• Greyghoster@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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
          1
          ·
          10 minutes ago

          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
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          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
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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
            2
            ·
            42 minutes ago

            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.