4 ms·
One reason I have personal experience with is the massive regulatory headache which accompanies any project that relies using a lot of fresh water from a navega
by hyperbovine 15y ago
One reason I have personal experience with is the massive regulatory headache which accompanies any project that relies using a lot of fresh water from a navegable river or lake. (Google "waters of the United States"). Invariably you get to deal with both the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, plus whatever state regulations are out there, e.g. CEQA in California. This process can take literally decades and cost millions of dollars: environmental consulting, EIS/EIR, Section 7 & 404 consultations, take permitting, habitat / species conservation plan, mitigation, etc.
I'm not against preventing companies from trashing what natural resources we have left. At the same time, I can see why they'd be reluctant to go that route.
- rbranson 15y agoVery interesting. It doesn't surprise me that a vast array of permits would be required, as it should be. We all know how companies will treat water resources if they're not scrutinized. I do see water cooling as a potential mitigation of large quantities of CO2. The need for datacenters will only grow, and we need to find energy-efficient ways of cooling them. Perhaps sticking to seawater in this case just makes more sense.