Super Facts

The Infeasibility of Manned Mars Missions

Superfact 141: Humans travelling to Mars and back using current chemical rocket technology is nearly impossible and extremely dangerous. It is in a completely different category from manned Moon Missions.

This photo was taken by NASA’s Viking 1 probe in 1976. The photo shows a slightly reddish planet with an enormous canyon, Valles Marineris. | The Infeasibility of Manned Mars Missions — Photo taken by NASA’s Viking 1 probe in 1976. NASA/USGS, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. The image comes from this site.

The exponential nature of rocket physics (the tyranny of the rocket equation), massive fuel and weight requirements, immense distances, the 500 days of waiting on the surface for Earth and Mars to align for a safe return, and severe hazards to human health, makes travelling to Mars immensely more difficult than travelling to the moon and back.

A realistic photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of Mars, wearing a white space suit with reflective visor. The astronaut is holding a shiny silver sphere in one hand, which reflects the reddish Martian landscape. In the background, a Martian rover with visible details of its wheels and instruments rests on the rocky, dusty terrain. The red-orange soil and rugged landscape stretch into the distance under a pale, hazy sky. Hyper-realistic, sharp details, cinematic composition, vibrant colors, and immersive atmosphere. — Shutterstock asset id: 2680563665 by Shutterstock AI Generator.

We went to the moon. Russian cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov spent 438 days in space. We’ve sent spacecraft and landers, rovers and an aerial helicopter to Mars, so why could we not send people? It is just a few hundred times farther than the moon. Shouldn’t we be able to keep an astronaut alive for a couple of years for a Mars trip? It turns out that those questions are forgetting about several enormous obstacles. It turns out that the enormous obstacles facing a human Mars expedition are surprising if you haven’t investigated this topic before, and therefore I consider it a super fact.

The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation

The Earth and the Sun have gravitational fields that a rocket needs to overcome to move up into space. A good indicator of how difficult it is to leave a planet, or other celestial objects, is its escape velocity. The escape velocity is the minimum speed a rocket must achieve to break free from a celestial body’s gravitational pull and never fall back, without any further propulsion. The escape velocity for Earth is 11.2 km/s, for the sun it is 617.7 km/s, and for the sun starting from Earth’s orbit it is around 42.1 km/s. This means you need a better rocket to make it all the way to Mars because it is further away from the sun.

If the rocket is not powerful enough you need to add more fuel. The problem is that more fuel means that you make the rocket heavier, so you need even more fuel, etc. This is called the rocket equation. It is commonly called the tyranny of the rocket equation. Current chemical rockets using the best hydrogen-oxygen propellants already dedicate about 80% to 90% of their mass purely to carrying fuel.

Smoke and fire surrounding the Saturn V launch. | The Infeasibility of Manned Mars Missions — The photograph of the Saturn V launch vehicle (SA-506) for the Apollo 11 mission liftoff from launch complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center. USA – July 16, 1969. Shutterstock asset id: 2599523569 by Rawpixel.com.

In fact, leaving Earth with a standard chemical rocket would become practically impossible if the planet’s radius were 50% larger. If Earth’s radius increased by 50% while maintaining the same density, its mass would grow by a factor of 3.375, raising surface gravity to about 1.5 times current levels. No matter how much fuel you added you could never leave planet Earth.

The picture shows a smaller Earth on the left and a bigger Earth on the right. Above the smaller Earth you see a small red rocket lifting up. Above the bigger Earth you see a small red rocket falling back down. — This picture illustrates the problem. You cannot get off the 50% larger Earth on the right with a standard rocket, no matter how much fuel you added. I generated this picture with the help of ChatGPT.

I should say that situation with Mars is a bit different from the supersized Earth situation above. We can send a standard chemical rocket spacecraft to Mars. Otherwise, we would not have been able to get any spacecraft to Mars. However, for a round trip we need extra fuel to get back up from Mars and that cannot be done without refueling. This means that you need orbital refueling strategies. For example, you can build refueling stations along the way, on the moon and on Mars, and then you have to transport the fuel there, before you begin the roundtrip. That is a lot of extra effort. You can read more here.

The Required 500 Days of Waiting on Mars

The distance to Mars is immense. When Mars is the closest to Earth it is on average roughly 60 million miles, which is 250 times farther than the moon. This is referred to as Mars being in opposition. When Mars is the farthest from Earth, it is 250 million miles from Earth, or 1,050 times as far as the moon. This is because Earth and Mars travel in orbits at different speeds. That’s a long trip. The picture below shows the planets and their orbits. See how Earth and Mars are far away from each other in this picture.

Detailed vector illustration of the solar system showing planets orbiting the sun with labeled names and elliptical orbital paths in a clean, educational style.Solar System Planets Orbiting Sun with Labels and Elliptical Paths Illustration. | The Infeasibility of Manned Mars Missions — Solar system. Shutterstock asset id: 2785416813 by Yeakub Dhali.

There are two obvious problems. First, after you land on Mars you cannot go back the way you came. You are going to have to wait for the best opportunity to fly back to Earth. A round-trip mission to Mars is estimated to take 900 to 1100 days. One estimate is 911 days (about 2.5 years): 174 days to get there, over 500 days waiting on the surface for planets to align for a safe return, and 201 days to fly back. The crew needs to be protected from the extreme radiation for 500 days, and fed for 500 days, and kept safe for 500 days without access to any Earth facilities.

Add to that the fact that Mars and Earth will be on the opposite side of the Sun from each other for two to several weeks (Mars solar conjunction) during which radio communication will be impossible. Any help needed from Earth during that time will be absent.

The Extreme Radiation and other Hazards

Last but not least the threats to the astronauts health are immense. Space radiation during a short trip to the moon is one thing. Being subject to space radiation during two and half years is quite another. Mars magnetic field is weak and its atmosphere thin, so you won’t get much help from that. To protect astronauts, you would need lead and water containment, which would add weight and additional fuel requirements. A very long time without gravity, maintaining safe ecosystems inside a rocket for two and half years, isolation and confinement, are all challenges that may not be survivable.

Conclusion

A manned Mars Mission is easier said than done. If you are interested, below is a YouTube Video that explains the details. Naturally, in the future we may have different kinds of technology, nuclear powered spacecraft, spacecraft utilizing the solar wind, advanced robots aiding astronauts, etc., that could make manned Mars missions feasible.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Smorgasbord Blog Magazine Share Superfact 69 – Polar Nights Are Phenomenal and Cover a Large Area

Smorgasbord Blog Magazine – Thomas Wikman’s Superfacts – Polar Nights Are Phenomenal and Cover a Large Area

I was delighted when I saw the post above. Sally from Smorgasbord Blog Magazine shared my super-fact 69:

Super fact 69 : Polar nights happen in the regions north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic Circle. Together the two polar regions cover an area double as large as the United States, and it includes a population of millions of people. During a polar night the sun does not rise for days, or months, up to six months. The polar nights are special, not just for the daytime darkness, but for the spectacular aurora borealis, the starlit skies, the extremely clear air, and the fact that people often lose track of time during polar nights.

In addition, she is promoting my Leonberger dog book for which Diana Wallace Peach wrote a great review. Thank you so much Sally and Diana. Please visit her post above at the Smorgasbord blog magazine and read it.

Stunning aurora borealis lights up the night sky with vibrant colors, creating a mesmerizing natural display in the Arctic wilderness. | Smorgasbord Blog Magazine Share Superfact 69 – Polar Nights Are Phenomenal and Cover a Large Area — Aurora Borealis are often spectacular in the polar regions, especially during the polar night. Asset id: 2499746583 by HappyVibeArt

Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling

Superfact 140: Naturally occurring climate change caused by Earth’s orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles) would currently result in a slight long-term cooling trend. Other natural causes of climate change such as solar activity, volcanic trends, and other sources of carbon emissions do not increase Earth’s average global temperature. In addition, reductions in Ozone depleting gases have a cooling effect. Our fossil fuel emissions are the cause for the current sharp increase global temperature as well as for it not getting colder.

The graph shows the temperature since the last ice age. There is a maximum temperature about 6,000 years ago, then a cooling and then a sharp uptick in temperature. | Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling — Global temperature from 20,000 BCE until now. Notice the Holocene Thermal Maximum around 6,000 years ago and the relatively stable temperature during the last 10,000 years, coinciding with the development of human civilization. Pay special attention to the sudden sharp increase in average global temperature at the end.

The sharp spike in global average temperatures towards the right side of the graph above is caused by us humans, chiefly by our burning of fossil fuels. However, the rest of the graph corresponds to natural causes of climate change. The wild swings in the average global temperature during the ice ages are chiefly caused by Earth’s orbital cycles, the so called Milankovitch cycles. <<Link-1>> There are three main Milankovitch cycles:

Changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricity, with 100,000 year cycles.
Changes in obliquity or axial tilt, with a 41,000 year cycle.
Axial precession or wobble, with a 26,000 year cycle.

Three illustrated orbital cycles. On the left orbital eccentricity, in the middle is the axial tilt and on the right axial precession. — Illustration of Milankovitch cycles from MIT’s Climate Primer.

The Milankovitch cycles cool Earth, and the sun, climate oscillations and ocean currents, volcanoes and emissions part of the carbon cycle do not cause any significant global warming in the long run. In addition, reductions in Ozone depleting gases have a cooling effect and so does our emissions of aerosols. In other words, if it weren’t for our carbon emissions Earth would be getting colder. I believe this is a surprising and important fact and therefore a super fact.

Milankovitch Cycles

Several scientists, astronomers and organizations around the world keep track of the orbital cycles including NASA, NOAA, etc. The Milankovitch cycles explain the ice ages, but these cycles are too long to explain the recent one or two century spike in average global temperatures. Furthermore, the Milankovitch cycles would currently slowly cool the atmosphere not warming it.

The graph shows wild swings over the last 150,000 years and then a very sharp uptick at the end. | Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling — Temperature record for the last 150,000 years. Orbital cycles are the main cause for these swings but not the temperature spike at the end. This picture is taken from this article.

In addition, different causes for climate change leave behind different fingerprints in how the heat is distributed across time, seasons, atmospheric layers, and geography. The “fingerprint” of the current warming is that of greenhouse gases being the cause for it and not orbital cycles. For example, the upper atmosphere is cooling an effect caused by the “blanket effect” caused by greenhouse gases. You can read more about how the current rapid global warming is different from past ice age temperature swings here.

To read more about the Milankovitch cycles click here.

The Sun Does Not Contribute to Global Warming

The sun cannot explain the average increase in global warming either. According to data from NASA, solar energy output has shown no net increase since the late 1970s, in fact it is at its lowest in over a hundred years, and again the sun has the wrong “fingerprint”. You can read more about this here.

A thin yellow line graph (on black background) shows the sun’s irradiance fluctuating every 11 year. However, it does not go up overall, but it rather goes down even though the red line graph showing temperature rises sharply. — Solar irradiance (yellow) plotted with temperature (red) since 1880. NASA, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Volcanoes and Other Natural Sources of Carbon Emissions Do Not Contribute to Global Warming

Human emissions are roughly 60 to 100 times greater than all global volcanic output combined. In addition, volcanoes are part of the carbon cycle which has been stable for a long time. Thus, volcanoes are not the cause of the current rapid global warming. You can read more about this here.

The graph shows human emissions exceeding that of volcanoes around 1870 and then rising rapidly. | Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling — Human carbon missions (green line) vs. emissions from volcanic eruptions (purple line at bottom). Data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.

There are a lot of natural carbon emissions from the soil, rotting plants, animal and human respiration, and oceans, and a small amount from volcanoes. However, carbon is also absorbed by the oceans, and by plants via photosynthesis, etc., and this creates a balance that has existed for many thousands of years. This is called the carbon cycle. Even though the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are smaller than some of the naturally occurring carbon emissions, it is the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels that are behind the increase of carbon in the atmosphere because they are a new addition that disrupts the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle in the picture shows that the terrestrial biosphere is absorbing 120 Gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and emits 60 Gigatons to the atmosphere. It also adds 60 Gigatons of carbon to terrestrial soils. It also shows the Surface of the Ocean both emitting and absorbing 90 Gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere and both emitting and absorbing 90 Gigatons of carbon to the deep ocean. There are additional flows in the picture. It is complex but stable cycle. — The picture above was drawn by me and is an adaptation of Figure 3.1 on page 31 in the book “The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss”.

Conclusion

Orbital cycles, so called Milankovitch cycles, changes climate naturally but they are in a cooling phase. The sun is cooling a bit. Reductions in Ozone depleting gases have a cooling effect and aerosol particle pollution has a cooling effect.

Climate variability, climate oscillations, climate currents affect climate and are important to climate and are affected by global warming, but they are not the cause behind the recent rapid global warming.

Volcanoes and carbon emissions that are part of the carbon cycle are not adding to the carbon in the atmosphere. However, carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels do. If we didn’t burn fossil fuels Earth would be cooling.

Note : this does imply that our carbon emissions is a good thing. The rapid global warming we are witnessing is a very dangerous problem.

Other super facts related to global warming

To see the other Super Facts click here

Millions of species have been documented

Super fact 139 : 2.17 million species have been described but it is possible that as many as 20% of those are duplicates. However, most species are likely undiscovered.

This bar graph feature ten taxonomic groups; Insects (1 million species), Flowering plants (369,000 species), Mushrooms (157,648 species), Arachnids (97,085 species), Fishes (37,288 species), Mosses (21,925 species), Reptiles (12,502 species), Birds (11,185 species), Amphibians (8,918 species), Mammals (6,815 species). | Millions of species have been documented — The number of identified and named species in each taxonomic group. Since many species have not yet been described, this is a large underestimate of the total number of species in the world. Note about Taxonomic group: Scientists sort living things into groups based on how closely related they are. Each of these groups is called a taxonomic group. The groups fit inside one another, from broad to narrow. Mammals, birds and fish are broad groups. Within mammals, primates are a narrower group. And within primates, humans are just one species. Data source: International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened species (2025). OurWorldinData.org/biodiversity | CC BY

As mentioned, a couple of million species have been named and identified. For a species to be formally described, it’s description must be published in a scientific journal or book. Considering this it is quite impressive that we’ve described millions of species, mostly insects and plants. However, according to science magazine the most likely number of species is in the range of 5 to 10 million eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are organisms consisting of complex cells with a membrane wrapped in nucleus and other internal compartments, which exclude viruses and bacteria.

The fact that we have succeeded in describing two million species is impressive and surprising. That is a lot of work. The fact that there are likely millions of more species we haven’t found is equally surprising. There are surprisingly many species and unless you already knew this, this is surprising and perhaps mind-blowing information, and therefore a super fact.

Challenges in Defining a Species

Species is a unit of biological classification and it is the lowest taxonomic rank below genus. Species is often defined using the Biological Species Concept, which is defined as populations whose members can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other groups. However, it is complicated. Asexual organisms, hybrids and ring species, and extinct species complicate things. Therefore, other ways of defining species exist.

The picture shows a Red Fox with an upside down pyramid showing the different taxonomic ranks. Domain is at the top (Eukarya), Kingdom (Animalia), Phylym (Chordata), Class (Mammalia), Order (Carnivora), Family (Canidae), Genus (Vulpes), Species (Vulpes vulpes, which is the red fox). | Millions of species have been documented — The major ranks: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, applied to the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Many classifications based on genetic analysis require more than these eight ranks, not all of which have distinct names. Annina Breen, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons.

To define a species, you can also use genetic similarity, unique ecological niches, unique common ancestors, distinct physical traits, size, shape, and structural features. In other words, species concept is not simple and defining a species requires expertise. This makes it even more impressive that we have identified and described two million species.

I should add that there are also subspecies. A subspecies is a distinct population within a species that lives in a specific geographic region and differs in physical traits from other populations of the same species, while still being able to interbreed with them. An example is the dog which is a subspecies of the gray wolf.

Ring Species

As mentioned, a common definition of species is that two animals belong to the same species if they can interbreed in nature and produce viable, fertile offspring. As I pointed out it is not always that simple. An animal A may be able to successfully interbreed with an animal B, and that animal B may be able to successfully interbreed with an animal C, but animal A and C cannot interbreed. Animal A could be said to be a different species relative to animal C, but animal B could be said to be the same species as both animal A & C using the definition above.

A great geography related example of this is ring species. In a ring species, gene flow occurs between neighboring populations of a species, but at the ends of the ring the populations don’t interbreed.

The picture depicts different subspecies as little colored circles centered around a big lake. The color changes a little bit at the time. All the circles next to each other can interbreed. — Illustration of ring species, an example of how speciation can be relative. All the circles next to each other can interbreed but at the end it no longer works. Andrew Z. Colvin, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Other Super Facts Related to Wildlife

A couple of interesting super facts related to species and wildlife are :

(70) The Wild Mammal Biomass Has Substantially Declined – click to visit
(71) The Extinction Rate is Much Higher Than the Natural Baseline Rate – click to visit

The first one is concerning the fact that we humans and our domesticated animals, cattle etc., have largely replaced wild animals and wild mammals. As the total biomass has increased the wild mammal biomass has decreased. The second super fact is about the current extinction rate being perhaps thousands of times higher than what is typical. A mass extinction event is often defined as when 75% of all species, or more, goes extinct within 2 million years. 200 years is only 0.01% of 2 million years so modern society has existed for an extremely short time. It is just a tiny blip on geological scales. So, even with an extinction rate thousands of times above normal, we haven’t gotten very far yet. Luckily, it looks like we might be turning things around, so perhaps we won’t be like the asteroid that exterminated the non-Avian dinosaurs.

3D illustration showing two carnivorous dinosaurs and two large herbivores looking up at a burning asteroid. | Millions of species have been documented — Extinction of the dinosaurs when a large asteroid hits earth 66 million years ago. It was the last mass extinction event. Asset id: 2196200279 by funstarts33

To see the other Super Facts click here

A Typical AI Query Use Less Energy Than Using a Laptop One Minute

Super fact 138 : A Typical AI Query use less energy than using a laptop for one minute. A typical AI Query use between a few drops of water to half a bottle of water at worst. Data centers in the United States use roughly 0.2% of total U.S. freshwater when combining direct facility cooling and indirect water used for electricity generation. A ten minute shower uses more energy than 5,000 typical AI Queries.

The bar graph shows that a typical AI query uses 0.3 Watt hours of energy whilst a 5-minute laptop usage uses 2 Watt hours. Charging a mobile phone use 20 Watt hours and watching TV for one hour uses 90 Watt hours. Average US consumption per person and per is 24 Watt hours and a one minute shower uses 1,600 Watt hours. | A Typical AI Query Use Less Energy Than Using a Laptop One Minute — How does the electricity consumption of individual AI queries compare to other everyday activities? Marginal increase in electricity consumption from different activities, measured in watt-hours (Wh). Note Estimates for AI cover inference only; however, model training adds little per query given how many queries each model serves over its lifetime. Data source: AI text query estimates from EpochAI (2025). Other estimates explained at https://hannahritchie.github.io/energy-use-comparisons OurWorldinData – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the author Hannah Ritchie.

According to the Manhattan institute, NVIDIA, Google and this article the data centers in the United States use roughly 0.2% of total U.S. freshwater when combining direct facility cooling and indirect water used for electricity generation. Most fresh water used in the US is for irrigation / agriculture and the second largest consumer of fresh water is thermoelectric plants (coal, natural gas, nuclear). Worldwide 70% of freshwater used is used by agriculture and industry is another big user. According to this article Google says that a typical AI query uses five drops of water, and half a bottle of water at the worst. You can read more about water usage here, here, here, and here.

Around half of all energy used by data centers is thermoelectric. Most of the freshwater usage that is part of the 0.2% number is due to the thermoelectric powerplants supplying the energy to data centers. However, it should be noted that as clean energy is increasingly adopted this number will decline. On the other hand, the manufacturing of computer chips, which also use a lot of freshwater, is not taken into account in this number because it is a onetime event that is difficult to account for. It might double or even triple the 0.2% number, which is still very little.

It should be noted that there are a lot of valid concerns about AI and datacenters, but to reduce carbon emissions and pollution and to waste less freshwater, it might be more effective to eat less beef, irrigate your lawn less, take shorter showers, drive an EV or a hybrid instead of a gas guzzling SUV with an internal combustion engine, or perhaps use public transportation. You’d start with the low hanging fruit. In fact, if the AI query you are about to make saves you some time on your laptop, then the AI query probably helps the environment.

Datacenters use less freshwater than many of us would expect, and typical AI queries use almost no energy and correspond to very little use of freshwater. I think this comes as a surprise to many considering the ongoing datacenter panic. It is therefore a super fact.

Datacenters and Energy Usage

Datacenters use a significant amount of energy but perhaps not as much as one would think. However, their energy use is increasing, and they are part of our rising energy demand. With a growing population, a growing economy, cryptocurrencies, AI, datacenters, electrification, we are going to need a growing supply of electricity and an expanding grid. Hopefully our energy sources will be mostly clean energy, which luckily seems to be the trend. See “The Unfolding Clean Energy Revolution”.

The United States is the country with the most datacenters and as can be seen in the graph below, the datacenters in the United States use a relatively large portion of its available electricity for datacenters and it is increasing.

The graph shows that the share of electricity used for data centers in the US is 5%, Europe 2%, China 1%, Middle East 0.3%, Africa 0.2%, Central & South America 0.1%, and globally it is 1.5%. — 5% of electricity generated in the United States is used for data centers. Electricity consumed by data centers as a share of electricity generation in 2025. Note: Data centers power a wide range of services, including streaming, messaging, and cloud storage, as well as artificial intelligence (AI). Data sources: International Energy agency (2026); Ember (2026). CC BY

The Growing Energy Use by Datacenters

The three graphs below are from this page and this page. Note the projected increase in electricity use for data centers. Note that by visiting these pages you play around with the graphs and changed regions and countries and other settings to generate your own graphs.

The graphs depict the growing electricity use by data centers from 2020 to 2025. In the United States the share of electricity used for data centers grew from 2.6% in 2020 to 4.9% in 2025. It also grew for Europe, China, Africa, and the World but less. For the world without the United States and China it grew more modestly from 0.7% to 0.9%. | A Typical AI Query Use Less Energy Than Using a Laptop One Minute — Share of total electricity demand used by data centers 2020 to 2025. Electricity consumed by data centers given as a share of electricity generation. Data centers power a wide range of digital services including streaming, messaging, and cloud storage. Artificial Intelligence (AI) focused data centers are a subset of this electricity consumption. Data source: International Energy agency (2026); Ember (2026). OurWorldinData.org/artificial-intelligence | CC BY

The graph shows that the share of electricity used for data centers in the US is 4.9%, Europe 1.9%, China 1.1%, Middle East 0.3%, Africa 0.2%, Central & South America 0.1%, and globally it is 1.5%. — Share of total electricity demand used by data centers 2025. Electricity consumed by data centers given as a share of electricity generation. Data centers power a wide range of digital services including streaming, messaging, and cloud storage. Artificial Intelligence (AI) focused data centers are a subset of this electricity consumption. Data source: International Energy agency (2026); Ember (2026). OurWorldinData.org/artificial-intelligence | CC BY

This graph shows that worldwide growth in electricity usage by data centers will grow from 485TWh in 2025 to 945TWh in 2030. However, the portion from Artificial Intelligence (AI) will grow from 155TWh to 465TWh | A Typical AI Query Use Less Energy Than Using a Laptop One Minute — How much of global electricity is used for data centers? Measured in terawatt-hours (TWh). Estimates for 2025; base-case projections for 2030 from the International Energy Agency (IEA). Note: Projections for 2030 are very uncertain but are shown here to reflect expectations that most data center growth will come from AI-focused ones. Data source: IEA (2026). Key Questions on Energy and AI. CC BY

As you can see in the graphs above, there is a significant portion, but not a large portion, of electricity usage by data centers. However, it is important to note that only a portion of this is for Artificial Intelligence. It will grow though. You can read more about this issue here, and here, or here.

Fresh Water Usage in the United States

The graphics below showing the source and use of freshwater in the United States is in the public domain and is taken from this article.

The diagram shows that the daily surface water withdrawals is 237,000 gallons per day and the daily groundwater withdrawals is 84,700 gallons per day. This is distributed to agriculture (118,000 gallons per day), livestock (2,000 gallons per day). Aquaculture (7,550 gallons per day), thermoelectric power (133,000 gallons per day), Industrial (14,800 gallons per day), domestic (3,260 gallons per day), and public supply (39,000 gallons per day). — Source and use of water in the United States, 2015. The diagram is in the public domain. View media details.

In the diagram above, the top row of cylinders represents where America’s freshwater came from (source) in 2015, either from surface water (blue) or from groundwater (brown). You can see most of the water we use came from surface-water sources, such as rivers and lakes. About 26 percent of water used came from groundwater. The pipes leading out of the surface-water and groundwater cylinders on the top row and flowing into the bottom rows of cylinders (green) show the categories of water use where the water was sent after being withdrawn from a river, lake, reservoir, or well.

For example, the blue pipe coming out of the surface-water cylinder and entering the public supply cylinder shows that 23,800 Mgal/d of water was withdrawn from surface-water sources for public-supply uses (you probably get your water this way). Likewise, the brown pipe shows that public-suppliers withdrew another 15,200 Mgal/d of water from groundwater sources. Each green cylinder represents a category of water use. The industrial cylinder, for instance, shows how much groundwater, surface water, and total water was used inthe United States, each day, by industries.

The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation

The Required 500 Days of Waiting on Mars

The Extreme Radiation and other Hazards

Conclusion

To see the other Super Facts click here

Milankovitch Cycles

The Sun Does Not Contribute to Global Warming

Volcanoes and Other Natural Sources of Carbon Emissions Do Not Contribute to Global Warming

Conclusion

Other super facts related to global warming

To see the other Super Facts click here

Challenges in Defining a Species

Ring Species

Other Super Facts Related to Wildlife

To see the other Super Facts click here

Datacenters and Energy Usage

The Growing Energy Use by Datacenters

Fresh Water Usage in the United States

Other Super Facts Related to Artificial Intelligence

To see the other Super Facts click here