I have always said both the cloud and AI are bad.

I do not use cloud storage persoanlly, so don't be pointing fingers here!

I don't (on purpose anyway) here, either. My guess is that they want the
extra storage that "the cloud" is using for AI and are therefore blaming
cloud users for what is really being caused by increased AI usage... energy
and water usage, etc.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * A nudist wedding makes the best man easy to identify.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Technically speaking, in a closed loop cooling system, there should be minima
waterloss, except for the possibility of increased evaporation due to artifica
heating of your cooling ponds.

Increased energy usage for cloud and AI BAD!
Increased energy usage by forcing everyone to adopt Electric Vehicles GOOD.

Sounds to me like the old adage , "If you think the problem's bad now. Wait'l we solve it!"

I get what you are saying there, except governments and at least some folks
who are pushing electric vehicles are also pushing AI. I suspect that they want to blame "cloud" to free up more energy and IT resources for AI.

So it is "cloud (and general comsumer use) of energy BAD!"
"AI and electric vehicles GOOD!" :D

I don't see how something sitting on a storage device is using up near as
much energy as a CPU-intensive AI process.

With the way big tech is pushing AI I unfortunately expect to be living in
some bad sci-fi story before I shuffle off of this rock.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * You radiate cold shafts of broken glass!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I have always said both the cloud and AI are bad.

I do not use cloud storage persoanlly, so don't be pointing fingers here!

I don't (on purpose anyway) here, either. My guess is that they want the

>extra storage that "the cloud" is using for AI and are therefore blaming
>cloud users for what is really being caused by increased AI usage... energy
>and water usage, etc.

If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but
suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount
of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part
of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new
water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from.
Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are
in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

I half wonder if people mining Bitcoin aren't a bigger problem
than cloud storage..

Personally, I do use a cloud account for files I need to transfer
between multiple units or files I temporarily park there for others
to download, but I doubt I have 5 meg of total data on there..

---
* SLMR Rob * Sometimes you're the windshield..Sometimes you're the bug
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Reminds me of the song, "In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)"

"In the year 5555
Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you"

"Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears"

"In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive."

LOL I know that one. ;) The TV show "Futurama" spoofed it several years
ago with "In the Year 252525" during an episode about time travel horribly
gone wrong. :D

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * A restless eye across a weary room...
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I don't (on purpose anyway) here, either. My guess is that they want the

>extra storage that "the cloud" is using for AI and are therefore blaming
>cloud users for what is really being caused by increased AI usage... energy
>and water usage, etc.

If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount
of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part
of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new
water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from.
Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are
in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

I half wonder if people mining Bitcoin aren't a bigger problem
than cloud storage..

IMHO, the folks mining Bitcoin... and running AI servers... would require a
lot more cooling (and therefor water) than cloud storage. Storing files shouldn't really have much of any abnormally high cooling requirements as it
is not a CPU/GPU intensive process.

Also IMHO, they are trying to make "regular people" think they are the
problem in order to free up resources for increased AI use.

Personally, I do use a cloud account for files I need to transfer
between multiple units or files I temporarily park there for others
to download, but I doubt I have 5 meg of total data on there..

I doubt that anything you've described is processor intensive, either. ;)

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * A momentary lapse of reason that binds a life to a life..
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Re: Re: Forget a hosepipe ban
By: Rob Mccart to MIKE POWELL on Tue Aug 19 2025 08:33 am

If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from. Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

The reports make it sound like the water isn't recycled and that the water is "used" by the data center, as if they're talking about continuous use. Whether that's accurate or not, I don't know. You'd think you could cool the water passively and recirculate it, but then you're adding more radiant heat into the environment.

If water is running through a closed system you wouldn't think there'd be an issue with treating it and releasing it back into the water supply, but I'm sure it's not worth the decrease in net shareholder value.
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

I half wonder if people mining Bitcoin aren't a bigger problem

>> than cloud storage..

IMHO, the folks mining Bitcoin... and running AI servers... would require a

>lot more cooling (and therefor water) than cloud storage. Storing files
>shouldn't really have much of any abnormally high cooling requirements as it
>is not a CPU/GPU intensive process.

Also IMHO, they are trying to make "regular people" think they are the

>problem in order to free up resources for increased AI use.

Yes, the Gov't likes to blame us for things that allow them to duck
the blame and usually guilt us into letting them charge more for
services without us complaining about it.

I think a lot of the Global Warming stuff is being used so we will
pay more for gasoline, electricity and such without complaint..

NOTE: I'm not saying Globel Warming is not happening, I question
whether we caused it or could do anything to stop it seeing as
it's happened multiple times in the past when there were a lot
fewer people on earth to create it..

The world has had a lot more years (twice as many) without polar
ice caps as with them and 4000 years ago they could grow crops
in England that it is now too Cold to grow..

Global warming or natural correction?

---
* SLMR Rob * No, my powers can only be used for good
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

RM> If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but
RM> suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount
RM> of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part
RM> of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new
RM> water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from.
RM> Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are
RM> in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

In the case of water usage, electricity generation and water go hand in hand.

>s water is used for either steam for the turbines, or for cooling. Leaking p
>s or evaperation in the cooling ponds will result in a net loss. So more pow
>= more heat = more water used.

Yes, I was going to mention the other day that a system creating so
much heat it needs to be water cooled also likely makes so much heat
that it couldn't be easily recycled unless there were vast reserves
of it. Much simpler to just dump the hot water and bring in fresh
cooler water.

Also, there are lots of power plants that use water driven turbines
without heat, so much of that here that our power company is called
Ontario Hydro (or Hydro One).

---
* SLMR Rob * I don't work here... I'm a consultant
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

The reports make it sound like the water isn't recycled and that the water is

>sed" by the data center, as if they're talking about continuous use. Whether
>t's accurate or not, I don't know. You'd think you could cool the water passi
>y and recirculate it, but then you're adding more radiant heat into the envir
>ent.

If water is running through a closed system you wouldn't think there'd be an

>ue with treating it and releasing it back into the water supply, but I'm sure
>'s not worth the decrease in net shareholder value.

Yes, I touched on that in a previous message.. I wouldn't think that
water used for cooling would be polluted to any great extent, but
you are still pulling it out of fresh drinking water in same cases
and possibly dumping it into the sewage treatment plants.

---
* SLMR Rob * There are only 2 valid opinions - mine and the wrong one.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I think a lot of the Global Warming stuff is being used so we will
pay more for gasoline, electricity and such without complaint..

NOTE: I'm not saying Globel Warming is not happening, I question
whether we caused it or could do anything to stop it seeing as
it's happened multiple times in the past when there were a lot
fewer people on earth to create it..

Yeah, I get that. Use something that has some truth to it in order to
scare us all into doing something "they" (the government, corporations, or
some mix of the two) want us to. Pretty sure they've tried multiple times
with Global Warming/Climate Change. It seems to have worked in some countries/regions, too.

The world has had a lot more years (twice as many) without polar
ice caps as with them and 4000 years ago they could grow crops
in England that it is now too Cold to grow..

Global warming or natural correction?

The best explanation I have seen was on a PBS special a few years back.
They looked at how the northern regions of Canada, currently mostly frozen, were once rich with plant life. They were quick to point out that this was
the case while these lands were mostly in their current position, and not
from back before the continents shifted to where they are now.

They visited several other areas that used to be much different, showing evidence in the rocks and ice cores of where different cycles began and
ended. The end conclusion was that the Earth has always had these cycles, but that the arrival of man (and more specifically, our adoption of fire, urbanization, and industrialization) has caused these cycles to be more "compact" -- to change more frequently and with greater speed than they used to.

I don't find that difficult to believe.

What I do find difficult to believe is when supposedly expert people claim
that shifts that happened *before* the industrial age were mostly/completely caused by man and not, say, a string of volcanic eruptions (or other
natural phenomenon) that were known to have happened at about the same time.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * She cried away her life since she fell off the cradle!!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Yes, I was going to mention the other day that a system creating so
much heat it needs to be water cooled also likely makes so much heat
that it couldn't be easily recycled unless there were vast reserves
of it. Much simpler to just dump the hot water and bring in fresh
cooler water.

While they are not a closed system in that they need to account for evaporation, don't many power plants (nuclear and some coal) have cooling towers to cool the water and presumably reuse it?

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * "Stamp Collection?? Ha-Ha!" - Nelson
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Evaporative cooling towers? Yes, some water can be reused, but by their very name, a vast quantity is lost into the atmosphere due evaporation. A Google search says depending on the system between 1 and 30% is reused.

So much for nuclear power not having any affect on the climate, or global warming.


* SLMR 2.1a * "I am EVIL Homer! I am EVIL Homer!" - Homer
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

been secondary or tertiary. 1) Water and irrigation needs for desert communities such as Las Vegas, California, etc. 2) Flood Control, 3) Power Generation. Which in the case of the Colorado River, the water level is too low to generate power most of the time. So much of the load is still provided
from conventional plants.

It is starting to get too low to provide for #1, too. :(


* SLMR 2.1a * "Gasoline clears my sinuses!" - Fred G. Sanford
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)