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

Hetzner Price Adjustment

docs.hetzner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 312 posts

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#221

Post by Mo3 »

sveme wrote: post #214
highwaylights wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rush out of nuclear fission power still shocks me. It's a miracle fuel. It really is wonderful. It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima not been reported so irresponsibly.

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at th…

I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#222

Post by gizmo »

sveme wrote: post #214
highwaylights wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rush out of nuclear fission power still shocks me. It's a miracle fuel. It really is wonderful. It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima not been reported so irresponsibly.

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at th…

That's not true. Nuclear waste is so minimal in volume nuclear power plants can just sweep it under the carpet. Or more specifically, just store it on-site. Modern nuclear reactors can even use the waste of old reactors as fuel and reduce it by another 80% or so. Dealing with nuclear waste is really no big deal. At least for medium term storage.

Storing waste so you don't have to look after it for thousands of years is admittedly more difficult. Then again, future generations are always impacted by the choices we make today and I'm pretty sure the kids 300 years from now would rather deal with the cleanup of our nuclear waste than with the consequence of global warming.

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#223

Post by sremani »

riskable wrote: post #131
sremani wrote: post #127

If I am running Hetzner, I will be looking at an aggressive North American expansion. The energy cost gap between US and Europe are going to get bigger.

> The energy cost gap between US and Europe are going to get bigger. Only briefly. The fracking boom is basically over: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/01/1027822/fracking... We're presently running a good portion of our heating and electricity via the cheap gas that the fracking boom unlocked but that's going to taper off pretty quickly over the next decade. Because fracking was never a long-term solution.…

This is a flawed analysis.

1. Permian basin itself will provide fuel for at least 300 years and right now if you have skills, you can get well paid job in Texas.

2. Texas has so much Wind and Solar footprint already it will make most European countries headspin, and we are not even adding Iowa! So, US has massive set up already and the best part is, unlike Germany, US has windmills where Wind is.

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#224

Post by happyopossum »

bushbaba wrote: post #137
aaronax wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use $1 USD per watt per year, with electric prices around $0.10/kWh. Good enough to inform decisions like whether to leave a light on all the time ($5/year) or whether to purchase a NAS vs. used server ($40 vs. $300 per year). I guess my prices are actually a little over $0.10 and a watt over a year is a little under 10,000Wh as shown in your calculations, so those offset to make the estimate even more accurate (th…

In sf electricity is closer to 4x that rate.

if you're a PG&E customer, at top tier it's well over 4x, and closer to 5x, and since so many people WFH now, many more are paying in the top tier.

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#225

Post by Auracle »

Mo3 wrote: post #221
sveme wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at th…

I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..

I’m sure someone here can do the math, but it takes a lot of energy to get things not just in space, but out of the Earth’s gravity. You don’t want that nuclear waste raining back down. It’s far easier, cheaper, and more fool proof to just bury it deep.

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#226

Post by espadrine »

sveme wrote: post #214
highwaylights wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rush out of nuclear fission power still shocks me. It's a miracle fuel. It really is wonderful. It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima not been reported so irresponsibly.

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at th…

> No one knows where to put the trash

They do, though. That is where the “trash” is. They have become so adept at it, they made a museum out of one facility[0].

Two misconceptions that benefit from being clarified:

1. There is very little waste for the amount of energy produced. If we only used nuclear, it would amount for 40 grams per person per year[1].

2. The waste is not trash, it is extremely valuable. It was valuable in the ground, and it is still valuable out of the ground; just not for the particular reactor that it came from.

[0]: https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preserv...

[1]: https://whatisnuclear.com/factoids.html

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#227

Post by happyopossum »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #141
philjohn wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why for my home server I didn't get second hand servers but built the following in a 2U case that fits in my network closet: Asrock Rack c246 WSI (Mini ITX workstation board) 32GB DDR4 ECC Udimms (16GB x2) Core i3 9100T (25w, low power 4 core part, supports ECC, and quicksync) 6 IronWolf 4TB NAS drives The 6 drives are in RaidZ2 so give 16TB usable space, and at full pelt the max power consumption is 60W for…

My R730 averages at around 100-200W with two 12-core CPUs, 128GB RAM and 8 12-14TB drives. Servers are more efficient than people give them credit for. It's close to a gaming PC in electricity usage. Certainly not 60W (or what people can get with NUCs and RPi clusters) but for the power I get, it's very much worth it.

If we average that out to 150W, that'd be 1250-1300Kwh/yr. Current Bay Area electric prices means that'd cost in excess of $500/yr to run. I'd say that servers are not more efficient than people are giving them credit for...

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#228

Post by vbezhenar »

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #213
highwaylights wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rush out of nuclear fission power still shocks me. It's a miracle fuel. It really is wonderful. It solves climate change almost by itself, or it would have, had Chernobyl and Fukushima not been reported so irresponsibly.

It would be miracle fuel if any country in the world would have solved the waste problem by now. Finland is close, but still not done.

Russia recycles nuclear waste into nuclear fuel.

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#229

Post by happyopossum »

Gasp0de wrote: post #151
mynameisvlad wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly disagree. Said in another comment, my server averages around 100-200W. It's equivalent to running a gaming PC. The reason there's a lot of cheap servers on eBay is that their support contracts expired and are absolutely ridiculously expensive to maintain for a big company. It's easier to get a new server (which will likely have performance and efficiency upgrades as well) than to continue maintaining a server…

You probably live in the USA, because 200w 24/7 would cost me about 600€/year which is definitely significant.

I live in the USA - California, and 150W 24/x would cost about $550/yr. In fact it would cost me a lot more, as my family shifted to time-of-use billing to save money (yeah, it means we don't do certain things between 4-8pm, but with some adjustment it's made a difference in our bills).

Re: Hetzner Price Adjustment

#230

Post by kej »

Mo3 wrote: post #221
sveme wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one knows where to put the trash. That was the major reason for the phase-out, that no one knew how to handle that. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. And please do not come up with future inventions that will magically remove that issue, that does not help. Btw, it wasn't really a rush, it was started more than 30 years ago by not building new nuclear power plants. Many of the power plants are actually at th…

I'm almost anxious to ask, I know very little about the topic, but I've been wondering if it wasn't a viable option to just shoot the waste into space? I know it's prohibitively expensive to do that as of now, but seeing what they're doing with Spinlaunch..

In addition to the raw costs of moving anything into space, there is the contingency cost of what happens if the launch goes wrong. A new satellite blowing up on the launchpad is bad, but a cargo of nuclear waste exploding a few seconds after liftoff is catastrophic.
Post reply on HN