• Greyghoster@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 天前

    17gw is about the same size as the Hiroshima bomb - 63 terajoules is 17 GWh and the 9GW data centre produces at least 16GWs of heat. Pretty scary when looked at like that.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 天前

      17gw of heat is both under and over estimate.

      3,600 of those industrial-scale generators to power Stratos

      Caterpillar 2.5mw generators have maximum efficiency of 45%, and so 19gw is peak thermal power. that is roughly 26 hiroshimas per day.

      It’s an over estimate because datacenter cpu/gpu capacity utilization is on average under 10%. It could still produce all that power for export to trap all that heat in a valley.

    • Pulsar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 天前

      Not that it would matter for this conversation, but at hyperscalers levels, the energy required for mechanical loads is under 20% of the compute load. Wouldn’t surprise me if ~10% can be achieved at multi GW scale. Thus about 11GW total energy.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 天前

      Does “9GW data center” not mean “a data center that consumes 9GW of power”?
      Or is it “9GW of computers + 5GW of cooling + something”?

      • Pulsar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 天前

        9GW should be the compute load goal, to which you need to add the mechanical and administrative loads. At higher scales they gain significant efficiencies which translates to market advantages.