This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
Original comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1uyyywv/comment/oy3cgd7/
Trees vs. Data Centers
Photo 1: Memphis, TN (top)
Photo 2: Sandston, VA
Photo 3: Abilene, Texas
Photo 4: New Albany, OH
Photo 5: Fayetteville, GA
Because solar on the roof won't even be noticable against their power footprint. Given current practices, each square foot of a datacenter would need about 1,000 times more square footage worth of solar.
It's just that somehow if they get to go to space, they decide they suddenly just need like two servers in a 'datacenter' instead of thousands. And they need to go to space because Elon says (checks notes) that it's too hard to make more natural gas turbine parts....
But (as I'm sure you realize) this would mean every watt from on-premises solar could get put to use immediately, no batteries, no power-grid buy-back schemes. Making those solar panels an unusually good investment.
Unless they're not planning to keep it running for very long.
It smells un-serious, somehow.
Even if it's nowhere near a majority of the power, I'm surprised passive cooling from solar plus some electricity isn't worthwhile enough to be universal. It's a small impact, but also cheap enough it'll pay for itself, and many orders of magnitude more efficient than trying to get a datacenter into space, and figure out how to cool it
Especially since they're looking for space for solar installations, farmers have started installing them, power companies and coops. Seems financially stupid to leave that much space unused when solar farms would go right on top.
And especially because elon owns a solar panels company and he loves to transfer money between his companies
Just like vaccines, some things need to be done in scale to reach their true effectiveness.
That one facility will always be as net negative for the grid. But with panels on all the other buildings in the area that aren't a power sap, it would be significantly better.
We're getting to the point where roof top solar is relatively cheap and worth the effort. I mean, there's fucking fields near me that they clear cut and put ground based solar panels on, and it was profitable enough for the farmers to lease the land, and the company that owns the panels to get their nut. And a lot of those field based panel arrays are equivalent to, if not smaller than the massive Amazon warehouses we have nearby.
If large corporations pay their fucking taxes and did their fair share of infrastructure investment we wouldn't even be having a conversation about global warming or about where we're going to get energy for fucking stupid worthless data centers. The energy is in the fucking sky it's free goddamn giant nuclear reactor you just need to put panels on top of shit to harvest it.
At this point in climate change time, it is criminal neglect to 1. clear a forest, 2. build a big steel/concrete box on it and then 3. don't even put a green roof or solar roof. We need to be heading towards climate trials and people deciding this crap today still in companies with a near infinite capital available deserve life in jail without airco.