Hidden Costs Behind “Water-Free” Tech Solutions

The promise of sustainable innovations in data centres often sounds too good to be true. In Northumberland, a high-profile project by QTS is under scrutiny for its actual environmental impact. While the company champions a “water-free” cooling system for its AI servers and business operations, a closer look reveals significant, hidden resource demands.

Innovative Cooling vs. Hidden Costs

QTS touts its closed-loop cooling design – a system that minimizes direct water use. For the initial phase across two data halls, the direct water consumption is reported at roughly 2.3 million litres per year. However, when factoring in the additional water required indirectly from the energy needed to cool the system, the figures tell a very different story. Data scientist Alex de Vries-Gao, along with findings from Watershed Investigations and coverage by The Guardian, determined that the campus’s indirect or embedded water footprint reaches 124 million litres annually for just these two halls. If all 10 planned data halls come online, that number could spike to approximately 621 million litres per year.

This indirect water usage refers to the water consumed in generating the extra electricity required to power additional chilling machines. In simple terms, it’s like a hidden fee: while the cooling system itself appears to save water, the energy itself pulls water from other sources, dramatically increasing the overall environmental cost.

Air Quality and Energy Demand Concerns

The challenges extend beyond water. Increased power demand drives higher energy consumption, which in turn may lead to more significant air pollution. Although QTS asserts that its power comes from a range of sources – including wind, hydro, nuclear, and tidal – the operation still indirectly influences the water supply. The reliance on nearly 600 diesel generators as emergency backups further complicates the issue, as extended use of these generators can lead to prolonged emissions, affecting local air quality.

“Our power is typically carbon neutral and comes from a range of sources including wind, hydro, nuclear, tidal, etc. QTS does not control the quantity of any water utilised in the power generation process.”

Julie Bolthouse from the Piedmont Environmental Council has highlighted similar concerns, noting how operational realities, such as the extended use of generators, might erode the benefits of transitioning to more sustainable practices.

For business leaders and decision-makers eyeing investments in AI automation and data centre sustainability, these findings underscore the importance of looking past surface-level metrics. Just as the hidden fees in a business transaction can inflate costs, the indirect environmental impacts of powering cutting-edge technology can substantially raise the price tag for sustainability.

Community Impact and Broader Implications

Aside from resource usage, local communities face real risks from such large-scale infrastructure projects. The increased air pollution from additional diesel generator use poses potential health hazards, particularly to vulnerable groups. Reports have even mentioned worries for areas as exposed as a nearby primary school playground—a stark reminder that technological advancements must be balanced with community well-being.

Key Takeaways and Critical Questions

• How do indirect water usage figures relate to apparent savings?

  While direct water consumption appears minimal, the extra water needed to generate electricity for cooling increases usage by up to 50 times. This hidden cost calls for a reexamination of how sustainability is measured in tech operations.

• Can environmental disclosures for AI automation match those for carbon emissions?

  Given the substantial indirect impacts, adopting comprehensive disclosure practices that include all environmental metrics—water, air, and carbon—is essential for true accountability and sustainable planning in the tech sector.

• What safeguards are needed for local communities?

  Enhanced monitoring of air pollutants and stricter controls on backup power usage are critical to protecting public health, ensuring that the benefits of technological progress do not come at the expense of community well-being.

Sustainable AI and the Path Forward

The case in Northumberland offers a critical perspective on the balance between technological innovation and environmental stewardship. As companies accelerate investment in AI agents and data centre operations to fuel business growth, it’s essential to assess and address the full spectrum of resource demands involved. With clear, transparent disclosures and proactive policies, the tech industry can pave the way for AI automation that supports both economic progress and ecological sustainability.

This examination serves as a timely reminder: progress should never sideline accountability. For leaders steering the future of business, understanding these hidden costs is crucial to making informed, responsible decisions in a highly interconnected world.