4 ms·
You are making the assumption that moving data centers underwater would also come along with a 10,000-fold increase in the number of data centers? That seems li
by t0mbstone 6y ago
You are making the assumption that moving data centers underwater would also come along with a 10,000-fold increase in the number of data centers? That seems like an unnecessarily hyperbolic approach.
That would mean going from 8.4 million data centers to 840 billion data centers. I mean, come on...
But hey, let's roll with it. What would be the effect on the environment if we literally had 10,000 times more data centers ABOVE ground, for comparison? After all, you are neglecting to take into account the fact that a HUGE amount of the wattage used by existing data centers has been cooling via HVAC, and by switching to underwater cooling their overall watt usage would theoretically drop a good bit due to the efficiency gains.
- aaronbee 6y agoI believe the GP's point is that even with a 10,000x increase in data center energy consumption, the effect on ocean temperature is tiny.
- luma 6y agoSounds like they're just using pessimistic numbers to make the point. Even if you multiply the existing datacenter footprint by 4 orders of magnitude, it still only results in a 0.01C raise in temperature.
- CDSlice 6y agoI think you are arguing for the same thing your parent comment is? That comment is trying to show that even in the absolute worst case of no efficiency gains and 10,000x increase in data centers the impact that using the oceans to cool them would have on the ocean is absolutely minuscule.