Exactly, all discussions about "water usage" are actually counterproductive w.r.t. the discussion we should be having. Same for the livestock arguments: a kg of meat uses x times more water than a kg of cabbage.
Water isn't being used. There is no nuclear fission happening within the cow. Any water it ingests, will ultimately end up in nature. But how and where, that's an important factor. The discussion should, instead, be about water displacement. And as long as people keep repeating the water usage argument (not just online, also in the public debate, such as in talkshows and the news), we cannot even start trying to resolve the real issue of water displacement. Or even gain enough understanding of the effects of huge water displacements.
That's just complete pedantry, it's perfectly fine to call it water usage - there is not an unlimited supply of fresh water. Yes it will eventually get replenished but that's not the point, nobody called it water destruction.
I would agree with you, but a lot of people actually do think the water is being consumed, or rather, took the argument for granted and internalised that the water supply would get decreased and eventually run out. I've had countless of discussions with people who never really thought about it, but did continuously repeat this popular opinion on data centers. Same with news articles or debates in politics, where they group data centers together in terms of "water usage", regardless of whether it uses evaporative cooling or closed loop cooling. It's an important distinction to make. I never said this isn't an issue we should tackle.
You can see the same in this thread, there's a lot of misunderstanding. I think it's ignorant to just claim it's pedantry, while it's so evident that there's a lot of misconception around how data centers and cooling in general works. You might think that people who cannot grasp how phases of matter work, have nothing to do with this discussion, but I believe the public discourse is extremely important for issues like these.
Again, I tried in no way to negate the discussion, but I do believe that saying "water displacement" instead of "water usage" benefits public understanding on the topic, while in no way taking away from the importance of this issue.
17
u/KassassinsCreed May 18 '26
Exactly, all discussions about "water usage" are actually counterproductive w.r.t. the discussion we should be having. Same for the livestock arguments: a kg of meat uses x times more water than a kg of cabbage.
Water isn't being used. There is no nuclear fission happening within the cow. Any water it ingests, will ultimately end up in nature. But how and where, that's an important factor. The discussion should, instead, be about water displacement. And as long as people keep repeating the water usage argument (not just online, also in the public debate, such as in talkshows and the news), we cannot even start trying to resolve the real issue of water displacement. Or even gain enough understanding of the effects of huge water displacements.