Can't a Sterling engine be used to turn the hot water into power to feed back to the data center?

The metric system makes life too easy.

One cubic foot of water is around 60 lbs. The is $600,000 per cubic foot of water. Not very cost effective. And my numbers are old and off the cuff. It could be far more expensive now.

We've probably made the world a better place for our friends who breathe the stuff.

Can someone please answer this: If we are burning fossil fuels; presumably all this carbon we are burning was part of the carbon cycle 100s of millions of years ago. All this carbon was then free to go from life -> CO2 and back. Assuming all the free carbon in the cycle now was available then; wouldn't the amount of CO2 in the air 100's of millions of years ago been far greater than it is today? Fossilization removed carbon from the cycle VERY slowly. We are adding it back quickly; but bringing it to levels where it previously has been. An we went through ice ages AND heat spells then. Are we really changing anything?

What I don't understand is wasn't this carbon involved in the carbon life cycle many millions of years ago. The carbon that is in the cycle today was presumably in the cycle then as well. So wasn't there more carbon: and one would assume more CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago? The carbon in the life cycle today wasn't locked up as far as I can tell. I would imagine that the amount of carbon on the planet would be pretty static even over millions of years. Maybe a few asteroid hit bringing more; but I would think that would be inconsequential.

So if more carbon was in the life cycle and not locked up as hydrocarbons; wouldn't we just be bringing the planet back a few millions years? Clearly the planet was hospitable to life then; are we really in any danger?

Is it possible that we could design machinery in the future to remove CO2 from the air?

I am not sure I am convinced on the science overall; but these questions I haven't even heard debated.