I would have thought so.
If so building data centres near hydro or geothermal plants (I'm from New Zealand where we have a lot of both) would make sense
51–59 of 59 posts
I would have thought so.
If so building data centres near hydro or geothermal plants (I'm from New Zealand where we have a lot of both) would make sense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One of those is Quebec (but it's not that big) Sort of a baffling statement. Quebec is gigantic. It would be a top-20 nation, by extent, if it were a nation.
Quebec has a lot of empty land. But it does not have a lot of buildable land near plentiful power, super fast internet, and highly skilled technical workers, which are all things you need to build a datacenter.
Question: Is piping data a long distance more cost effective than energy? I would have thought so. If so building data centres near hydro or geothermal plants (I'm from New Zealand where we have a lot of both) would make sense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear power plants take something like a decade to build (after permitting) It makes more sense to go for PV plus batteries that can be installed in a matter of weeks
how much of that 10 years is the physical limit, and how much is social / cultural / organizational / political overhead?
Energy efficient computing is a very exciting field. I hope it will get more attention driven by these economic constraints. As a short teaser: Landauers principle suggests that the energy required to erase one bit off information is bounded from below by k_B T ln(2). This could lead us down a path towards reversible computing, to avoid energy costs for deleting information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s…
The work started around 10-15 years ago and is now largely done. Many people confuse large absolute numbers like 1 kW with inefficiency but today's GPUs/TPUs are close to the practical efficiency limit with today's 3 nm technology.
One really interesting strategy the US could pursue here would be to heavily tariff solar[1] and just randomly attack wind projects[2]. Just completely self-own itself on the two cheapest energy sources. It wouldn't make any sense, but it would be provocative , really drive engagement. [1] https://seia.org/news/solar-tariff-impacts/ [2] https://www.npr.org/2025/08/31/nx-s1-5522943/trump-offshore-...
Maybe the tariff could encourage local manufacturing of solar? I have no idea, but I suppose that our local manufacturing could be getting killed by economies of scale abroad. Or I am overthinking it and solar is something that (D) politicians support so the (R) president tautologically must oppose it. Therefore we must not have nice things
What is the point of all this? Why are we using so much power for hallucinated google search?
Because, for the time being, people are buying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the brits were at it (With insourced nuclear engineering and low regulatory overhead) they could crank them out every 6 - 8 years. The brits let all that technical capability wither and could not do it again right now. But if someone was willing its still theoretically possible. Just takes total alignment between government and private.
OK, but people who want these actually have to build them in the countries that exist. This isn't Civilization. You cannot switch to a civic that gets more hammers at the beginning of your next turn.
The problem is that if you dont start correcting that hardness now, the next time you think you might need a nuclear industry, its still hard.
You need to train, grant experience and give money to professionals so they can exist to build stuff. It took the UK ~ 15 years to get started, then they were cranking them out like no ones business.
Think of it this way, in 15 years you can have something you might need, or you can guarantee you wont have it whether you need it or not.
Thing is its the same for all large infrastructure products. But only in nuke do we have people actively trying to prevent the industry from being created and maintained so they can use the unreadyness as an excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how much of that 10 years is the physical limit, and how much is social / cultural / organizational / political overhead?
Does that matter much when you want to have a datacenter as quickly as possible? It’s not like those things will change quickly.