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

Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

theweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#71

Post by fakedang »

david-gpu wrote: post #4

I hope we can at least avoid the sanewashing. > President Donald Trump has renewed his efforts to take over Greenland, and tapping into the Danish territory’s natural resources is a key part of the strategy. It is not "taking over" or "annexing" . It is invading . A military ally , at that. And it is not "tapping into [...] natural resources" . It is plundering their natural resources . None of these hypotheticals ar…

Reminds me of the allies backstabbing us so easily in Shogun 2 Total War. Aggressive expansion be damned.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#72

Post by jijijijij »

dyauspitr wrote: post #32
troyvit wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we're at it I also fail to see any strategy.

Apparently the Lauder billionaire mentioned it because he has a mineral water bottling plant and some other insignificant business there. But Trump liked the idea so it’s basically all this is for some spring water. More consequentially it’s an attempt to destroy NATO so Putin can have his way with Europe.

Has the US considered not poisoning their own wells? Might be cheaper.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#73

Post by pseudohadamard »

inkysigma wrote: post #62
wolvoleo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…

I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south. I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_…

>I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_

Does he actually know the difference between "mine" and "the US'" though? I was under the assumption that since the US is his, anything important for him is also important for the US, and vice versa.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#74

Post by reeredfdfdf »

wolvoleo wrote: post #60
Havoc wrote: post #54

Today I heard some US official going on about how it's ideal for datacenters. Presumably the B200s will be brought in via dogsled. US has absolutely lost the plot

It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…

If you want to save a ton on cooling costs, wouldn't it be just easier to build those data centers in Alaska? Or if they don't have to be in America, there are lots of options in Northern Europe with better infrastructure than Greenland.

But of course you're right, really it's mostly about map-painting.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#75

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

wolvoleo wrote: post #60
Havoc wrote: post #54

Today I heard some US official going on about how it's ideal for datacenters. Presumably the B200s will be brought in via dogsled. US has absolutely lost the plot

It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…

> You would save a ton on cooling cost

I'm not sure that you would. You might think that cooler ambient temperatures mean less cooling required, but it's really a matter of rapid heat transfer away from chips, which is why electronics in satellites need active cooling, despite the temperature of space being near absolute zero.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#76

Post by roryirvine »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #75
wolvoleo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…

> You would save a ton on cooling cost I'm not sure that you would. You might think that cooler ambient temperatures mean less cooling required, but it's really a matter of rapid heat transfer away from chips, which is why electronics in satellites need active cooling, despite the temperature of space being near absolute zero.

Yes, you'd still need a full forced air cooling system (especially with modern datacentre densities), so the only gain would be from the there being a higher temperature gradient for your heat exchangers to work with.

There's no way that by itself would make enough of a difference to justify building a dc there, given all the other negatives that others have mentioned.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#77

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

moogly wrote: post #59
Havoc wrote: post #54

Today I heard some US official going on about how it's ideal for datacenters. Presumably the B200s will be brought in via dogsled. US has absolutely lost the plot

Not to mention the energy needed. Greenland does not even have a national grid. Lots of untapped hydro but that's not something you build in a fortnight.

Right, there is potential for energy everywhere, some location specific (hydro, geothermal, solar, wind), and some less so (nuclear, coal, gas). The quickest (shortest lead time) solution is to do what xAI did and use on-site natural gas generators.

It's interesting that at some point datacenters in space also become viable, which sounds absurd, but since the need for FLOPS and power is immediate, space and Greenland have to be far down the list of places to choose to build. Right now you build where the lead time for power capacity of some sort is shortest.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#78

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

troyvit wrote: post #16
david-gpu wrote: post #4

I hope we can at least avoid the sanewashing. > President Donald Trump has renewed his efforts to take over Greenland, and tapping into the Danish territory’s natural resources is a key part of the strategy. It is not "taking over" or "annexing" . It is invading . A military ally , at that. And it is not "tapping into [...] natural resources" . It is plundering their natural resources . None of these hypotheticals ar…

While we're at it I also fail to see any strategy.

There's a strategy, but it's a strategy for changing the story away from Epstein, and for satisfying Trump's dictator fantasies.

Re: Why Greenland's natural resources are nearly impossible to mine

#79

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

roryirvine wrote: post #76
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would save a ton on cooling cost I'm not sure that you would. You might think that cooler ambient temperatures mean less cooling required, but it's really a matter of rapid heat transfer away from chips, which is why electronics in satellites need active cooling, despite the temperature of space being near absolute zero.

Yes, you'd still need a full forced air cooling system (especially with modern datacentre densities), so the only gain would be from the there being a higher temperature gradient for your heat exchangers to work with. There's no way that by itself would make enough of a difference to justify building a dc there, given all the other negatives that others have mentioned.

Actually modern datacenters, such as xAI's Memphis one, are now using liquid cooling since the power density of SOTA chips demands it.
Post reply on HN