MS servers are undersee since time, nothing new
https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/
MS servers are undersee since time, nothing new
https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/
Why not just build all the datacenters in the arctic? What am I missing?
Condensation
Honestly datacenters almost always benifit from being data sources, which mostly means population centers.
There is almost the cost of networking even if latency isnt a concern. There is just more line of sight with sats and fiber connection near existing places vs far off places.
because the oceans can't warm fast enough.
More energy being spent cooling data centers on land ultimately heats up the whole system more, including the oceans. This is why you should pay attention in your physics class at school kids.
The project is set to use 30% less electricity and is powered by wind. Better than the Western approach of building data centers in deserts to waste scarce water for cooling for sure
I am far from expert on this, but I'm not sure that they will be sufficient to change the oceanic temps compared to the wider worldwide greenhouse effect. Every data centre is already adding heat and most are reliant upon fossil fuels. The AI operations excessively so. Definitely need to do the works of a job on climate change.
The heat of even huge datacenters in the ocean is irrelevant, compared to the caused by the energy generation needed for cooling datacenters on land. Energy needed for cooling in submarine servers is zero.
This is only a problem if the datacenters are not powered by renewables. Nearly all renewables are the result of solar energy, AKA photons, AKA heat that is hitting the Earth regardless of what we do with it. Solar panels are obvious, but even for wind, it's the result of the sun heating different regions of the atmosphere at different rates, converting thermal energy from the sun to kinetic energy in the air. A wind turbine converts some of this kinetic energy to electrical energy (which slows the air down ever so slightly), which is dissipated as heat mostly in the data center. The thing is, if the wind turbine didn't exist, whatever kinetic energy that would have been captured would directly be dissipated as heat anyway in the form of friction in the air. Renewables only move solar heat around, and doesn't generate heat of its own. Even with geothermal energy, where in theory you're bringing heat that was trapped in the Earth to the surface, the geothermal sources we can practically take advantage of are already so close to the surface they would have been released through simple conduction anyway.
It is only when you burn fossil fuels that you're actively generating heat that would otherwise have stayed as chemical energy. But even the heat from this not the actual concern, it's the byproducts it generates that cause solar energy that would have been released into space to be trapped in the atmosphere. The heat generated isn't even a rounding error compared to retaining even 1% more solar energy in the air. Same for nuclear where you're reducing the overall binding energy inside atom cores and the reduction in energy is equal to the heat generated.
Why put them in the ocean when you can just put them on the coast and pipe ocean water through the heat exchanger? That way you can actually access the servers without a ship with a giant crane (powered by fossil fuels) hauling them back up.
Also gonna guess the maintenance intervals are atrocious with all the salt corrosion. Why not a river or lake where the water doesn't actively hate the thought of metals existing and you don't have microscopic creatures that will attach to literally any surface and create a calcified dome for itself plugging up the places water is supposed to flow through?
I was baffled by the Microsoft "sea cooled datacenter" and I'm still baffled now. Like surely there are better ways to do it.
I'm guessing they did a cost benefit analysis of all this before starting the project. :)
It'd be neat if data centers could also be desalination plants. IE, you extract the seawater, desalinate it, use it for cooling, then add the fresh water into the general water supply when it's done with. I'm sure there are probably many reasons why that wouldn't work though.
Right, humans are actually gonna boil the ocean... aren't we.
If we can't stop the energy from being used anyway, why not make a desalination plant out of it too? 🤦
Sounds like a great idea. OTOH, impossible to calculate the damage to local ecosystems vs. traditional methods.
Totally uneducated guess: Probably better? Cooling is a major power suck, as well as consuming water.
Roughly 40 percent of the electricity consumed by an ordinary data center is for this purpose.
We're draining aquifers that take thousands of years to build up. Don't read up on that, it's horrifying. So if we have to have data centers, I'm gambling that underwater is the lesser of two evils.
Microsoft and Google both prototyped it. FWIW, they didn't take it to production once the data was collected.
IIRC, cooling worked fine if placed in the right place with circulation, but maintenance and part replacement was a major issue.
maintenance and part replacement was a major issue
That was my first thought: who's going to be the underwater IT guy?
Edit: as an interesting coincidence, I just interviewed an engineer today who has rescue diver on his resume with 16 years of diving experience
Nothing better than destroying the planet for a quick buck off a cheap grift.
Chinese capitalism <---> Planetary destruction <---> USA capitalism
There are already llava/magma vents in the ocean... But the thought of human heat being added makes me upset because it's just another piece.
I get it, truly, but we've been dejecting heat to the ocean for a good while. Ocean water cools marine engines and equipment, and heck we use rivers to cool lots of things -- even reactors, which ends up back in the ocean. Data center cooling might be one of the more responsible uses because it's (hopefully) not leeching petroleum or radioactive byproducts into the water.
I'm actually a little more upset now than when I started this comment.
>:(
Yes and there is already a sun shining above ground so global warming is no problem either.. smh.
Didn’t Microsoft do this a decade or two ago already? Or was that just exploring the idea?
It was to study its effectiveness and sustainability iirc, not meant to be done for actual production at that point in time.
I guess one major downside is that if a component breaks, be it something simple like a capacitor, there is no easy way to replace it, so it has to be designed with that in mind.
all 16 comments