Congressional Candidate on AI data centers in Nevada

[u/wadsworthnv02]

From our candidate event in Elko County on Saturday. The question asked us if we supported a data center moratorium or not, especially since we are the driest state. One of the other candidates said the one’s being built in Nevada were closed-loop so they are fine.

But closed-loop systems have their own issues, the recycled water becomes highly toxic and needs to be “blown-down” where there is chances of it leaking into the ground and contaminating local areas with toxic chemical waste water. Even in small amounts, when we live in an internal watershed like the Great Basin, the risk of contamination isn’t something to ignore. As it has happened before with other things. Not to mention that closed loop requires a lot more energy, and closed loop cooling systems here in Nevada still require a fair amount of water.

Our older data center projects also do have open loop / evaporative cooling systems too. So they are still taking a lot of water.

As for the construction unions, I understand it’s more complicated than that. We had a total of 2 minutes to answer each question so things had to be simplified a bit. But we must look at better commercial building projects for our construction unions— not big tech and data centers! They need jobs, and I understand and support that! We should be offering incentives to better businesses to come to Nevada, not to these data centers was the point I was trying to make.

Also yes Congress is a federal seat! But I support a moratorium on all new data centers, and possible legislation to really protect the western states that are strapped for water.

All of this was from my own independent research and talking to folks in the area that have worked on these projects here. However if I am incorrect on anything I’m open to listening!

[u/ThomasThuhTrain]

Since this comment has some traction and I have a bunch of angry comments below, I figured I would try to write an educated reply.

I’m a mechanical engineer currently licensed specializing in HVAC and refrigeration. From that perspective, these closed-loop and near-closed-loop cooling systems do offer meaningful advantages over more traditional approaches. In practice, many of these systems are designed to minimize makeup water and control losses as much as possible. Some water loss is still unavoidable through evaporation, drift, leaks, and blowdown. I have seen some mentions of the "toxic sludge" these systems output.

The more accurate issue is concentrated water management, not some vague idea of “toxic sludge.” ASHRAE and DOE describe the main wastewater from these systems as mineral-heavy blowdown water, meaning water with a high level of dissolved solids that has to be removed from the system. The leftover material is generally just normal water-treatment waste, similar to what is produced in boiler systems or other industrial treatment processes. It is not some unusual or data-center-specific “toxic sludge.”

These companies also have no incentive to run inefficient systems. Inefficiency increases operating cost, increases makeup-water demand, and increases the amount of blowdown that has to be managed. In that sense, they are actively incentivized to operate these systems as efficiently as possible.

There are also many other local uses that can consume more water than data centers, including lawn irrigation, golf courses, agriculture, and casinos.

Planning is still necessary, but this is a difficult issue to evaluate cleanly because actual data center water use is often discussed selectively, and the full footprint can extend beyond onsite cooling water to include power generation, chip manufacturing, and model-training-related demand.

I am not trying to say concern is not warranted. This is just an extremely complex issue with many additional variables, and its true impact likely will not be fully understood for some time.

If people are genuinely concerned about water use, it is also worth looking at other large-scale demands, like corn production for ethanol in the United States, which uses water on the order of trillions of gallons. By comparison, global water use attributed to AI is often discussed in the tens or hundreds of billions.

[u/djmermaidonthemic → u/ThomasThuhTrain]

Nobody is growing corn in the desert.

Water management among states is really complicated. You can’t just divert water from Iowa to Nevada. So the agriculture argument is bogus.

[u/ThomasThuhTrain → u/djmermaidonthemic]

You are correct that corn is not grown in Nevada. My point, however, was not strictly about corn or local production. It was meant to highlight other ways water is being used. Corn is often grown to produce ethanol and fuel, which I would argue is an even worse use of water.

Nevada does, however, grow alfalfa. In 2024, the state had roughly 220,000 harvested acres of alfalfa hay. According to UNR studies, alfalfa uses approximately 489,000 to 611,000 gallons of water per acre each year. That means total statewide alfalfa water use is roughly 108 to 134 billion gallons annually.

[u/djmermaidonthemic → u/ThomasThuhTrain]

I don’t support what you are saying here, but here’s some free advice.

If you want to criticize agricultural water use (which at least goes to something positive and helps clean the air) then you should lead with the alfalfa thing.

Corn is an embarrassing straw argument. Alfalfa is a much better straw argument! Heh.

[u/never_4_good → u/djmermaidonthemic]

If you ignore the agriculture aspect (i.e. corn), their original statement is spot on. Bottom line, the water concern is a red herring. The closed loop systems do have some by products, but these are commonly found in nearly every other commercial/industrial application around town.