Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

bbc.co.uk

91–100 of 386 posts

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#91
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the contradiction. The heat it moves plus the heat generated through inefficiency. It's always > heat moved.

I guess it depends what you mean by "waste heat". I consider the waste heat as the "extra" heat/energy on top of the heat moved. But even if you consider all the heat as waste heat, calling 30% more "far" more seems like an exaggeration.

Depends on the reference. If the underwater datacenter produces only e.g. 3% atop, 30% is still "far more".

But without scientific sources, these are only wild speculations.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#92

Why heat the oceans indirectly when you can just place the heatsource directly in them? Much less chance of losing precious ergs. Seriously though, what is the direct ecological impact of doing this at scale, would the local increase in temperature have an immediate effect on the life around it? If so how much of an impact? What about the effect on surface life and life in intermediary layers of the water? After all,…

I have the same questions about the temperature. Seems like that might add some extra heat to an already-warming ocean. Especially if this is done at massive scale. I’m not a scientist though!

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#93
post #60
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once read that using ZFS was supposed to boil the oceans.

People tend to overestimate and also like to use hyperboles

Yeah, it’s a theoretical limit. You don’t need to boil any ocean to use ZFS.

Reference: >>>

If 64 bits isn't enough, the next logical step is 128 bits. That's enough to survive Moore's Law until I'm dead, and after that, it's not my problem. But it does raise the question: what are the theoretical limits to storage capacity?

Although we'd all like Moore's Law to continue forever, quantum mechanics imposes some fundamental limits on the computation rate and information capacity of any physical device. In particular, it has been shown that 1 kilogram of matter confined to 1 liter of space can perform at most 1051 operations per second on at most 1031 bits of information [see Seth Lloyd, "Ultimate physical limits to computation." Nature 406, 1047-1054 (2000)]. A fully-populated 128-bit storage pool would contain 2128 blocks = 2137 bytes = 2140 bits; therefore the minimum mass required to hold the bits would be (2140 bits) / (1031 bits/kg) = 136 billion kg.

That's a lot of gear.

To operate at the 1031 bits/kg limit, however, the entire mass of the computer must be in the form of pure energy. By E=mc2, the rest energy of 136 billion kg is 1.2x1028 J. The mass of the oceans is about 1.4x1021 kg. It takes about 4,000 J to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celcius, and thus about 400,000 J to heat 1 kg of water from freezing to boiling. The latent heat of vaporization adds another 2 million J/kg. Thus the energy required to boil the oceans is about 2.4x106 J/kg \* 1.4x1021 kg = 3.4x1027 J. Thus, fully populating a 128-bit storage pool would, literally, require more energy than boiling the oceans.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#94

Why heat the oceans indirectly when you can just place the heatsource directly in them? Much less chance of losing precious ergs. Seriously though, what is the direct ecological impact of doing this at scale, would the local increase in temperature have an immediate effect on the life around it? If so how much of an impact? What about the effect on surface life and life in intermediary layers of the water? After all,…

It takes about 80 watts to heat up a liter of water 1° celsius. Global data centers used about 4.16 x 10^14 watts last year [1]. Let's assume we still have a lot more data centers to build so bump that number up 10,000X. Assuming every watt of energy is actually converted to heat and we moved every data center on earth underwater it'd raise the temperate of the oceans (1.3x 10^21 liters) about 0.01°C. This is a very…

Let's fix the math.

Amount of energy consumed from global data centers: 205 terawatt-hours. [0]

Amount of water in the oceans: 1,386,000,000 (km3)~= 1.386*10^21kg[1]

water has a specific heat capacity of: 4,200 J/kg°C [2]

Energy/HeatCapacity/AmountOfWater = 1.268×10^-7 degrees Celsius

[0]: https://energyinnovation.org/2020/03/17/how-much-energy-do-d... [1]: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie... [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2gjtv4/revision/5

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#95
post #86

Why heat the oceans indirectly when you can just place the heatsource directly in them? Much less chance of losing precious ergs. Seriously though, what is the direct ecological impact of doing this at scale, would the local increase in temperature have an immediate effect on the life around it? If so how much of an impact? What about the effect on surface life and life in intermediary layers of the water? After all,…

Ocean water is already used to cool nuclear and coal power plants. I suspect these would radiate far more heat than a data centre. I'm surprised msft wouldn't propose to pipe the ocean water in like these power plants before going through the challenge of building under the ocean...

I think they were trying to see if you could get away with 0 power/cooling infrastructure and how well it'd work if you could. Pumping vast amounts of water may be better than running a vast amount of active cooling but neither is as 0 as dumping it in the water and seeing what happens.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#96
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off-topic, but this is how I feel when people discuss the risks of nuclear power. You can talk all you want about the disasterous consequences of a reactor meltdown, but what about the disastrous consequences of sticking with fossil fuels? I agree that switching to wind and solar would be better, but it's not obvious whether we can switch without transforming the world economy in ways people seem unwilling t…

We need underwater, seaborne, or subsurface nuclear power plants. Radiation release is contained to within the largest stratum available on the Earth: ocean and rock. Anything avoiding our thin atmosphere is a win.

We need NPT dropped, that’s all it takes I think(given everyone can still be nice after which is a big if)

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#97
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some executive probably said "I think it would be good to take stock of the experiment now to reduce time-risk and arrive at a decision point regarding future strategy".

It increasingly seems that public businesses seem incapable of making long-term plans, even rather trivial ones, if the cost of ending the experiment results in immediate gains. The driving force is the single most important metric: this quarter's upcoming earnings report. Businesses that tend to place bets on multi-year investments are either privately held (e.g. SpaceX) or are participating in specific public/priva…

You get diminishing returns holding it down there for 5 years for no reason.

If not much has happened after 2 years we're good to go. We need to get into the future as fast as possible.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#98
post #97
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It increasingly seems that public businesses seem incapable of making long-term plans, even rather trivial ones, if the cost of ending the experiment results in immediate gains. The driving force is the single most important metric: this quarter's upcoming earnings report. Businesses that tend to place bets on multi-year investments are either privately held (e.g. SpaceX) or are participating in specific public/priva…

You get diminishing returns holding it down there for 5 years for no reason. If not much has happened after 2 years we're good to go. We need to get into the future as fast as possible.

The difference between 2 years and 5 is quite significant for server runtime above water. This argument of diminishing returns would hold better for placing it 1 year rather than 2, 9 months rather than 12, etc.

If the concern is that you'd see significant failure after 5 (which is likely) which could undercut your future plans, I could understand cutting the plan short.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#99

Why heat the oceans indirectly when you can just place the heatsource directly in them? Much less chance of losing precious ergs. Seriously though, what is the direct ecological impact of doing this at scale, would the local increase in temperature have an immediate effect on the life around it? If so how much of an impact? What about the effect on surface life and life in intermediary layers of the water? After all,…

>what is the direct ecological impact of doing this at scale

Great question. Without real data it's hard to know for sure. I do think that it would be somewhat negligible though.

Considering we have heat vents and underwater volcanoes in the ocean that kick out insane amounts of heat, I can't see datacenters having a ton of impact. Will it affect the immediate vicinity, probably. Will it affect the ocean at large, I doubt it. Unless we start sinking exaflops of CPU power into the ocean, I wouldn't worry too much.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#100
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am familiar with that sentiment expressed through the phrase "nature abhors a vacuum"

The irony is that this phrase predates the Torricelli experiment, in which he used a glass vial and mercury to produce a vacuum, and the eventual discovery that the vast majority of nature is a vacuum (outside of the atmosphere of planets and stars).

And if it wasn‘t for gravity, everything inside the atmosphere of planets and stars would be rushing to fill that vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, but that‘s only tempered by the fact that there are more powerful forces than vacuums.
Post reply on HN