Slashdot Mirror
The Fjord-Cooled Data Center
1sockchuck writes "A new data center project in Norway plans to use a fjord-powered cooling system, drawing cold water from an adjacent fjord to cool data halls. The fjord provides a ready supply of water at 8 degrees C (46 degrees F), eliminating the need for an energy-hungry chiller. The Green Mountain Data Center joins a small but growing number of data centers are slashing their cooling costs by using the environment as their chiller, tapping nearby lakes, wells and even the Baltic Sea."
Hydrothermal datacenter vent creatures...
As long as they do not destroy Slartibartfast's fjords then I am "cool" with it.
GO BLUE!
We're always looking for more afjordable options for data cooling. As long as they avoid the local pines in their construction. No one wants to be pining for the fjords....
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
The industrial revolution was growing on chill-water supplied by nature long before the triode, never mind the transistor, had been invented. And all the environmental issues came up long before Al Gore was born.
But more seriously, that is a problem with environmentalists -- they can't separate the forest from the trees (I'm only being slightly sarcastic here). From what I've been able to tell by talking to these 'greenies', any environmental impact is bad. It's not enough to be carbon neutral, or conserve energy, save the whales, or whatever else is currently in vogue in their movement. It is a political movement that is based on a sliding scale of "purity". I can easily see one of them extolling the virtues of living in a house that has no electricity, is built entirely out of clay, and they don't cook their food (because fire releases carbon). What's worse, they feel guilty about having any modern conveniences, and so they try to buy indulgences like "carbon credits" or "EVA cars" ... which when you look into the total lifecycle of the vehicle and it's total environmental impact, you don't wind up any better off than a conventional car. A lot of environmentalism is just a shell game... it's moving the responsibility around so they can claim they're "carbon neutral" or whatever while someone else (usually the government, or some corporation) are the bad guys.
The bottom line is, the problem with the movement is that they can't see that progress towards environmental goals are only achievable by being economically competitive. I mean, everybody right now is going crazy about living "grid free". But the problem isn't the grid. The 'grid' is just a collection of wires and transformers. It's the management and production of that resource that is the problem; If the environmentalists wanted to "save the planet", they'd come up with a way to transport electricity over very long distances with minimal losses. That, right there, is the kind of tech we need to reduce our dependence on coal, oil, etc. Until we can cheaply move energy to where it's needed on demand, we're stuck with dino fuel because it's the only thing with a high energy density that can be built right now -- you can't build a nuclear power plant anywhere in this country right now even if you wanted to... and even if you could, nobody wants it near a city, which is where it needs to be to be useful.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It IS something to take into consideration. And it doesn't even have to be some enviro-nut who is tying himself to trees to save the endangered fern.
Here's how it works in reality: many fjords are home to commercial fishing and aquaculture. All those species are adapted to cold water and don't do well in warm water. What happens if a data center warms the water around the effluent by a couple of degrees? Cold-water fish, shrimp, clams move away and the people who depend on them have to move with them. It's probably fine if there's just one data center in the Fjord, and the warming is highly localized. maybe a few hundred square meter of surface area. But what if there's more? What if there are ten data centers in the Fjord? Or other industries in need of cooling? Suddenly the entire fjord warms, and it's not only the fish, shrimp and clams that are gone, but the livelihood of the people in the area.
Environmentalism isn't about building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. It's making sure that what you build allows others to still live in the area in the foreseeable future and without having to dramatically adapt their lifestyle. Sometimes, it means that a data center using fjord water is ok. Sometimes it means that a data center using fjord water is not ok.
Yeah, life is full of grey and subtilities and hard decisions that aren't black and white. Sorry to disappoint you.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You're grouping environmentalists all in to one bucket. It doesn't work that way.
I am an avid environmentalist. According to you, I don't support Nuclear power in my backyard. Yet, I actually support it. Newer technologies mitigate a lot of the safety concerns and we can figure out better ways to store waste and even better technologies that yield less waste.
As for the transport of electricity I think there already is an excellent method. Aluminum Gallium power sources produce hydrogen from water and all you would need to do is ship them back to a Nuclear power plant where it would be vastly more efficient to remove the Oxygen to recondition the power source.
That's a pretty progressive idea.
I am not against the whole cooling from the fjord idea, but you would have to be a complete idiot not to realize that an environmental impact study would need to be conducted if the hot water was being put right back in the fjord. Of course they don't have to do that at all. They can just use passive heat exchangers with the surrounding air instead. Better yet, use the heat for surrounding buildings, offices, etc. or even convert it back into energy. So many more options than just dumping it back in the fjord.
There is a difference between "screaming hysteria" and "gee what happens when we raise the water temperatures around the datacenter a couple degrees?".
Economically competitive is just a cop out. What it really means, is that you have a limited commitment towards change. In my personal view, which has had heated debates, we are fucked already. Leave economics out of it and make the hard decisions now. That does mean start building as many nuclear reactors as possible right now because they are the most immediate solution to massive amounts of power generation that can be used immediately for heating, cooling, industry, etc.
Short term pain == Long term gain. Problem is nobody wants to sacrifice and any environmentalist that proposes serious sacrifice is labeled a hypocrite (appropriate in some situations) or just plain crazy.
As for off the grid people, all you can really do in the end is control your own actions and voice your opinions and ideas cogently and passionately and hope it helps. Those people you are denigrating are doing the sacrificing because it is what they can do. I sacrifice as much as possible, and writing on a laptop does not make me a hypocrite.
P.S - It's not so black and white when you label people. I propose extreme austerity measures but also very aggressive and progressive changes.
Oh, it's your standard straw man extreme environmentalist. It's pretty popular to refer to them these days, but it's extraordinarily rare to observe them in the wild. I'm sure they do exist somewhere, but I've never met one personally.
They remind me of white crows -- rare and not typical of the species.
But more seriously,
No you are not serious because you don't know what you are talking about. Your comment reads like a rambling complaint of some person you met who claimed to be an environmentalist. You conflate environmentalism with renewable energy and neglect to realize that most of the major positive environmental progress in the last 30 years has not been due to economic competitiveness, but rather due to the scientific realization that human activity has adverse effects on the environment and human health. GET IT? Most environmentalists I know are scientists who work unglamorously behind the scenes to identify and characterize threats that certain human activities pose to the environment and human health. And, unfortunately, many are simply unwilling to strongly advocate for their issues because the pressure they face by a bunch of wildly ignorant citizens with wildly misinformed views on science and environmentalism. Now, carry on with your ill informed diatribe on electricity infrastructure and everybody's obsession with off-grid living.
A while back a business here wanted to use Pacific water to cool its equipment. They got turned down because discharging Pacific water back into the Pacific was deemed "contaminating" it because of the contaminants already present in the water that was going to be drawn from the ocean. I think they ended up going to a saner state.
The results of the research, performed by the government agency for fisheries (not the nuclear industry) actually indicates that, on balance, fish growth is actually promoted, as are many other species of birds etc.
Opportunistic species appeared in very high abundances while species with more
narrow tolerances decreased or disappeared. The total production of macrofauna increased.
Total benthic biomass stayed at a high level in the Biotest basin up to 1989,
but during the later years there has been a general decrease in both
biomass and abundance of most common species and the risk that fish food
production is becoming critically low is evident. The scenario â" increasing
fish biomass â" heavy grazing â" benthic fauna collapse â" starving fish â" was
discussed already when the studies started in the Biotest basin. Today, ten
years later, we can see the first signs that these misgivings turn out to be justified.
Yeah, not quite exactly as you portrayed it. Plenty of other stuff in that report that is far, far more ambiguous than you made it out to be, like growth retardation and increased mortality rates for perch. There may be more perch but they are of suckier quality.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Warm water of a data center won't change the temperature of the ocean at all.
Not the whole ocean, but as I said, it could affect the local environment.
But any way, what is the other option?
Did I say they shouldn't put warm water in the ocean?
What should be done, in all circumstances, is a study on the environmental impact. Such a thing may find (for example) that the original design releases the water in a secluded shallow bay where there is little circulation. As you said, a simple fix would be to make a longer pipe and release the water in deeper water, where there are stronger currents.
Environmentalism is not about doing nothing because well everything affects the environment. It is doing the optimal thing based on scientific evidence.
I wonder if someone would calculate how much power/heat would be needed to raise the temperature enough to affect it.
I would be more worried about the marine life being affected more than the heat generated.
And speaking of marine life, remember how environmentalists were worried about such things as salmon and dams?
Remember how environmentalists are worried about eroding soil and hurricanes?
You know what... look at the history of what "environmentalists" have saved us from, and then come back and say something.
If it wasnt for them, we would be drinking firewater(literal firewater), sucking in coal ash, and dealing with randomly placed toxins.
Don't use umlaut on the word "fjord". We don't in Norway and neither should you. In fact, umlaut are not even used in Norwegian. If you are thinking of ø or æ or å they are Norwegian vowels but do not apply in this case.
(PS... Want to buy some bütter?)
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
I wonder if someone would calculate how much power/heat would be needed to raise the temperature enough to affect it.
Considering that this "Fjord" Is actually the east side of a small island which has the North Sea on the west side - a huge amount!
This is blinging