111–120 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
edit: nevermind I can't read
You don't believe demand isn't being constrained in the way I described? So you believe that people are looking at cats on facebook, and stop because they're worried about the environmental impact of facebook's datacenters? You're joking...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know, the oceans are big, but so is our data. Meh. The biggest data center (ChinaTel's Inner Mongolia Information Park) consumes about 150MWe, assuming all of it becomes waste heat it's basically nothing: a nuclear reactor (each plant has 2~8) releases 2Wt for each We it produces, and they're usually sized between 800 and 1300MWe. Hell, earth averages 160W/m^2 from the sun, oceans cover 360m km^2, so oceans get 1…
In addition, the heat represents extra energy. Warmth and water (and carbon) are the very fabric of life. Nature will adapt to utilize this free energy source before you could say "thank you". My prediction is we'll be amazed at the life forms that develop and explode around such submerged cooling structures.
That's cute, but 1. nature will adapt just fine to both heat and cold so that's not exactly compelling; 2. the issue is we may not, human civilisations have arisen in fairly specific conditions, and tend not to be very resilient to significant environmental changes
> My prediction is we'll be amazed at the life forms that develop and explode around such submerged cooling structures.
My prediction is we won't live long enough to see that happen, it takes kilo- to mega-years for anything more complex than bacterial mats to evolve to use new sources of anything.
I'd be curious to know the specific benefits of the Orkney Isles to this project; when I hear the renewable research there being referenced (by family there, some of whom are directly involved) they always claim the major benefit is the close proximity of different underwater conditions, with some of the greatest range in tide. Yet I assume this isn't particularly useful for a datacentre of a well understood shape th…
There's a proposed upgrade to link to the grid at the nearby Dounreay nuclear power station: https://www.ssepd.co.uk/OrkneyCaithness/
I don't think this is done for the sake of efficiency, but rather latency. For example, if you had a underwater data center that sat in the middle of the atlantic ocean in between new york and london, you could do some serious trading with that capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition, the heat represents extra energy. Warmth and water (and carbon) are the very fabric of life. Nature will adapt to utilize this free energy source before you could say "thank you". My prediction is we'll be amazed at the life forms that develop and explode around such submerged cooling structures.
> In addition, the heat represents extra energy. Warmth and water (and carbon) are the very fabric of life. That's cute, but 1. nature will adapt just fine to both heat and cold so that's not exactly compelling; 2. the issue is we may not, human civilisations have arisen in fairly specific conditions, and tend not to be very resilient to significant environmental changes > My prediction is we'll be amazed at the life…
Not with the same ease! That's the point — it is a one-way street. "Having easy access to energy" or "not having easy access to energy" are NOT equivalent states for flourishment. They're not equally "just fine".
The rest seems like you're grinding some anthropomorphic axe unrelated to my post, so I'll abstain.
I don't think this is done for the sake of efficiency, but rather latency. For example, if you had a underwater data center that sat in the middle of the atlantic ocean in between new york and london, you could do some serious trading with that capability.
Indeed. http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevE_82-056104.pdf
At what point does this become a problem? They're using the naturally cool sea water to regulate the temperature in the container, but that heat needs to go somewhere... it heats the water. If this becomes a popular alternative to classic server farms, at what point does it start to increase the temperature of the sea? I know, the oceans are big, but so is our data.
If my calculation is correct, the total annual electricity production in the world (I used 20 279 PWh) would heat up the oceans (1 347 000 000 km³ of water) by 0,0129°C. It's rather easy to calculate because one calorie is the energy required to heat up one gramme of water by one degree Celsius, the rest is just unit conversions, but I could have messed up anywhere of course. Even if I'm off by a few orders of magnit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In addition, the heat represents extra energy. Warmth and water (and carbon) are the very fabric of life. That's cute, but 1. nature will adapt just fine to both heat and cold so that's not exactly compelling; 2. the issue is we may not, human civilisations have arisen in fairly specific conditions, and tend not to be very resilient to significant environmental changes > My prediction is we'll be amazed at the life…
> nature will adapt just fine to both heat and cold Not with the same ease! That's the point — it is a one-way street. "Having easy access to energy" or "not having easy access to energy" are NOT equivalent states for flourishment. They're not equally "just fine". The rest seems like you're grinding some anthropomorphic axe unrelated to my post, so I'll abstain.
In this context, we're not worried about the literal definition of natural but about keeping an environment in a state in which humanity can survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my calculation is correct, the total annual electricity production in the world (I used 20 279 PWh) would heat up the oceans (1 347 000 000 km³ of water) by 0,0129°C. It's rather easy to calculate because one calorie is the energy required to heat up one gramme of water by one degree Celsius, the rest is just unit conversions, but I could have messed up anywhere of course. Even if I'm off by a few orders of magnit…
You are indeed off by 1000 (assuming your inputs are correct)