Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#161

Post by tgb »

alex_hitchins wrote: post #150
kazinator wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing about sacrificial anodes is that multiple seem to be required. E.g. even though the hull of a ship may be a good conductor, you don't just have one sacrificial anode. Wikipedia ["Galvanic anode"]: The arrangement of the anodes is then planned so as to provide an even distribution of current over the whole structure. For example, if a particular design shows that a pipeline 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) long needs…

I came here to say the exact same thing. The resistance of the metal surface will mean you want to cover the metal needing protection all around. I think dependant on the salinity of the water different metals should be tested to best suit you environment.

Hmm, my experience is with pretty small objects: light enough to be carried by two people.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#162

Post by jsilence »

mnw21cam wrote: post #154
jsilence wrote: post #132

Why dissipate the residual heat into the environment when you could use it for residential heating and/or heating of green houses. This concept seems to be a design for waste of resources to me.

Thermodynamics. The exhaust temperature of the data centre has to be significantly higher than the temperature of the thing you want to heat, especially if that heat is to be transported any appreciable distance. Otherwise, the heat will not flow in the right direction. With data centres these days trying to keep chip temperatures as low as possible, this really makes the temperature gradient very low. An alternative…

With the temperature level of a datacenter you can easily operate a heat pump with a COP of 5 to 6. Or mix in the CHP to raise temperature level to motor exhaust levels. Use the electricity for the datacenter. Lot of potential.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#163

Post by 08-15 »

jefflombardjr wrote: post #24

I'm all for exploring new approaches, however: a) Salt water is highly corrosive. Wouldn't maintenance costs be high? b) Isn't marine biology highly sensitive to heat pollution? For high latency services like Amazon Glacier, wouldn't it make sense to host in a place like Iceland? Really cheap hydrothermic/clean power. Highly educated local talent pool, and relatively consistent cool temperatures. If you're maintainin…

> I think it makes sense to get better at solar

Then why don't you "get better at solar" and become rich in the process? What did you say, it's too hard, practically impossible? Yeah, life's a bitch, isn't it?

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#164

Post by stcredzero »

wsinks wrote: post #148
stcredzero wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially, I think it makes sense to get better at solar than to have Steve Zissou as a server admin. 1) In the original article, these server farms would be remote administration only. 2) Such facilities would make the secret construction of one's James Bond Villain underwater base much, much easier. (Wouldn't Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Peter Thiel all make great Bond villains?)

Kim DotCom needs a good place that is in international waters so he doesn't get extradited. Villains are sometimes just victims of their circumstances and trying to survive. Elon and co are the secret villains.

Villains are sometimes just victims of their circumstances and trying to survive.

Julius Caesar is the quintessential example of someone who becomes something just out of trying to survive. He was a hero to many and a villain to many as well. I wish more villains were written that way.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#165

Post by tn13 »

titanomachy wrote: post #114
longerthoughts wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar argument could be made for concerns over rising water temperatures as a result of climate change - what might be considered a dramatic rise to climate scientists and marine biologists would likely have little impact on a datacenter.

Forget climate scientists and marine biologists -- if ocean temperatures rise 3-4 degrees, we will all have much bigger problems than increased datacenter cooling costs.

Honestly US defaulting on its debts would come first. Having the same disastrous effect.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#166

Post by joatmon-snoo »

deftnerd wrote: post #22

The article mentions that one of the benefits is that they don't have to deal with building codes being different in different places. It's truly an "off the shelf" data center that doesn't have to be customized for the laws, zoning, and codes in that area. But who is in charge of the seabed around the United States? I imagine that I can't just drop a big metal container on the ocean floor without informing someone o…

Definitely curious about the jurisdiction aspects here. There aren't any immediate cases that come to mind re stuff outside EEZs (I wonder if there's any precedent associated with oil rigs - they're the only freestanding marine structures that immediately come to mind, besides artificial islands).

One thing that does stand out is the sheer greyness of it all - international legal matters like this move very slowly and moreover the ICJ seems very poorly equipped to answer questions like this.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#167

Post by joatmon-snoo »

deftnerd wrote: post #22

The article mentions that one of the benefits is that they don't have to deal with building codes being different in different places. It's truly an "off the shelf" data center that doesn't have to be customized for the laws, zoning, and codes in that area. But who is in charge of the seabed around the United States? I imagine that I can't just drop a big metal container on the ocean floor without informing someone o…

Definitely curious about the jurisdiction aspects here. There aren't any immediate cases that come to mind re stuff outside EEZs (I wonder if there's any precedent associated with oil rigs - they're the only freestanding marine structures that immediately come to mind, besides artificial islands).

One thing that does stand out is the sheer greyness of it all - international legal matters like this move very slowly and moreover the ICJ seems very poorly equipped to answer questions like this.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#168

Post by hackuser »

petters wrote: post #145
hackuser wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sun provides over 1GW/sq km when it's shining. The biology seems to get by fine with that. The issue is the amount of heat relative to the environment in which flora and fauna have evolved to survive, not relative to absolute zero. It's like saying that a 313 Kelvin body temperature shouldn't bother me because I do fine with 310K (~37C). It's only a 3K difference, after all.

OTOH, that 1GW drops to almost zero at night.

> 1GW drops to almost zero at night

I'm not sure what that means (or if it's really true). The temperature at night doesn't drop to almost (absolute) zero; the oceans don't freeze; so plenty of the Sun's energy must still be present.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#169

Post by maxerickson »

hackuser wrote: post #168
petters wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, that 1GW drops to almost zero at night.

> 1GW drops to almost zero at night I'm not sure what that means (or if it's really true). The temperature at night doesn't drop to almost (absolute) zero; the oceans don't freeze; so plenty of the Sun's energy must still be present.

The initial statement was power/area, the instantaneous energy input from the sun, given as 1GW/sq km. The energy input from the sun at night really is pretty much zero.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#170

Post by hackuser »

maxerickson wrote: post #169
hackuser wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1GW drops to almost zero at night I'm not sure what that means (or if it's really true). The temperature at night doesn't drop to almost (absolute) zero; the oceans don't freeze; so plenty of the Sun's energy must still be present.

The initial statement was power/area, the instantaneous energy input from the sun, given as 1GW/sq km. The energy input from the sun at night really is pretty much zero.

The initial statement argued that because organisms are "fine" with 1GW/sq km, they therefore should be fine with the additional heat of a datacenter. I disagreed with the conclusion, not the number.

The second statement was that "OTOH, that 1GW drops to almost zero at night." It may be a literally true statement on its own, but it's misleading in response to a statement that absolute zero isn't a realistic basis for this discussion.

Post reply on HN