5 ms·

Is there any reason this isn't more common? Why aren't more US datacenters in the Chicago metro area where the air is dry and cool, and trillions of gallons of

Is there any reason this isn't more common? Why aren't more US datacenters in the Chicago metro area where the air is dry and cool, and trillions of gallons of frigid water is available? The geography is mild and natural disasters that effect datacenters are basically unheard of. It seems silly that so many datacenters are in central Texas, where not only are tornados and tropical storms fairly common, but it's hot and humid for 7 months out of the year.

joebadmo 15y ago
I imagine real estate prices and tax policies have a lot to do with it.
- rbranson 15y ago
  Either way, there is a ton of land in many states along the great lakes. It seems like HVAC is a large component of energy expenditures at datacenters, but perhaps the savings don't justify it?
phlux 15y ago
Money. As a technical designer - where I do datacenter design - we have been talking about this for years. The problem is cost. Google has a trifecta perfecta with this facility's location. Google specifically picked this site for this reason -- but in the end, the reason that Google is able to do this is that they have a ton of money, they were given a good price for agreeing to preserve the historic site, they gave back part of the Mill's land for the erection of the wind-mills, which are not directly Google's. The tunnel to the sea was already there as a part of the cooling plant for the mill. So, this is a straightforward -- fiberglass pipe to prevent corrosion and then the sea water pours over the heat exchangers. The issue with doing this in san francisco is the environmentalists would kill you, the cost of tunneling would be prohibitive and the concern of the piping being seismically sound would cause difficulty. So, it's really a matter of money and politics. The design is great and simple. I would prefer we take the mothball fleet in Benicia and turn them into a huge floating DC. DISCLAIMER: my firm worked on this DC -- but the cable plant -- not the MEP.
joezydeco 15y ago
I think the EPA and Army Corps frown upon massive thermal pollution of the Great Lakes now. The ecosystem can't really handle it.
- anamax 15y ago
  > I think the EPA and Army Corps frown upon massive thermal pollution of the Great Lakes now. massive? The smallest (by volume) of the great lakes, erie, is over 480 km^3. Lake Michigan, the one near Chicago, is over 4,900 km^3. That amount of thermal mass isn't going to be significantly affected by hundreds of data centers.
hyperbovine 15y ago
One reason I have personal experience with is the massive regulatory headache which accompanies any project that relies using a lot of fresh water from a navegable river or lake. (Google "waters of the United States"). Invariably you get to deal with both the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, plus whatever state regulations are out there, e.g. CEQA in California. This process can take literally decades and cost millions of dollars: environmental consulting, EIS/EIR, Section 7 & 404 consultations, take permitting, habitat / species conservation plan, mitigation, etc. I'm not against preventing companies from trashing what natural resources we have left. At the same time, I can see why they'd be reluctant to go that route.
- rbranson 15y ago
  Very interesting. It doesn't surprise me that a vast array of permits would be required, as it should be. We all know how companies will treat water resources if they're not scrutinized. I do see water cooling as a potential mitigation of large quantities of CO2. The need for datacenters will only grow, and we need to find energy-efficient ways of cooling them. Perhaps sticking to seawater in this case just makes more sense.
awj 15y ago
> It seems silly that so many datacenters are in central Texas, where not only are tornados and tropical storms fairly common, but it's hot and humid for 7 months out of the year. I thought most of the data centers were around Dallas or Austin. Those are both too far away to really feel tropical storms and are seldom hit by tornados. About the only thing you seem to have right are the heat and humidity, except I'm not sure 7 months is crediting it with enough.
- rbranson 15y ago
  You're right, the risk is fairly mild, but it's still far more risky than what's seen in the Chicago area. It only takes 1 tornado to effectively wipe out a datacenter.

joebadmo 15y ago

I imagine real estate prices and tax policies have a lot to do with it.

rbranson 15y ago
Either way, there is a ton of land in many states along the great lakes. It seems like HVAC is a large component of energy expenditures at datacenters, but perhaps the savings don't justify it?

phlux 15y ago

Money. As a technical designer - where I do datacenter design - we have been talking about this for years. The problem is cost. Google has a trifecta perfecta with this facility's location. Google specifically picked this site for this reason -- but in the end, the reason that Google is able to do this is that they have a ton of money, they were given a good price for agreeing to preserve the historic site, they gave back part of the Mill's land for the erection of the wind-mills, which are not directly Google's. The tunnel to the sea was already there as a part of the cooling plant for the mill. So, this is a straightforward -- fiberglass pipe to prevent corrosion and then the sea water pours over the heat exchangers. The issue with doing this in san francisco is the environmentalists would kill you, the cost of tunneling would be prohibitive and the concern of the piping being seismically sound would cause difficulty. So, it's really a matter of money and politics. The design is great and simple. I would prefer we take the mothball fleet in Benicia and turn them into a huge floating DC. DISCLAIMER: my firm worked on this DC -- but the cable plant -- not the MEP.

joezydeco 15y ago

I think the EPA and Army Corps frown upon massive thermal pollution of the Great Lakes now. The ecosystem can't really handle it.

anamax 15y ago
> I think the EPA and Army Corps frown upon massive thermal pollution of the Great Lakes now. massive? The smallest (by volume) of the great lakes, erie, is over 480 km^3. Lake Michigan, the one near Chicago, is over 4,900 km^3. That amount of thermal mass isn't going to be significantly affected by hundreds of data centers.

hyperbovine 15y ago

One reason I have personal experience with is the massive regulatory headache which accompanies any project that relies using a lot of fresh water from a navegable river or lake. (Google "waters of the United States"). Invariably you get to deal with both the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, plus whatever state regulations are out there, e.g. CEQA in California. This process can take literally decades and cost millions of dollars: environmental consulting, EIS/EIR, Section 7 & 404 consultations, take permitting, habitat / species conservation plan, mitigation, etc. I'm not against preventing companies from trashing what natural resources we have left. At the same time, I can see why they'd be reluctant to go that route.

rbranson 15y ago
Very interesting. It doesn't surprise me that a vast array of permits would be required, as it should be. We all know how companies will treat water resources if they're not scrutinized. I do see water cooling as a potential mitigation of large quantities of CO2. The need for datacenters will only grow, and we need to find energy-efficient ways of cooling them. Perhaps sticking to seawater in this case just makes more sense.

awj 15y ago

> It seems silly that so many datacenters are in central Texas, where not only are tornados and tropical storms fairly common, but it's hot and humid for 7 months out of the year. I thought most of the data centers were around Dallas or Austin. Those are both too far away to really feel tropical storms and are seldom hit by tornados. About the only thing you seem to have right are the heat and humidity, except I'm not sure 7 months is crediting it with enough.

rbranson 15y ago
You're right, the risk is fairly mild, but it's still far more risky than what's seen in the Chicago area. It only takes 1 tornado to effectively wipe out a datacenter.