6 ms·

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like a

by ryandvm 10y ago

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

vmarsy 10y ago
> using drinking water to cool our servers seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. In that case "us" is Google, in that server farm specifically. The article mentions there exists better alternatives : > The National Security Agency cools its Fort Meade, Maryland data center with treated wastewater, touted as an environmental boon and cost savings compared to tap water or aquifer pumping.
mjfl 10y ago
I mean, it's not like the water is being destroyed, or even rendered undrinkable, it's just being warmed...
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
  Right, but > The Google aquifer permit application states it will reuse water before eventually discharging it to the sewer system, but the company did not provide details when asked by The Post and Courier. And 2 paragraphs down > Groundwater can be returned to the aquifer after use, but some is lost to evaporation and the operation is costly, according to industry sources. There are other alternatives. The National Security Agency cools its Fort Meade, Maryland data center with treated wastewater, touted as an environmental boon and cost savings compared to tap water or aquifer pumping. So basically Google is going to draw aquifer water, probably reuse it and potentially just flush the water into the the sewer system.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    This is why skepticism is warranted whenever politicians and business people bemoan environmental regulations. Alphabet management bears no cost and gives no shits about contributing to aquifer depletion in South Carolina. Of course the people running South Carolina probably don't either!
  - thescriptkiddie 10y ago
    I wonder why they don't just pump the heated water back down into the aquifer. That would make it basically an open-loop geothermal heat pump.
    - icelancer 10y ago
      This almost certainly has some negative environmental effects.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  It's being moved. Drawing down groundwater on a massive scale can have massive and permanent environmental effects. The fact that it still exists somewhere is immaterial.
ScottBurson 10y ago
And drawing water from an aquifer, when we don't even know how fast it's being replenished, seems like a particularly bad idea -- surprisingly so from a company whose headquarters is in California.
kjksf 10y ago
Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use a different way of cooling. If you make it about Google and cooling servers (and not about the price of water) then you might win a battle but you'll still lose the war because Google is only one of many entities that will eventually deplete water resources if they are not priced properly.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  Also, old people have little to no economic use. We should dispose of them. Looking at everything as a psychopathic economic agent is fun!
  - function_seven 10y ago
    That’s a pretty uncharitable reading of parent comment. When things are not correctly priced, these issues will constantly crop up. A simpler thing to do would be to price common resources correctly and rebate those who have special needs (like old people, or the poor, etc.).
    - olewhalehunter 10y ago
      Every dollar spent keeping unemployed venerables alive is a dollar stolen from the young. Liquidating those near death should not be a controversial position.
  - friedman23 10y ago
    We use economics to understand how resources can be exchanged for human benefit. If google had offered 100 billion dollars for this water, none of us would believe it immoral for them to make this transaction because the money could be used for good by the community. Obviously however, 100 billion dollars is too high a price so the problem becomes not if it is immoral for google to take this water but what price is this water worth such that both google and the community come out ahead.
rhino369 10y ago
There isn't any lack of drinking water in the US other than maybe parts of Nevada. It's mostly used for commercial or agricultural purposes. When there is a shortage the question should be which the least important commercial or agricultural use. Just using market based pricing would solve it. But western states have a shitty water rights policy that doesn't allow it. Someone growing water intensive crops in an arid region get priority over junior users. It's a bad system.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
Literally shitting in it?
PakG1 10y ago
If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it. China recently is cracking down on golf courses in order to preserve water. I imagine the game of golf is not actually worth the cultural heritage and entertainment it provides if you want to think about the water it uses. At least the Chinese government has concluded this and it's facing a severe potable water shortage issue in the future. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-golf-water-land-shortages-1.3947728 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-golf-water-land-shortages... As well... water balloons and water guns? Baths as opposed to showers? The list goes on. Google's ads provide a service the general public finds useful.

by ryandvm 10y ago

vmarsy 10y ago

> using drinking water to cool our servers seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. In that case "us" is Google, in that server farm specifically. The article mentions there exists better alternatives : > The National Security Agency cools its Fort Meade, Maryland data center with treated wastewater, touted as an environmental boon and cost savings compared to tap water or aquifer pumping.

mjfl 10y ago

I mean, it's not like the water is being destroyed, or even rendered undrinkable, it's just being warmed...

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
Right, but > The Google aquifer permit application states it will reuse water before eventually discharging it to the sewer system, but the company did not provide details when asked by The Post and Courier. And 2 paragraphs down > Groundwater can be returned to the aquifer after use, but some is lost to evaporation and the operation is costly, according to industry sources. There are other alternatives. The National Security Agency cools its Fort Meade, Maryland data center with treated wastewater, touted as an environmental boon and cost savings compared to tap water or aquifer pumping. So basically Google is going to draw aquifer water, probably reuse it and potentially just flush the water into the the sewer system.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  This is why skepticism is warranted whenever politicians and business people bemoan environmental regulations. Alphabet management bears no cost and gives no shits about contributing to aquifer depletion in South Carolina. Of course the people running South Carolina probably don't either!
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  I wonder why they don't just pump the heated water back down into the aquifer. That would make it basically an open-loop geothermal heat pump.
  - icelancer 10y ago
    This almost certainly has some negative environmental effects.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
It's being moved. Drawing down groundwater on a massive scale can have massive and permanent environmental effects. The fact that it still exists somewhere is immaterial.

ScottBurson 10y ago

And drawing water from an aquifer, when we don't even know how fast it's being replenished, seems like a particularly bad idea -- surprisingly so from a company whose headquarters is in California.

kjksf 10y ago

Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use a different way of cooling. If you make it about Google and cooling servers (and not about the price of water) then you might win a battle but you'll still lose the war because Google is only one of many entities that will eventually deplete water resources if they are not priced properly.

RodericDay 10y ago
Also, old people have little to no economic use. We should dispose of them. Looking at everything as a psychopathic economic agent is fun!
- function_seven 10y ago
  That’s a pretty uncharitable reading of parent comment. When things are not correctly priced, these issues will constantly crop up. A simpler thing to do would be to price common resources correctly and rebate those who have special needs (like old people, or the poor, etc.).
  - olewhalehunter 10y ago
    Every dollar spent keeping unemployed venerables alive is a dollar stolen from the young. Liquidating those near death should not be a controversial position.
- friedman23 10y ago
  We use economics to understand how resources can be exchanged for human benefit. If google had offered 100 billion dollars for this water, none of us would believe it immoral for them to make this transaction because the money could be used for good by the community. Obviously however, 100 billion dollars is too high a price so the problem becomes not if it is immoral for google to take this water but what price is this water worth such that both google and the community come out ahead.

rhino369 10y ago

There isn't any lack of drinking water in the US other than maybe parts of Nevada. It's mostly used for commercial or agricultural purposes. When there is a shortage the question should be which the least important commercial or agricultural use. Just using market based pricing would solve it. But western states have a shitty water rights policy that doesn't allow it. Someone growing water intensive crops in an arid region get priority over junior users. It's a bad system.

jasonkostempski 10y ago

Literally shitting in it?

PakG1 10y ago

If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it. China recently is cracking down on golf courses in order to preserve water. I imagine the game of golf is not actually worth the cultural heritage and entertainment it provides if you want to think about the water it uses. At least the Chinese government has concluded this and it's facing a severe potable water shortage issue in the future. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-golf-water-land-shortages-1.3947728 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-golf-water-land-shortages... As well... water balloons and water guns? Baths as opposed to showers? The list goes on. Google's ads provide a service the general public finds useful.