@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
