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

The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

investinglive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#41

Post by kmbfjr »

crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

Aluminum conductors are dangerous unless the entire system is designed for it. It is not a case of switching to something cheaper.

Look at the electrical fires of the 1950’s and 1960’s as an example, and that was at household levels of current.

Aluminum is used, but everything accounts for the insane coefficient of linear expansion and other annoying properties.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#42

Post by [deleted] »

y-curious wrote: post #37
crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

I am not an electricity/wiring guy so maybe you can help me understand. I thought aluminum is dangerous to wire with because it is a fire hazard (I bought a home this year and this was a prominent warning in my reading). Is that because it needs to be done very carefully? I imagine most data centers would not mess with a fire risk on such a scale.

[deleted]

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#43

Post by franktankbank »

Fiveplus wrote: post #30

The funniest part is beyond the typo, the complete lack of physical intuition from the analysts who circulated this. 500,000 tons is roughly the weight of 1.5 Empire State buildings. If your rack busbars weigh more than the structural steel of the facility housing them, you have a geotechnical engineering crisis on your hands. It is wild that we reached a point where financial modeling is so decoupled from physical r…

I wouldn't be surprised if that part was not really reviewed by an expert. They have the unit mass correct but maybe an editor is like ok but what does this look like for a gw project? It doesn't take more than 3rd grade math and a pocket calculator to do it correctly but journalist hasn't had to fumble that ball before. An expert knows its all too easy for any person to make that mistake and would second guess their own work.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#44

Post by MSFT_Edging »

y-curious wrote: post #37
crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

I am not an electricity/wiring guy so maybe you can help me understand. I thought aluminum is dangerous to wire with because it is a fire hazard (I bought a home this year and this was a prominent warning in my reading). Is that because it needs to be done very carefully? I imagine most data centers would not mess with a fire risk on such a scale.

Old aluminum wiring in your walls with cloth insulators, designed for a time where electricity consumption was a small fraction of today's electrified usage is dangerous because you're overloading an old, unprepared system.

Aluminum bus bars(solid, often exposed) would be designed for the required power levels and installation criteria.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#45

Post by lillecarl »

candiddevmike wrote: post #35
crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

AFAIK Aluminum wires will become a heat liability, especially at higher amps

Thicker cables or higher voltage(lower current) is the answer which is why it's used in power distribution networks where they can control the voltage by planning what to transform to.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#46

Post by Analemma_ »

y-curious wrote: post #37
crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

I am not an electricity/wiring guy so maybe you can help me understand. I thought aluminum is dangerous to wire with because it is a fire hazard (I bought a home this year and this was a prominent warning in my reading). Is that because it needs to be done very carefully? I imagine most data centers would not mess with a fire risk on such a scale.

It’s a fire hazard in residential houses where people frequently do their own wiring, because it needs more expertise to wire correctly. Copper wiring is a lot more forgiving to being hooked up by amateurs.

The biggest reason is that aluminum oxidizes, and unlike copper, the oxide layer has high resistivity. In theory that shouldn’t be an issue in datacenters hiring expert technicians.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#47

Post by greggyb »

candiddevmike wrote: post #35
crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

AFAIK Aluminum wires will become a heat liability, especially at higher amps

Any wire---of any non superconducting material---will be hotter at higher current flows. You size the wire to the application.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#48

Post by Majromax »

wongarsu wrote: post #22
9dev wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your brain is so vastly more energy efficient, we might just only need half of that 30 GW capacity if fewer people had these leftpad-style knee-jerk reactions.

Each person uses about 100W (2000kcal/24h=96W). Running all of humanity takes about 775GW. Sure, using or not using your brain is a negligible energy difference, so if you aren't using it you really should, for energy efficiency's sake. But I don't think the claim that our brains are more energy efficient is obviously true on its own. The issue is more about induced demand from having all this external "thinking" cap…

I did some math for this particular case by asking Google’s Gemini Pro 3 (via AI studio) to evaluate the press release. Nvidia has since edited the release to remove the “tons of copper” claim, but it evaluated the other numbers at a reported API cost of about 3.8 cents. If the stated pricing just recovers energy cost, that implies 1500kJ of energy as a maximum (less if other costs are recovered in the pricing). A human thinking for 10 minutes would use sbout 6kJ of direct energy.

I agree with your point about induced demand. The “win” wouldn’t be looking at a single press release with already-suspect numbers, but rather looking at essentially all press releases of note, a task not generally valuable enough to devote people towards.

That being said, we normally consider it progress when we can use mechanical or electrical energy to replace or augment human work.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#49

Post by 9dev »

blueg3 wrote: post #32
9dev wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your brain is so vastly more energy efficient, we might just only need half of that 30 GW capacity if fewer people had these leftpad-style knee-jerk reactions.

A Gemini query uses about a kilojoule. The brain runs at 20 W (though the whole human costs 100 W). So, the human is less energy if you can get it done in under 50 seconds.

Where does that number come from? Does it factor in the energy required to build the servers used to train the model? Does it factor in… the training?

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#50

Post by u8080 »

y-curious wrote: post #37
crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

I am not an electricity/wiring guy so maybe you can help me understand. I thought aluminum is dangerous to wire with because it is a fire hazard (I bought a home this year and this was a prominent warning in my reading). Is that because it needs to be done very carefully? I imagine most data centers would not mess with a fire risk on such a scale.

Aluminum wires became brittle over time(tens of years), fluid which requires some maintenance for screw terminals and inducts galvanic corrosion when coupled with copper without special care. If wiring was properly done and maintained, it is okayish.
Post reply on HN