Great. Now we're just apparently directly warming the oceans instead of indirectly.
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
185 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
71537 readers
3609 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It will take more streaming porn to boil the ocean than even you could watch.
From one Datacenter? Yes. If you put all datacenters into the sea? Definitely not. And if the Bitcoin scumbags decide that this is a good idea and built huge mining farms underwarer it's even worse. Datacenters are one of the biggest contributors to energy need already, taking up 1-1.3% of global energy demand. That's no joke
Going off google the energy required to heat the oceans by 1 degree is approximately 5.4*10^21 kj, or 1389 trillion GWh, or the energy output of over 170 million nuclear power plants over an entire year. Safe to say putting all the server farms in the world in there still isn't going to make a dent.
It might affect local temperature by a relevant amount if there's too many in one spot perhaps, and that could be pretty bad. But generally, saving energy is a good thing.
The temperature of the ocean may not change but the heat is dissipated into the atmosphere, making extreme weather events more likely.
Is that a challenge I hear?
Bro I got some bad news for you about how ships, submaines, and costal power plants cool themselves.
On site access would be so expensive
Not if we build underwater cities. Rapture incoming!
That's a cool idea. The bottom of the ocean is a pretty hostile environment though, it better be very well engineered to have any sort of longevity.
It's 35m deep - for comparison recreational scuba divers go up to 30m deep and professional scuba divers up to 60m deep.
It will have to be well engineered and difficult to repair compared to a land facility, but nothing compared to like the space station.
Very cool idea, after 25 years there should be significant cost savings overall.
except that they can't just repair or replace any hardware. and even if nothing breaks, in 25 years the hardware will be incredibly obsolete. have you tried using a 25 year old computer to do something as basic as browsing the web?
The space station only has to withstand 1atm of pressure and isn't subjected to anywhere near as much risk of corrosion.
Ten soccer fields you say?
I wonder what distro they run 🤔
Thank goodness it doesn't have windows.
equal to 6 million PCs
That has literally no value. My Pi is probably equal to 6 million PCs - if you count C64s as PCs.