company picks the least bad option, they're going to get criticized because negative agitating headlines get clicks.
A reminder that Meta tried to go green/nuclear, but couldn't because some bees were on or near the proposed location. Another example, of letting the perfect environmental ideal that isn't feasible be the enemy of the good.
A reminder that Meta tried to go green/nuclear, but couldn't because some bees were on or near the proposed location. Another example, of letting the perfect environmental ideal that isn't feasible be the enemy of the good.
Do some research, there's lots of info online. Water use for example: https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-co...
It didn't specify if fresh water meant non-salt water from a natural water source, or treated drinkable water. I'd need to see the rainfall averages for the region the data center is in, susceptibility to drought to know how much of a problem this actually is. Data center locations are often chosen based on cooling costs, availability of greener electricity, water, etc. This blanket statement, "only 3% of the world is fresh water" is pointless and alarmist language because a good portion of the world is desert or arid. Some places have very little water, others have an over-abundance, and location matters. Most of the water problems regarding access to clean water and access to drinkable water have more to do with over populating a region because of the nice weather (LA, CA for example) beyond what is sustainable or practical. Putting a data center in Illinois or something has very little do to with the problems of access to water in southern CA, where movies like Chinatown as far back as the 70s depicts the problem of access to water being a huge problem because it gets little rainfall being close to the desert and isn't a good place to put a large populace and not have that problem.
If they're building the data center in the desert or a drought susceptible region, where fresh water usage is way past its limits, fine, but if the data center is in the Upper Midwest or parts of the Pacific NW, the consumption of water there isn't going to have any impact on the areas that have a consumption issue.
If they're building the data center in the desert or a drought susceptible region, where fresh water usage is way past its limits, fine, but if the data center is in the Upper Midwest or parts of the Pacific NW, the consumption of water there isn't going to have any impact on the areas that have a consumption issue.
I couldn't find on this page how to quantify the breakdown between water lost on site to evaporation or to rejection from pure to grey water, and water lost elsewhere for electricity production, or earlier for semiconductor manufacturing. But I have the impression that water lost on site is quite small compared to indirect loss.
> "A reminder that Meta tried to go green/nuclear, but couldn't because some bees were on or near the proposed location."
https://www.ft.com/content/ed602e09-6c40-4979-aff9-7453ee284... ("Meta’s plan for nuclear-powered AI data centre thwarted by rare bees")
https://archive.is/gPkii
https://www.ft.com/content/ed602e09-6c40-4979-aff9-7453ee284... ("Meta’s plan for nuclear-powered AI data centre thwarted by rare bees")
https://archive.is/gPkii
most don't use closed loop
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44566201
> The Ohio Prometheus development will use gas turbines and is based on a new data center design focused on speed to deployment
So it takes away water from people and pollutes the environment. Got it. AI is great!
> The Ohio Prometheus development will use gas turbines and is based on a new data center design focused on speed to deployment
So it takes away water from people and pollutes the environment. Got it. AI is great!
We really need to find a better use of heat generated by data centers.
Is there a way to harness exhaust heat to generate electricity ?
or for other industrial use case, for example light manufacturing, textile, pulp & paper ?
Is it possible to harness heat to boil water and like generate electricity ?
Is there a way to harness exhaust heat to generate electricity ?
or for other industrial use case, for example light manufacturing, textile, pulp & paper ?
Is it possible to harness heat to boil water and like generate electricity ?
The main problem is that the temperature difference isn't high enough to do a lot of useful things with the waste heat from data centers.
Boiling things directly doesn't work, as the temperature is way below the boiling point of water, and for anything indirect you'll need some type of heat pump – at which point the data center heat also doesn't look that attractive anymore compared to e.g. just using heat from the air or ground.
Maybe you could heat a few buildings in very cold climate, but again, the time or area required for heat exchange is a function of the temperature gradient, so this is something that's typically done using the "waste heat" [1] of power plants, which is much hotter.
[1] Removing steam from CHP cogeneration isn't free in that every joule of heat removed reduces the electricity output a bit, but within a few kilometers of the power plant, it's much more efficient than electric heating using the electricity generated.
Boiling things directly doesn't work, as the temperature is way below the boiling point of water, and for anything indirect you'll need some type of heat pump – at which point the data center heat also doesn't look that attractive anymore compared to e.g. just using heat from the air or ground.
Maybe you could heat a few buildings in very cold climate, but again, the time or area required for heat exchange is a function of the temperature gradient, so this is something that's typically done using the "waste heat" [1] of power plants, which is much hotter.
[1] Removing steam from CHP cogeneration isn't free in that every joule of heat removed reduces the electricity output a bit, but within a few kilometers of the power plant, it's much more efficient than electric heating using the electricity generated.
Datacenter district heating is a thing in Finland,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-05-14/finland-s... ("Finland's Data Centers Are Heating Cities, Too" (2025))
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-05-14/finland-s... ("Finland's Data Centers Are Heating Cities, Too" (2025))
[deleted]
Have you considered the trillions of gallons of water which get heated every day by the sun and then all that heat evaporates in the night?
Do those trillions of gallons of water require generated energy for water treatment?
What does it matter? Angry hackers are down voting my comment because somehow human endeavors have to be energy effective, but nature hasn't?
Maybe district heating will start make sense, even given the low efficiency due to low temperature gradient.
what's that meme...
"AI uses more power than Bolivia to help some 900/hr consultant poorly craft a painfully generic slide deck to a manager who outsourced most of his primary job functions to the Big4."
"AI uses more power than Bolivia to help some 900/hr consultant poorly craft a painfully generic slide deck to a manager who outsourced most of his primary job functions to the Big4."
what actually happens with the water used by these data centers?
Is it just turned to steam?
Does the water get polluted?
Is it just turned to steam?
Does the water get polluted?
If only shareholders had the proper shares to vote against this dilettante.
Looking forward to reading "The rise and fall of Zuck"
Looking forward to reading "The rise and fall of Zuck"
Shareholder, not shareholders.
The shares have different voting rights, and Zuck has majority control that way.
The shares have different voting rights, and Zuck has majority control that way.
I prefer to focus my activism toward the companies of the shares I don't hold
this is why the world never gets better
I suppose it is somewhat subjective but it seems to be the world has always been getting better when you zoom out a bit
This is a real issue that could get much worse.
Data centers do open-loop cooling systems because water is cheap… to them. The market reaction would be to raise water prices until it is “worth it” for data centers to invest in closed-loop, low-loss cooling systems. However they have WAY more purchasing power than local residents. So long before the market solution can kick in, social unrest will show up.
In the U.S. we just had a massive cultural shift over ~9% increase in food costs. Imagine how things will go when water starts getting too expensive. And BTW potable water availability is decreasing globally due to global warming.
> Mike Hopkins, the executive director of the Newton County Water and Sewerage Authority, says that applications are coming in with requests for up to six millions of water per day, which is more than the county's entire daily usage.
> “What the data centers don’t understand is that they’re taking up the community wealth,” he said. “We just don’t have the water.”