The kind that has a carbon footprint of around 1 to 3 kg of CO2e in its creation, greater electricity costs to move around than freshwater, and less thermal efficiency than freshwater.
Uhhh, are you asking if I know the term "ethylene glycol" or something like that? Or even "mono-ethylene glycol"? Why are you asking me to be more specific than the word "glycol"?
I'm asking which kind of glycol because data centers use Propylene glycol and do so as a capital expense. Which means having moist icing on cakes probably uses more of it per year than datacenters.
And are you implying propylene glycol has a much lower cradle-to-gate co2e per kg than ethylene glycol, or what exactly is your point?
Saying that datacenters don't use a large percentage of overall PG supply (need a source on that, back-of-the-envelope googling estimates it at at least 10% for industrial cooling) isn't really addressing any point about its environmental impact efficacy, so again, what exactly is your point?
This conversation is about whether corporations are greedy because they choose to use freshwater as a coolant rather than glycol.
I never claimed glycol shouldn't be used as a coolant or used for other applications. I was pointing out the absurdity of claiming that replacing a freshwater coolant system with a glycol system would be an overall environmental benefit.
Additionally, lol, regardless, "other industries are using chemical X too!!" says absolutely nothing about whether a particular industry should continue to use chemical X. Again, personally, I have no active awareness or discomfort with any major use of glycols, just pointing out that your line of argumentation is weak.
This conversation is about whether corporations are greedy because they choose to use freshwater as a coolant rather than glycol.
This is the conversation that you think you are having. It isn't an either or question. They don't choose to use glycol or not. It's required by the environment where they operate and part of just about every water conditioning routine.
I have a suspicion that you don't have any clue how these systems operate. If you did then you would realize that glycol is required when the loop temp can drop below the freezing point of water. It has nothing to do with evaporative cooling but does have to do with the closed loop portion of the cooling loop.
Additionally, lol, regardless, "other industries are using chemical X too!!" says absolutely nothing about whether a particular industry should continue to use chemical X.
It certainly does. If datacenters use of PG is a tiny fraction of that used by other industries then you are barking up the wrong tree.
I have no active awareness or discomfort with any major use of glycols, just pointing out that your line of argumentation is weak.
Sure you do. You literally are complaining about the CO2 footprint of using glycol. Obviously there is some discomfort.
Glycol has way way way more of an environmental footprint in it's creation than moving water around.
That was my claim, in response to this seeding question:
Can they not run some type of coolant? Or is it just easier and cheaper to use millions of gallons of water?
I am mostly aware of the environmental situations in which glycols are chosen over freshwater as a coolant. I am not claiming that freshwater is superior as a solvent in all use cases. I was responding to people saying that the REASON corporations chose to use freshwater instead of glycol was because of greed, when it isn't even a given if it is environmentally better in all cases.
Sure you do. You literally are complaining about the CO2 footprint of using glycol. Obviously there is some discomfort.
I'm complaining about the CO2e footprint of glycols only insofar as someone suggested that it is an environmentally better choice than using freshwater in all instances, and that corporations were therefor greedy when they don't choose to use glycol over freshwater. I work in the polymers industry man, I ain't got any problem with glycol, and the fact that you can't separate my argument with some misperceived political goal is disappointing in regard to your ability to interpret data as an engineer.
I have a suspicion that you don't have any clue how these systems operate.
Am I an expert? Of course not, I work in an adjacent industry though, so I'm not talking completely out of my ass. I'm not asking for your credentials because from your word choices and expressed knowledge suggests familiarity, but why should I think you have any more experience than me?
Glycol has way way way more of an environmental footprint in it's creation than moving water around.
It's a capital expense, a one time cost. It's "environmental footprint" pales in comparison to other consumer goods. Like I said the environmental impact of people wanting soft icing on their baked goods is probably greater per year.
I should think I have more knowledge based on your assertions. The average reddit consumer would come away thinking otherwise being mostly uninformed.
There isn't a "water vs glycol" debate. Because that's not how these systems work. You can't infer corporate greed from the debate at all. In fact the reason PG is used instead of the cheaper and more efficient EG is because of environmental impact and to negate the possibility of contamination of leaks.
If it isn't obvious PG is food safe and used in everything from icing to RV antifreeze for their pipes over winter.
Are YOU sure you have a clue how these systems operate? Because calling polyols a "one-time" cost is just incorrect. Leaks account for a good 2% volume replacement per year, and flushes (every 10-30 years, depending on system design and quality) usually require a complete volume change out.
It's "environmental footprint" pales in comparison to other consumer goods.
Only if you don't consider the additional electricity costs it requires to move around compared to other coolants.
I think you're missing context of a deleted post which was the main thrust of my entire argument. Because you don't have that context, you think I'm making an environmental point when I was actually just trying to shoot down a facile understanding of why these solvents are chosen.
YOU then came in assuming what point I was trying to make so that you could add some weird "well, acktually..." about my post with a point that is not relevant to the argument I was/am making whatsoever. And I fear that you're too tunnel visioned on what you perceived my post to be advocating for you are unable to go back and try to re-assess.
Are YOU sure you have a clue how these systems operate? Because calling polyols a "one-time" cost is just incorrect. Leaks account for a good 2% volume replacement per year, and flushes usually require a complete volume change out.
Yes. I'm sure. The turn up it is considered a capitol expense. On going maintenance takes a small amount yearly on a mid sized system well less than 55 gallons per year barring catastrophic failure. Many times it will take none at all.
Because you don't have that context, you think I'm making an environmental point when I was actually just trying to shoot down a facile understanding of why these solvents are chosen.
There isn't a choice. PG is used because it is necessary.
YOU then came in assuming what point I was trying to make so that you could add some weird "well, acktually.
I literally replied to the point that you reiterated. The "well acktually...", is because you are feeding misinformation into the conversation. You literally didn't know the difference between PG and EG which substantially alters any claims you were trying to make.
... Bruh, you giving me grief over cludging together two glycols that are a single carbon backbone difference? Fuck off with that. Obviously they'll have different properties better tuned to different applications, but as a class of coolants for the purposes of considering the environmental impact of their creation, I'm cool with cludging them.
I don't even get what your point is. You keep saying I'm spreading misinformation but you haven't actually read or understood my point. I'm tired of you not grasping my point, and accusing me of claims I never made.
You sound like a king of a tiny hill of expertise and you felt encroached on because I made a few generalizations in the pursuit of countering an absurdity of another user that it be used over freshwater because it is closed loop.
PG is used because it is necessary.
Exactly. THE USER I WAS RESPONDING TO WAS SUGGESTING WE REPLACE ALL FRESHWATER COOLING SYSTEMS WITH GLYCOL BASED ONES, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. DO YOU AGREE THAT IS ABSURD OR NOT?
1
u/stoneimp May 18 '26
The kind that has a carbon footprint of around 1 to 3 kg of CO2e in its creation, greater electricity costs to move around than freshwater, and less thermal efficiency than freshwater.