Slashdot Mirror
A Server Farm Powered By a Wind Farm
1sockchuck writes "A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. Its first project will be a wind-powered server farm powered by 100 wind turbines in the Texas panhandle. The company has also leased 38,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico, where it hopes to build hundreds of 300-foot wind turbines that can each generate up to 5 megawatts of power to support additional facilities. Baryonyx plans to sell excess capacity to the local utility, which it will use as a backup when the wind dies down."
"A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. [... ] it will use [the local utility] as a backup when the wind dies down."
If it's powered of the grid when it isn't windy out, and it's powered entirely by renewable energy, wouldn't it be powered entirely by renewable energy if it used the grid all the time?
Or are they just trying to say that it's net-positive? Or what? The linked article doesn't seem to claim that the data center will be "powered entirely by renewable energy", so it isn't much help.
-Peter
I'm still chuckling about those 300 foot tall towers that will be standing on the 450 acres of ocean they've leased. For extra credit, calculate the wind load of a turbine extracting 3.5 MW of power from the wind when it's at the top of a 300 foot tower. For extra credit, determine the size and number of supports it would take to keep this thing standing. Remember, it's standing in the Gulf of Mexico so be sure to design for the storms that blow through there from time to time and a long life standing in seawater.
It's an interesting story - but if you're approached about investing in this project you might want to keep your wallet in your pocket.
We need more nuclear power.
Wind turbines are great and all, except for the fact they need tons of copper, aluminum, fiberglass and other resources which require a heck of a lot of energy to mine and produce.
All those resources are best used elsewhere, where it is more efficient.
Nothing beats nuclear power at providing base generating capacity.
Let's get some hydro in there too, hydro is a dirty word nowadays, which is insane. It's more green than all the "fashionable green technologies".
Give me an all of above approach please!!!
And don't forget we need to return to the moon and start mining Helium 3 now();
I know that Texas is a big state and all, but need one hundred turbines that are three hundred feet tall doesn't strike you as a little excessive?! Drive past/through a wind farm some time, and then imagine how much space you need for 300 of these fuckers. Then think about how you're only powering one datacenter with them...
59 square miles of land to generate a theoretical maximum of 1500 megawatts (300 turbines x 5 MW each). But the reality is even with all 300 turbines running, assuming they all get built, the actual power output much of the time will be well below their rated maximum output. A nuclear power plant, in particular, those containing multiple reactor units, can easily produce well in excess of 1500 MW on a much smaller foot print than 59 square miles, and more consistently.
In my view, wind power is a fad. I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated; many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down. To digress, right now, wind turbines, in most places, are still a novelty and seem neat, but once they're everywhere, and especially as they age, aren't going to seem so nice anymore.
Solar, especially home and business installations on roofs, which basically unused space now, shows much promise - won't eliminate the need for the grid, but will reduce demand somewhat while saving people money.
Ron
"Baryonyx plans to sell excess capacity to the local utility, which it will use as a backup when the wind dies down."
Translation: the local utility will need to build/buy additional generating capacity to cover the lack of base-load power from the wind farm.
This is a gimmick that isn't near as 'green' as they want you to believe.
- Necron69
I think that, yes, our modern lifestyle is excessive. But this is happening with coal too. You just don't appear to live in a state where it's extracted, nor downwind of where the plants are releasing pollutants. Texas has a LOT of land that's not particularly good for animals, humans or plants over about 3 feet tall, and is perfect for wind farms.
Those wind farms really scar the countryside [...] These things destroy hundreds of square miles
What damage, precisely, is done to the countryside? Other than the tweaking of some peoples' overly-developed sense of aesthetics, and a few access roads and power lines, I don't see much damage being done. It's certainly a lot easier on the enviroment than mining, oil drilling, or hydro would be, and it has the added benefit of guaranteeing that no additional development will occur on the land, indefinitely -- i.e. once you've built your wind farm there, the chances of a city/freeway/landfill/etc being built on the same land are slim to none. For any plants/animals that can tolerate the presence of windmills (i.e. most of them), that's not a bad deal.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
excellent points , wind farms protect land and offer us the best compromise for getting power with low environmental impacts.
i for one find them enchantingly beautiful , monuments to both the intelligence and sensitivity of humans.
There are lots of designs beyond the big spinning blade models , you can use the vibration of taught threads and vertical rotating blades
(think spinning signs) so its possible to fit wind generation to lots of different sites.
the answer to the question of where to get our power is that there is not one answer but many little distributed answers :)
Toodle-pip
Amias
[site]