41–50 of 82 posts
I ran the numbers for this about six months ago and it works out a lot better than all the other alternatives. The fact you're surrounded by coolant, can use intrinsically safe versions of high pressure reactors and have low latency between multiple markets with one datacenter is a big plus. That you're not competing with humans for electricity or water is another. That said you'd want to build a semi submersible pla…
Sure, lets heat up the oceans even more. The sensible way would be to use the waste heat for district heating, but let's heat the fish instead
YCombinator S26? Guys, guys, guys... so hear me out - remember last month when we were all giddy about datacenters in space? Well, apparently investors weren't too keen on that idea so we've come up with something much better: Nuclear datacenters at sea! Now this is truly a visionary proposition that will certainly become another unicorn and have no issues whatsoever.
Why not fusion powered data centers on the moon?
YCombinator S26? Guys, guys, guys... so hear me out - remember last month when we were all giddy about datacenters in space? Well, apparently investors weren't too keen on that idea so we've come up with something much better: Nuclear datacenters at sea! Now this is truly a visionary proposition that will certainly become another unicorn and have no issues whatsoever.
Innovative new air cooling: instead of using lots of tiny fans to move air through the servers, we simply use 2 big fans to move the servers through the air!
And while we're at it, we'll completely disrupt the existing Zeppelin market that depends on expensive helium for some reason. We use daring, innovative hydrogen technology, enabling a massive cost reduction!
Current nuclear-powered ships are run by the world’s premier naval powers and protected by their own stealth or a huge array of armed escort ships. Have these guys factored in the cost of a task force of protective missile frigates, subs, and destroyers at each site?
Forget security (which worries me less), the legalities of this are notoriously tricky (especially if the ship might ever leave the waters of one nation), and the economics are even worse. I wouldn’t touch civil maritime nuclear with a barge pole, and if I did, the clear win is decarbonizing big cargo ships.
But the people championing nuclear data centers are not trying to solve climate change
I ran the numbers for this about six months ago and it works out a lot better than all the other alternatives. The fact you're surrounded by coolant, can use intrinsically safe versions of high pressure reactors and have low latency between multiple markets with one datacenter is a big plus. That you're not competing with humans for electricity or water is another. That said you'd want to build a semi submersible pla…
So I take it you’re a marine engineer or similar?
YCombinator S26? Guys, guys, guys... so hear me out - remember last month when we were all giddy about datacenters in space? Well, apparently investors weren't too keen on that idea so we've come up with something much better: Nuclear datacenters at sea! Now this is truly a visionary proposition that will certainly become another unicorn and have no issues whatsoever.
Sure, lets heat up the oceans even more. The sensible way would be to use the waste heat for district heating, but let's heat the fish instead
It's a drop in a bucket. Global warming is due to ~5e18 Wh of excess heating. A nuke dumping 5e12 Wh of additional heat into water makes no difference at all.
So Much land. Even non civilized lands, Even near sea for piping water. What does this idea solve? Or just adds problems like, Non secure assets/nucclear on the sea.
The obvious answer is NIMBYs.