Underwater Servers in Your Future?
-
@aaronstuder said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
Would this cause the ocean temp to rise?
Most likely not outside of the immediate area. Even in the immediate area it could have detrimental effects though.
-
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
CO2 is not the boogieman it's made out to be. There are lots of other reasons to prefer moving things to have less impact on the environment. I think it's that most people aren't capable of understanding those other reasons that a boogieman like CO2 is used, most people think they understand less=good more=bad.
There are whole bodies of research on why excessive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are bad for the environment and people living in those environments. It's not a new thing and knowledge of it has been around for decades...
The key word is excessive. Take a look at the historic CO2 values to get the idea.
Huh? Even past concentration didn't really hit the point where we are today. IIRC the highest (and climatically volatile period) was only ever ~300PPM CO2 at least from the measurements of ice cores. We're well into the 400PPM CO2... So I'm not sure what you mean by look historically.
I've always wondered that - bad in the massive forest fires days... but never bothered to look it up.
-
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
CO2 is not the boogieman it's made out to be. There are lots of other reasons to prefer moving things to have less impact on the environment. I think it's that most people aren't capable of understanding those other reasons that a boogieman like CO2 is used, most people think they understand less=good more=bad.
There are whole bodies of research on why excessive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are bad for the environment and people living in those environments. It's not a new thing and knowledge of it has been around for decades...
The key word is excessive. Take a look at the historic CO2 values to get the idea.
Huh? Even past concentration didn't really hit the point where we are today. IIRC the highest (and climatically volatile period) was only ever ~300PPM CO2 at least from the measurements of ice cores. We're well into the 400PPM CO2... So I'm not sure what you mean by look historically.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/
-
@aaronstuder said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
Would this cause the ocean temp to rise?
The buildup of greenhouse gases has proven that temperatures rise. Directly cooling servers in the ocean, while a tiny spec compared to the size of the ocean would have some impact.
Which is why offsetting that impact by requiring something like the "Build a mall, you have to have a large water feature as well" approach might be useful. Hopefully even beneficial.
Since the oceans are warming, try and cool them down with mass solar arrays to capture that solar radiation.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
And in opposite directions. Solar or wind energy production reduces energy "in the system", while CO2 emissions increase it.
I could see how wind is reducing energy in the system. As it's literally forcing wind (produced from hot and cold areas) to turn turbines.
But how is solar pulling energy out of the system?
Less of it hitting the surface of the earth and heating up the landmass. Solar panels have an effect of cooling nearby areas.
I suppose that's true as the sun would literally never hit that ground again for quiet some time . .
That's why they do those checkboard patterns for solar, so the sun as it moves throughout the day, hits all the soil, but all of it less. So at least the lack of sunlight is spread out rather than conceptrated in one super cool area.
The concentration of sunlight no longer hitting these areas was the concern I thought. I saw a TV news spot about a goat renter. He would rent out his goats to solar farms to eat the grass and weeds that were able to grow in the area.
While I can see what is being stated, we were discussing the lack of solar radiation that is being captured by the ground in these areas as the cause for concern.
Using a checkerboard design sounds like its just a means of keeping the area looking nice, rather than a dead plot of land.
LOL - have you never seen grass grow under trees? There are many types of grasses that thrive in non direct light.
-
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
And in opposite directions. Solar or wind energy production reduces energy "in the system", while CO2 emissions increase it.
I could see how wind is reducing energy in the system. As it's literally forcing wind (produced from hot and cold areas) to turn turbines.
But how is solar pulling energy out of the system?
Less of it hitting the surface of the earth and heating up the landmass. Solar panels have an effect of cooling nearby areas.
I suppose that's true as the sun would literally never hit that ground again for quiet some time . .
That's why they do those checkboard patterns for solar, so the sun as it moves throughout the day, hits all the soil, but all of it less. So at least the lack of sunlight is spread out rather than conceptrated in one super cool area.
The concentration of sunlight no longer hitting these areas was the concern I thought. I saw a TV news spot about a goat renter. He would rent out his goats to solar farms to eat the grass and weeds that were able to grow in the area.
While I can see what is being stated, we were discussing the lack of solar radiation that is being captured by the ground in these areas as the cause for concern.
Using a checkerboard design sounds like its just a means of keeping the area looking nice, rather than a dead plot of land.
LOL - have you never seen grass grow under trees? There are many types of grasses that thrive in non direct light.
Uh. . sure I guess. But the conversation is about trying to keep any given biome as natural as it can be. Bringing in a grass that may not be a part of the area could have other side effects that we aren't aware of.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
And in opposite directions. Solar or wind energy production reduces energy "in the system", while CO2 emissions increase it.
I could see how wind is reducing energy in the system. As it's literally forcing wind (produced from hot and cold areas) to turn turbines.
But how is solar pulling energy out of the system?
Less of it hitting the surface of the earth and heating up the landmass. Solar panels have an effect of cooling nearby areas.
I suppose that's true as the sun would literally never hit that ground again for quiet some time . .
That's why they do those checkboard patterns for solar, so the sun as it moves throughout the day, hits all the soil, but all of it less. So at least the lack of sunlight is spread out rather than conceptrated in one super cool area.
The concentration of sunlight no longer hitting these areas was the concern I thought. I saw a TV news spot about a goat renter. He would rent out his goats to solar farms to eat the grass and weeds that were able to grow in the area.
While I can see what is being stated, we were discussing the lack of solar radiation that is being captured by the ground in these areas as the cause for concern.
Using a checkerboard design sounds like its just a means of keeping the area looking nice, rather than a dead plot of land.
LOL - have you never seen grass grow under trees? There are many types of grasses that thrive in non direct light.
Uh. . sure I guess. But the conversation is about trying to keep any given biome as natural as it can be. Bringing in a grass that may not be a part of the area could have other side effects that we aren't aware of.
I suppose - but nothing says you need to bring something else in. It's going to be an area by area situation.
-
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
And in opposite directions. Solar or wind energy production reduces energy "in the system", while CO2 emissions increase it.
I could see how wind is reducing energy in the system. As it's literally forcing wind (produced from hot and cold areas) to turn turbines.
But how is solar pulling energy out of the system?
Less of it hitting the surface of the earth and heating up the landmass. Solar panels have an effect of cooling nearby areas.
I suppose that's true as the sun would literally never hit that ground again for quiet some time . .
That's why they do those checkboard patterns for solar, so the sun as it moves throughout the day, hits all the soil, but all of it less. So at least the lack of sunlight is spread out rather than conceptrated in one super cool area.
The concentration of sunlight no longer hitting these areas was the concern I thought. I saw a TV news spot about a goat renter. He would rent out his goats to solar farms to eat the grass and weeds that were able to grow in the area.
While I can see what is being stated, we were discussing the lack of solar radiation that is being captured by the ground in these areas as the cause for concern.
Using a checkerboard design sounds like its just a means of keeping the area looking nice, rather than a dead plot of land.
LOL - have you never seen grass grow under trees? There are many types of grasses that thrive in non direct light.
Uh. . sure I guess. But the conversation is about trying to keep any given biome as natural as it can be. Bringing in a grass that may not be a part of the area could have other side effects that we aren't aware of.
I suppose - but nothing says you need to bring something else in. It's going to be an area by area situation.
And that's perfectly fine, but what I'm imaging is essentially a desert underneath these solar panels where the soil begins to erode due to substantial changes in the immediate ecology. Direct rains, turn into gutter collection, direct sunlight and plants in the area turn into a new grass type and weeds.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@DustinB3403 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@scottalanmiller said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
And in opposite directions. Solar or wind energy production reduces energy "in the system", while CO2 emissions increase it.
I could see how wind is reducing energy in the system. As it's literally forcing wind (produced from hot and cold areas) to turn turbines.
But how is solar pulling energy out of the system?
Less of it hitting the surface of the earth and heating up the landmass. Solar panels have an effect of cooling nearby areas.
I suppose that's true as the sun would literally never hit that ground again for quiet some time . .
That's why they do those checkboard patterns for solar, so the sun as it moves throughout the day, hits all the soil, but all of it less. So at least the lack of sunlight is spread out rather than conceptrated in one super cool area.
The concentration of sunlight no longer hitting these areas was the concern I thought. I saw a TV news spot about a goat renter. He would rent out his goats to solar farms to eat the grass and weeds that were able to grow in the area.
While I can see what is being stated, we were discussing the lack of solar radiation that is being captured by the ground in these areas as the cause for concern.
Using a checkerboard design sounds like its just a means of keeping the area looking nice, rather than a dead plot of land.
LOL - have you never seen grass grow under trees? There are many types of grasses that thrive in non direct light.
Uh. . sure I guess. But the conversation is about trying to keep any given biome as natural as it can be. Bringing in a grass that may not be a part of the area could have other side effects that we aren't aware of.
I suppose - but nothing says you need to bring something else in. It's going to be an area by area situation.
And that's perfectly fine, but what I'm imaging is essentially a desert underneath these solar panels where the soil begins to erode due to substantial changes in the immediate ecology. Direct rains, turn into gutter collection, direct sunlight and plants in the area turn into a new grass type and weeds.
I suppose that's possible - but I wonder how likely that is? And as Scott already mentioned - they are using a checkered pattern to help solve that problem, so hopefully it's a non-issue.
-
In many places, solar panels combat desert conditions by reducing water burn off and heat in places where water conservation is key. Solar panels impact sun hitting the ground, but don't reduce water hitting it. So overall, they increase ground moisture.
-
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?:
@Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature.
Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems.
This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue?
It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal.
CO2 is not the boogieman it's made out to be. There are lots of other reasons to prefer moving things to have less impact on the environment. I think it's that most people aren't capable of understanding those other reasons that a boogieman like CO2 is used, most people think they understand less=good more=bad.
There are whole bodies of research on why excessive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are bad for the environment and people living in those environments. It's not a new thing and knowledge of it has been around for decades...
The key word is excessive. Take a look at the historic CO2 values to get the idea.
Huh? Even past concentration didn't really hit the point where we are today. IIRC the highest (and climatically volatile period) was only ever ~300PPM CO2 at least from the measurements of ice cores. We're well into the 400PPM CO2... So I'm not sure what you mean by look historically.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/
HAHAHAHAAAHAH
In New Zealand, he was the first Director of Building Research and later, Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray
