> noted that it would be harder to reach its internal target if its calculations included “secondary” use—water used in generating the electricity to power its data centres, according to the document.
Ok, when we're considering how much water a person uses, are we going to include the water used to grow the almonds you ate? Because agriculture is going to dwarf anything that data centers use.
I find it really odd this recent push for discussions around the development of new datacenters.
There is a plan for constructing a new high-capacity datacenter [edit: near my city]. And a lot of discussions in the media are done through an emotional tone around water and electricity usage.
The media generally frames it as if installing a new datacenter would put the neighbors in risk of not having water or electricity. I'm not arguing that a datacenter doesn't bring any problems, everything has pros and cons.
Both sides seems to be using bad faith/misleading arguments, and I thinks that's really bad because we end up with solutions and agreements that don't improve the lives of the people affected by these new developments.
Why do companies actively lie in their advertising about being eco-friendly, instead of just keeping a low profile?
Is it because we tend to focus only on current events and quickly forget their past track record? Indeed, if people soon forget the lies, the risk is minimal.
Concerns about inconsequential water usage at datacenters is a far more welcome problem for the the industry than the other real issues they could be dealing with. People distracted by water concerns will not notice the very real energy usage and AI ethics/practices issues.
Say what you want but the industry has figured out how to manage public perception and sentiment. Water usage problem is easy to fix, while energy usage is a far tougher nut to crack.
I am assuming the 7.7 billion gallons(29b liters) a year is all surface water. It better be. It would be hideously irresponsible to use any ground water for cooling their data centers.
What happens to water that a data center “uses”? Is it warmed up and returned to the environment? Contaminated and sent to wastewater? Evaporated into the air?
""It would be better if they could own up to it," said a current Amazon software developer, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. "Even if they said it was a low priority, at least that would be honest.""
HN commentary on water use by so-called "tech" companies usually includes a number of mindlessly-parroted, bad faith "arguments"
One of these is to try to compare the new (additive) water use by non-essential data centers with existing (non-additive) water use by agriculture
Putting aside that (a) data centers are non-essential and not comparable to food, water or shelter and (b) agricultural use is not new, these "arguments" are also ignoring that (c) the so-called "tech" companies are trying to hide the data
Employees of these so-called "tech" companies might be experiencing guilt over this dishonest tactic, but not enough to make them quit
When their employer hides the data this makes accurate comparisons, e.g., to existing water use by other recipients, difficult if not impossible
Does agriculture also try to hide its water use
If it did, then HN comments could not attempt bad faith comparisons
This is a reaction to the unwarranted fear-mongering in the media over water usage by data centers. The amount of water is utterly inconsequential. Growing corn on the same land the data centers currently occupy would consume more water and provide far less value.
We should question the motives of whoever orchestrated a "story" out of this non-story and is pushing it in the media. It obviously isn't being done in good faith.
This isn't really about using water as much as dealing with all of the heat that comes out of computation. The water is just the simplest way to dispose of the heat.
Isn't there some better way we can, perhaps, turn some of the heat back into something useful? Maybe heat a building? Or turn it back into electricity. It doesn't have to be an efficient conversion because it's now 100% wasted.
> Amazon’s data centres were projected to use 7.7 billion gallons of water a year by 2030, according to the leaked strategy memo, which was circulated within the company in 2022.
Amazon strategised about keeping water use secret
(source-material.org)236 points by chhum 27 October 2025 | 231 comments
Comments
Ok, when we're considering how much water a person uses, are we going to include the water used to grow the almonds you ate? Because agriculture is going to dwarf anything that data centers use.
There is a plan for constructing a new high-capacity datacenter [edit: near my city]. And a lot of discussions in the media are done through an emotional tone around water and electricity usage.
The media generally frames it as if installing a new datacenter would put the neighbors in risk of not having water or electricity. I'm not arguing that a datacenter doesn't bring any problems, everything has pros and cons.
Both sides seems to be using bad faith/misleading arguments, and I thinks that's really bad because we end up with solutions and agreements that don't improve the lives of the people affected by these new developments.
I can totally see why a company wants to keep this info secret.
Competitors would really like to know.
Where does the water go? If they simply take in cold water and release hot water, that water is still available for other uses.
Or do data centers use evaporative cooling just like power plants?
Water use for all of AI is inconsequential compared to agriculture.
In addition, water is almost never wasted, only moved around.
Energy is the important input.
Say what you want but the industry has figured out how to manage public perception and sentiment. Water usage problem is easy to fix, while energy usage is a far tougher nut to crack.
How would that even be possible?
If so, why?
If not, does it matter how much water is used?
HN commentary on water use by so-called "tech" companies usually includes a number of mindlessly-parroted, bad faith "arguments"
One of these is to try to compare the new (additive) water use by non-essential data centers with existing (non-additive) water use by agriculture
Putting aside that (a) data centers are non-essential and not comparable to food, water or shelter and (b) agricultural use is not new, these "arguments" are also ignoring that (c) the so-called "tech" companies are trying to hide the data
Employees of these so-called "tech" companies might be experiencing guilt over this dishonest tactic, but not enough to make them quit
When their employer hides the data this makes accurate comparisons, e.g., to existing water use by other recipients, difficult if not impossible
Does agriculture also try to hide its water use
If it did, then HN comments could not attempt bad faith comparisons
Because there would be no data to cite
We should question the motives of whoever orchestrated a "story" out of this non-story and is pushing it in the media. It obviously isn't being done in good faith.
Isn't there some better way we can, perhaps, turn some of the heat back into something useful? Maybe heat a building? Or turn it back into electricity. It doesn't have to be an efficient conversion because it's now 100% wasted.
From https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/total-wate...:
> Water use in the United States in 2015 was estimated to be about 322 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d), which was 9 percent less than in 2010.
It doesn't seem to be very much water at all.