Hacker News Reader

Comment by blkhawk | Hacker News Reader

The one near here just has heat exchanges. But even if all the others use evaporators then potential water usage is extremely misleading because its not like the water is consumed - its just temporarily unavailable.

Also why doesn't uploading a 1GB file to my NAS boil a liter of water? are maybe all the switches and routers used between me and the datacenter water-cooled? I mean I can see such switches existing but I don't see them be the norm. Why doesn't the DSLAM on the Street outside emit steam. Is there maybe one bad switch somewhere that just spews steam?

What I am saying is that at least that graph is without further explanation... bad.

View on HN

> The one near here just has heat exchanges. But even if all the others use evaporators then potential water usage is extremely misleading because its not like the water is consumed

Water consumption in all contexts is mostly fresh water returned from immediately usable form to either evaporation or the ocean. It is not "extremely misleading", because when it returns to immediately usable form by, e.g., precipitation, that's when new water is considered to be made available. The normal definitions are internally consistent and useful.

I did a bit of research and even water just "involved" in the process is counted as used in this context. For instance river water that is used for cooling and returned is counted.

I think these sort of graphs are simply misleading and should not be used.

Is that actually a common configuration? I could find very little on data centers being cooler by river water, and the few I found sounded like they were doing something novel.

Using natural water is more common in power plants, where the volume of water is sufficiently large to use concrete aquaducts and the precision of the temperature isn't as important. Most datacenter liquid cooling is treated municipal water with glycol additives to prevent corrosion and pump jamming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com