• bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really. At least not in the sense that it’s a net loss of water downstream.

    It’s not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is removed from the system. It’s not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent.

      • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling.

        That’s not what I’m talking about though. I’m talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water.

        • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It’s not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it’s not net zero either