3 ms·

Their definition of negative carbon footprint is broken. Unless there is something in the computer that permanently binds carbon from the atmosphere.

• ravi-delia 4y ago
  Not when it is replacing gas heat, as it likely is!
  • jupp0r 4y ago
    That would make it neutral not negative, but only if it was powered fully by renewables which were constructed and operated in a fully carbon neutral way.
    • mike_hock 4y ago
      It could be that electrical district heating has a lower carbon footprint than gas heating (if the electricity is sufficiently low-carbon). Still doesn't make it "carbon-negative," just kills two birds with one stone by using the same energy both for heating and computing.
      • ravi-delia 4y ago
        I see what you're saying with this, but the comparison isn't a world where electricity is used for the heating, it's one where gas is (gas heating is almost always more efficient than electric heating, since you lose a lot of heat at the generator). So either the heat is radiated out into the atmosphere uselessly, and some amount of natural gas is burned, or the heat is used and 20% less natural gas is burned. That's a carbon footprint of -20%.
• patall 4y ago
  They run the computer carbon neutral and then use the excess heat to replace carbon derived heat. Hence, there is less carbon emission while the computer is running. Their definition is not broken, just based on comparison to the initial state (that emmits CO2) and not a zero emission state. Like Google's supposed carbon negativity by reducing the emission of other peoples cow sheds.
  • jupp0r 4y ago
    Negative carbon emissions are those that remove carbon from the atmosphere. This project doesn’t remove carbon from the atmosphere, it’s preventing more carbon from being released into the atmosphere which is usually called carbon neutral.
  • rightbyte 4y ago
    Decreasing carbon emissions is not "carbon negative" in my world. A "carbon negative" machine would be something that e.g. plants trees.