Under water data centre being developed by Microsoft

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

Ahh you do realise I am agreeing with rising temperatures right, just not your incorrect science for it.

[zMeul]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Ahh you do realise I am agreeing with rising temperatures right, just not your incorrect science for it.

it's not my science

 

I only quoted your wrong paragraph

and I recall you saying something about burning fuel

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

it's not my science

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

that's so wrong it's extremely wrong

the oil we extract and burn isn't all the earth's energy? so why then we see the ice cap melt, desertification?!

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

This recent slower warming in the upper ocean is closely related to the slower warming of the global surface temperature, because the temperature of the overlaying atmosphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the ocean surface.

So you say I'm wrong yet quote exactly what I said, what are you saying?

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So you say I'm wrong yet quote exactly what I said, what are you saying?

the debate was about putting heat sources in the ocean

your point was about burning fuel

color me confused ...

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the debate was about putting heat sources in the ocean

your point was about burning fuel

color me confused ...

No it wasn't, my original post was whether you heat the atmosphere or the ocean you are heating both. You brought up oil for goodness knows what reason.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

The earth is a closed system in the context of producing heat, your putting the same amount of energy in to the system so it'll heat the ocean above ground, on the ground or in the ocean. It'll just fuck us faster if we directly heat the ocean.

 

Also underwater volcanoes and super heated hydrothermal vents put way way more energy in to the ocean than every data center in the world combined, not that this is good reasoning to put them all in the ocean. 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

No it wasn't, my original post was whether you heat the atmosphere or the ocean you are heating both. You brought up oil for goodness knows what reason.

I quoted your wrong paragraph and I specifically recall something about burning fuel

wasn't you!?!? then I quoted the wrong guy 

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I quoted your wrong paragraph and I specifically recall something about burning fuel

wasn't you!?!? then I quoted the wrong guy 

two wrongs doesnt make one right.

[Dackzy]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I quoted your wrong paragraph and I specifically recall something about burning fuel

wasn't you!?!? then I quoted the wrong guy 

 

you were the first to bring up oil, another guy said something with fuel, but that was about how we use less fuel today due to greater efficiency

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

you were the first to bring up oil, another guy said something with fuel, but that was about how we use less fuel today due to greater efficiency

oil, fuel - same thing 

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

oil, fuel - same thing 

well then you are 100% the first to mention fuel, since your post with oil was about 3 hours ago and the fuel efficiency guy is only about an hour ago  

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

well then you are 100% the first to mention fuel, since your post with oil was about 3 hours ago and the fuel efficiency guy is only about an hour ago  

then someone edited their post 

[divito]

Given that the ice caps reflect water, and their slow disappearance is causing oceans to heat up faster, and melt the caps faster, why not blanket the non-waterways with some white hexagonal-type pieces that can be attached together, and then reflect more sunlight, staving off the heating progression.

[RagnarokDel]

That's gonna do wonders to stop climate changes.

[laminutederire]

7 hours ago, zMeul said:

you ignoring the fact that that center will pump energy into the ocean continously, it's not a single drop of hot water .. it's a river of hot water

the effects will not be immediate, but in couple of decades this will fuck us all; and we're already fucked

 

one center will turn into dozens if not hundreds .. and then what?!

It doesn't work that way. And as people pointed out, it's less impacting on earth when underwater than when outside.

The water around will be warmed a bit, but this will created a slightly different equilibrium near it.

The 10MW of power a data center consume is nothing compared to the power the seas receive from radiation of the sun. Radiation flux approximation  and Oceans surface value give you what you need to compute that the radiation power from the sun is about 

246 160 000 000 MW assuming half the ocean doesn't receive anything. In reality a big chunk of that is absorbed by air or reflected. If you assume 1/1000th of that only is being absorbed, it's stille a long way to go for data centers to be even comparable.

[zMeul]

36 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

It doesn't work that way. And as people pointed out, it's less impacting on earth when underwater than when outside.

The water around will be warmed a bit, but this will created a slightly different equilibrium near it.

The 10MW of power a data center consume is nothing compared to the power the seas receive from radiation of the sun. Radiation flux approximation  and Oceans surface value give you what you need to compute that the radiation power from the sun is about 

246 160 000 000 MW assuming half the ocean doesn't receive anything. In reality a big chunk of that is absorbed by air or reflected. If you assume 1/1000th of that only is being absorbed, it's stille a long way to go for data centers to be even comparable.

do tell, I even added a chart that shows rising energy (heat) in the ocean at various depths - check previous page

 

instead of heating the atmosphere you are directly heating the ocean - and that makes it better?!

here's an experiment: put a constant heat source inside your fridge, doesn't have to generate a lot of heat

[Walms]

15 minutes ago, zMeul said:

do tell, I even added a chart that shows rising energy (heat) in the ocean at various depths - check previous page

 

instead of heating the atmosphere you are directly heating the ocean - and that makes it better?!

here's an experiment: put a constant heat source inside your fridge, doesn't have to generate a lot of heat

Well it's a simple matter of efficiency. If you can agree that putting heat into the atmosphere will have a similar net impact on ocean temperatures, then total heat output of a data centre becomes more important than where you put that heat. There are huge thermal losses when using active cooling. That is some form of heat pump, where you pump gasses from liquid to gas and dissipate heat into the atmosphere. This is what most data centres do. Some are moving to free air cooling, to improve this. The article talks about this:

Quote

More recently, many data-center operators have moved to free-air cooling, which means that rather than chilling the air mechanically, they simply use outside air. This is far cheaper, with a cooling overhead of just 10 to 30 percent, but it means the computers are subject to outside air temperatures, which can get quite warm in some locations. It also often means putting the centers at high latitudes, far from population centers.

But the article also states that underwater cooling performs better than this:
 

Quote

Over the course of this 105-day experiment, we showed that we could keep the submerged computers at temperatures that were at least as cold as mechanical cooling can achieve and with even lower energy overhead than the free-air approach—just 3 percent. That energy-overhead value is lower than any production or experimental data center of which we are aware.

Meaning less heat energy released into the atmosphere, that will translate to less net ocean heating. While there may be more localised heating, from what the article is suggesting this local heating has negligible impact on the local ecology, due to the rapid dissipation of this heated water. 

As an interesting aside nuclear coolant loops often dump their heat directly into the ocean and they are orders of magnitude worse than this ever would be. 

[zMeul]

9 minutes ago, Walms said:

Well it's a simple matter of efficiency. If you can agree that putting heat into the atmosphere will have a similar net impact on ocean temperatures, then total heat output of a data centre becomes more important than where you put that heat. There are huge thermal losses when using active cooling. That is some form of heat pump, where you pump gasses from liquid to gas and dissipate heat into the atmosphere. This is what most data centres do. Some are moving to free air cooling, to improve this. The article talks about this:

But the article also states that underwater cooling performs better than this:
 

Meaning less heat energy released into the atmosphere, that will translate to less net ocean heating. While there may be more localised heating, from what the article is suggesting this local heating has negligible impact on the local ecology, due to the rapid dissipation of this heated water. 

As an interesting aside nuclear coolant loops often dump their heat directly into the ocean and they are orders of magnitude worse than this ever would be. 

oceans have already amassed tremendous heat that triggers hurricanes and tsunamis more frequently and more violently

and you adding even more heat to it by planting cooling centers in them ... good job!

 

what happens when the ocean currents get altered by these new heat sources, eh!? can anyone tell?

how it will effect the oceans and the ocean fauna?

 

---

 

MicroSoft should put their money and intellect into developing more efficient ways of energy storage and transfer

not by heating up oceans

[Walms]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

oceans have already amassed tremendous heat that triggers hurricanes and tsunamis more frequently and more violently

and you adding even more heat to it by planting cooling centers in them ... good job!

 

what happens when the ocean currents get altered by these new heat sources, eh!? can anyone tell?

how it will effect the oceans and the ocean fauna?

Yes but the point is every data centre on the planet is contributing to that heat. So this solution lowers the impact by increasing the efficiency. 

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, Walms said:

Yes but the point is every data centre on the planet is contributing to that heat. So this solution lowers the impact by increasing the efficiency. 

MicroSoft should put their money and intellect into developing more efficient ways of energy storage and transfer

not by heating up oceans

 

---

 

California, for example, has an energy problem

and with demand for electric cars on the rise, the state will be incapable of producing as much energy as demanded

MS should put their money in developing even further windmills, solar panels, battery banks and transformers

how 'bout that

[Walms]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

MicroSoft should put their money and intellect into developing more efficient ways of energy storage and transfer

not by heating up oceans

 

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Walms said:

 

?!

MS puting data centers underwater - perfectly normal

MS invested in energy storage / transfer technologies - abnormal ?!

[Liltrekkie]

Everyone here is talking about global warming. So, obviously we should just put a giant heat sink on the side of the earth not facing the sun. 

 

Nothing can go wrong!! oh wait..

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Liltrekkie said:

Everyone here is talking about global warming. So, obviously we should just put a giant heat sink on the side of the earth not facing the sun. 

 

Nothing can go wrong!! oh wait..

Why not just block the sun? That will cool things down.

[Walms]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why not just block the sun? That will cool things down.

 

[Tieox]

I think this policy could go a long way to help to stop global warming 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/