cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/74351191

A proposed data center in northwestern Alberta could generate dozens of atomic bombs worth of heat every day.

all 52 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 55 points 4 days ago (1 child)

Shinra Mako reactors have become an actual thing in real life. Sucking all the life out of everything around it to generate computing power for tech billionaires to burn while creating nothing of value.

Negative value if you look at the impending crash.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

    The $70 billion project, backed by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary

    Of course it's the wonder valley project. I don't have time to read the full article just now but last I had heard it kind of sounded more like investor fraud than a legitimate project.

    Edit: Here's a youtuber covering it. Also at about 5:03 he shows the promo video that Kevin O'Leary AI slopped... It's ridiculous.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    On the order of 20MW continuous draw, saved you the math.

    That's pretty small for an industrial load and some hyperscale data-centers are in the 500MW scale.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (7 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    Metric motherfucker, do you speak it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    So is m - milli and M - mega. Which the poster above does not seem to understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    No, I understand. Let me capitalize it for you so you understand: 500MW?????

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    Dino juice should be phased out, and something like this should be required to develop a Candu reactor, than the heat should be shoved up Kevin’s ass!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Marlaina Smith passed a law that data centers can NOT use renewables, they must use gas. I shit you not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    yeah, no woke windmills turning frogs gay in Alberta

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago

    I guess we're talking local gas, and the argument is something like "support your local oil co."?

    Not that it makes it any better but that's the reasoning that eluded me. It's fucked up though, because this is what countries/regions/politicians do all over the world: save the planet, sure, but local jobs come first.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    I've got to wonder if there's some way to install heat exchangers on these data centers to recapture the heat. Nearly 100% of that energy is turned into heat (with a little escaping as sound). I've heard they're wanting to build datacenters inside decommissioned nuclear power plants, so maybe those would even have some of the infrastructure to do it?

    It might be tricky if the hot exhaust never gets above water boiling temperature...

    Edit: It looks like this is the closest technology we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower Building one of those on a datacenter could recover maybe 20-30% of the energy if I'm understanding the article right.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Most data centres use some type of mechanical cooling (like AC) but instead of using compression, they can use a close system exchange with outdoor air. Still the same problem (several thousand households worth of heat in a single building), but it's at least not wasting clean water for it. They could use the heat to keep green houses warm, heat towns, or use it for power generation even.

    But those all cost money, which is why they won't do it. This is the same type of planning that puts trains in a city above ground and builds multi million dollar buildings that will be torn down in 30 years because they are falling apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    They could use the heat to keep green houses warm, heat towns, or use it for power generation even.

    Which is exactly what I'm suggesting?
    I'm not talking about water consumption of evaporative cooling, I'm more talking about the massive power inputs that put 100% of that heat into the surrounding environment. It would be amazing if that could be reduced to only 70% of the energy input.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Need an atomic banana for scale...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago*

    This heat would be from fossil methane combustion. Who accepted to store all the exhaust in their own backyard?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

    queue the people telling us how little that is in comparison to the energy of the sun... you know what else the sun is doing? making plants grow! can your data center do that? no it does the opposite...

    edit: they are already coming out of the woodworks, just with different "arguments"... 🙄

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Sure, and our planet doesn't need saving. Planets don't just break.

    Galaxy brains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I mean... You're not wrong. Earth will be fine. It's already had global heating cycles beyond the scale of what we're looking at.

    The small, teensy, insignificant problem is that the last time it happened was one of the Great Extinction events that wiped out most live on the planet.

    And the heating also happened about 100-1000× more slowly, iirc—over the timescale of millennia, not decades.

    But life will survive. And new species will eventually evolve to fill the sparsely populated planet left behind by the disaster.

    The Great Filter is coming for us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child)

    You’re not wrong.

    I was sarcastically quoting those galaxy brains. Of course they're technically correct, that was my whole point.

    I have taken to talking about saving the ecosphere instead.

    I'd still prefer to avoid a human made extinction event.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    This website is ad-laden cancer

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    Good thing we're not dealing with a existential crisis caused by heating the earth, or anything...

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

    Global warming is caused by GHG emissions causing the atmosphere to delay the Earth's radiation of heat from the sun back into space. The heat directly emitted by the data center would have more of a local effect. It is apparently unprecedented in terms of a point heat source so it could potentially be quite destructive to the local environment. That being said, the article stated the data center alone would also account for a whopping 4% of Canada's GHG emissions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    While you're correct, that much heat emitted in a local area prone to yearly fire seasons seems to be unwise. If sparks from trains travelling around curves can start fires (Lytton seemingly every year), multiple nukes' worth of heat daily might be worse.

    Also, it's still an increase of emissions, more is always worse than neutral in this scenario. Yes, there are more polluting things to worry about, but we need to be reducing emissions, not increasing them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    I agree entirely, and I do hope my comment didn't appear to try to justify this insane data center buildout. We don't need any more data centers, and we need to completely eliminate fossil fuel usage.

    I would also think that the heat may dry and kill the flora in the vicinity, which could potentially increase fire risk. But I'm no expert.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Wrong.

    While you’re correct, that much heat emitted in a local area prone to yearly fire seasons seems to be unwise.

    The "23 atomic bomb" facility is ~20MW, equivalent to an extra 40,000m^2 (that's a 200m square) of sunlight falling on that area. Insignificant.

    . If sparks from trains travelling around curves can start fires (Lytton seemingly every year), multiple nukes’ worth of heat daily might be worse.

    Sparks from a train are pinpoints of incandescently hot metal, more than 500c, falling into dry grass. 20MW industrial building rejects its heat as air or steam in the 50-100c range.

    Also, it’s still an increase of emissions, more is always worse than neutral in this scenario. Yes, there are more polluting things to worry about, but we need to be reducing emissions, not increasing them.

    At least you got one right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    All the sources I'm finding say 7 to 18 GW, not 20 MW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Went into the article and no, it doesn't provide actual hard numbers beyond 'atom bombs'. Stupid bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    a daily thermal load of between 16 and 18 gigawatts

    Yes, there is a range in standard units. Please read the article more carefully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 days ago*

    That's the common journalist error of mixing up power and energy. 1 Watt is 1 joule per second, and is a rate of power. Saying a datacentre will have a daily thermal load of 16 and 18 gigawatts is like saying your car has a daily thermal load of 14 litres of gas per kilometre.

    Heat exchange can be given in watts, but again that's heat exchanged per second. If a room has a heat loss of 500w you can maintain temperature by using a 500w space heater on max or a 1000w space heater at 50% power. Saying the room requires 500w of heat daily doesn't make sense.

    It's most likely the data centre has a maximum power draw of 18 gigawatts if everything was running at max all at once, which isn't a realistic average use, and also doesn't give an indication of how much heat is being produced.

    It seems they got the 23 nuclear bombs by taking the amount of energy the Hiroshima nuclear bomb was estimated to have released (about 63 terajoule) and comparing it to the amount of energy consumed in 24 hours at a rate of 18 gigawatts (18 gigajoule/s × 86,400 s/day is about equal to 63 terajoule × 23).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    What an absolutely stupid and intentionally misleading way to frame this.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    Keep this yankee bullshit in the backwaters down south, if at all. We don’t want this here

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    Why dont they boil water with the excess heat to recover a tiny bit of energy? Is that even possible?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    Whhhaaaaattttt???

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago

    Today in "Possible Future News That May Or May Not Happen". Film at 11:00PM in 15 years. /s

  • source
  • 9 comments in c/interestingshare@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 32 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    guys remember to use those paper straws that dissolve mid drink, we all have to do whatever we can to fight climate change

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Those have a completely different reason, not climate change. Single use plastics keep finding their way into our oceans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago

    Technically, they're made of fossil oil, part of the Big Oil sector. Plastics are their fallback.

    More technically, plastics sinking to the bottom of oceans or buried underground are actually a carbon sink. Plastics will emit GHGs like carbon dioxide and methane if they degrade. So we really need to stop using straws entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 4 days ago

    That would be about as much electricity as 2% of what the entire USA uses. Wow!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    There's next to no networking anywhere near Wonder Valley. It'll never break ground.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    Ok.

    But, just like Elon's stupid 1 million satellite orbital data center, none of this is going to happen.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Spoiler: it won’t generate even half that much heat if you know how to do basic math and understand what the units mean.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 8 comments in c/anythingbutmetric@discuss.tchncs.de view that post
    [–] 33 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    You know what? I think this is justified usage. The average person won't have a good way to interpret joules or watts, especially on the 16-18 gigawatt scale. Props they include the actual number in the article btw.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I wonder if a typical steel mill is in the same range. They produce plenty of waste heat all the time, so why not compare a data centre with that? Also, nuclear reactor dumps plenty of heat into the environment continuously, so that would be a good comparison as well. Nukes make sexy headlines though, so can’t blame the editor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago

    It's fair game, you need that amount of energy to feed all those waifus.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago

    23 atomic bombs of energy could heat about 1M tea kettles.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    So the problem will fix itself. I assume it will stop running if we're not here to press the reset button after a Windows nightly update.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    Climate change is a hoax anyway, and the AIs living in this one will prove it!

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 21 points 4 days ago

    A proposed data center in northwestern Alberta will reportedly emit a staggering amount of waste heat.

    According to an analysis conducted by Utah State University physicist Robert Davies, the Wonder Valley facility will dump “about 23 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs worth of energy every single day” into the surrounding landscape.

    “The effect will almost certainly be large, if not extreme,” Davies told the CBC.

    Davies conducted the preliminary analysis earlier this year for the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation (SLCN). The $70 billion project, backed by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary, is set to be built 80 miles southwest of SLCN’s reserve. While it does not sit inside the reserve, the reporting notes, it does lie in a patch of land that’s considered the First Nation’s traditional territory.

    In April, the Alberta government said it would exempt the Wonder Valley project from a more rigorous provincial environmental impact assessment due to its use of standard power and water systems — a move that disappointed, but perhaps didn’t surprise, legal and environmental experts.

    Davies echoed the disappointment. “I can’t imagine allowing it to go forward without those full assessments,” he told CBC, adding that it could be the “largest single-site heat source on the entire planet.”

    In all, the data center project will use about nine gigawatts of power using on-site natural gas generators per day, instead of drawing power from an energy grid. All that burning fuel, paired with the heat being generated by the data center operations themselves, totals a daily thermal load of between 16 and 18 gigawatts, Davies calculated — the equivalent of roughly two dozen atomic bombs. (If this line sounds familiar, it’s because Davies used the same analogy when he analyzed another O’Leary-backed data center project in Utah with a similar thermal load.)

    It’s a sensational reference point, but it captures the unprecedented concentration of heat that the data center will purportedly pose. Since the power is being generated on site and going straight into the data center, the heat isn’t being spread out the way that a typical power plant’s output would, through the various homes and businesses it’s supplying across an entire region. In other words, the gas turbines are spewing heat as they generate electricity, and the racks upon racks of AI chips are generating heat as they use that electricity to perform calculations, all in the same spot.

    The facility will also spew about 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, according to the analysis — which is more than four percent of Canada’s total emissions.

    “When people talk about environmental regulations that these projects have to adhere to, those regulations were not created with anything of this scale in mind,” Davies said.

    In September, the SLCN filed an application for a judicial review on the Wonder Valley’s project exemption from an environmental impact assessment, and requested another review last month.

    Responding to the request, Alberta’s Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas stressed in an October 30 statement that the project will still have to obtain “all required permits, provide detailed technical assessments on impacts to air, land, and water, and demonstrate the project can be built and operated safely before any project can proceed.”

    But the permitting process doesn’t gauge the big picture, Davies argued.

    “Permits check the parts. An assessment checks the whole,” he told the CBC. “A project this size is exactly what assessments are for.”

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Obligatory "Fuck Kevin O'Leary"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Only 1 Atomic Bomb would be needed to make it stop, though.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment