3 ms·
Right, but the profit from co-generation from 100W of computation has to be at least greater than (cost of generating 100W of DC) - (cost of providing 100W of p
by shalmanese 11y ago
Right, but the profit from co-generation from 100W of computation has to be at least greater than (cost of generating 100W of DC) - (cost of providing 100W of pure heat).
I was looking at it in the context of bitcoin mining at the time but it's remarkably hard to find computational tasks that both generate good $/FLOP returns and are stable and scalable which is what a scheme like this needs.
- tinco 11y agoI'm a bit confused, don't the losses of an AC->DC converter go into heat as well? Why is that less efficient than a cheap AC heater? Is the energy lost in some other way or is the heat generated by the converter not usable?
- jacquesm 11y agoYou're not confused at all. The computational device is a 100% efficient space heater and at the same time does something other than just heat space.
- shalmanese 11y agoI'm not talking about energy, I'm talking about $
- CarVac 11y agoNo, the profit of co-generation from 100W of computation has to be greater than (the productivity loss from the geographic dispersion of the computational resources minus the cost of actively cooling the computers). The electricity is free because it would already have been spent on computation (plus some more on cooling that computation, which is no longer necessary).