Is there any reason this isn't more common? Why aren't more US datacenters in the Chicago metro area where the air is dry and cool, and trillions of gallons of frigid water is available? The geography is mild and natural disasters that effect datacenters are basically unheard of.
It seems silly that so many datacenters are in central Texas, where not only are tornados and tropical storms fairly common, but it's hot and humid for 7 months out of the year.
One reason I have personal experience with is the massive regulatory headache which accompanies any project that relies using a lot of fresh water from a navegable river or lake. (Google "waters of the United States"). Invariably you get to deal with both the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, plus whatever state regulations are out there, e.g. CEQA in California. This process can take literally decades and cost millions of dollars: environmental consulting, EIS/EIR, Section 7 & 404 consultations, take permitting, habitat / species conservation plan, mitigation, etc.
I'm not against preventing companies from trashing what natural resources we have left. At the same time, I can see why they'd be reluctant to go that route.
Very interesting. It doesn't surprise me that a vast array of permits would be required, as it should be. We all know how companies will treat water resources if they're not scrutinized. I do see water cooling as a potential mitigation of large quantities of CO2. The need for datacenters will only grow, and we need to find energy-efficient ways of cooling them. Perhaps sticking to seawater in this case just makes more sense.
> It seems silly that so many datacenters are in central Texas, where not only are tornados and tropical storms fairly common, but it's hot and humid for 7 months out of the year.
I thought most of the data centers were around Dallas or Austin. Those are both too far away to really feel tropical storms and are seldom hit by tornados. About the only thing you seem to have right are the heat and humidity, except I'm not sure 7 months is crediting it with enough.
You're right, the risk is fairly mild, but it's still far more risky than what's seen in the Chicago area. It only takes 1 tornado to effectively wipe out a datacenter.
Either way, there is a ton of land in many states along the great lakes. It seems like HVAC is a large component of energy expenditures at datacenters, but perhaps the savings don't justify it?
As a technical designer - where I do datacenter design - we have been talking about this for years.
The problem is cost. Google has a trifecta perfecta with this facility's location.
Google specifically picked this site for this reason -- but in the end, the reason that Google is able to do this is that they have a ton of money, they were given a good price for agreeing to preserve the historic site, they gave back part of the Mill's land for the erection of the wind-mills, which are not directly Google's. The tunnel to the sea was already there as a part of the cooling plant for the mill.
So, this is a straightforward -- fiberglass pipe to prevent corrosion and then the sea water pours over the heat exchangers.
The issue with doing this in san francisco is the environmentalists would kill you, the cost of tunneling would be prohibitive and the concern of the piping being seismically sound would cause difficulty.
So, it's really a matter of money and politics.
The design is great and simple.
I would prefer we take the mothball fleet in Benicia and turn them into a huge floating DC.
DISCLAIMER: my firm worked on this DC -- but the cable plant -- not the MEP.
Who remembers google's patent from a couple of years ago for floating data centers? Using the sea to cool it was a big part of that idea, alongside tidal power. I'm kinda disappointed to see that this isn't the complete realisation of that stuff, but its still a move in the right direction.
If it's anything like power plants in the US, then there are restrictions on the allowed deltaT above ambient, and for good reason. For example in California, the San Onofre Nuclear plant was found to significantly impact the local fisheries by killing fish larvae and damaging kelp forests, and I believe the deltaT is less than 2 degrees C. (Though I'm not sure if this is at the heat exchanger or at the diffuser head). At Morro Bay (also in California) there is a power plant built long before such restrictions existed and it dumps cooling water straight into the surf zone. Apparently, intertidal species (muscles, snails, etc) can be found there that are typically found much further south. I can personally report that it makes the surfing much more pleasant, but the heated water is generally considered a form of pollution due to the negative impacts on native species.
The idea of theif floating data centers was well planned, and I'm assuming has not fallen completely off the table when factoring in their, already in place, shipping container server configurations.
This plant for water cooling has been in planning since 2009, at the time of purchase. So the flotilla of servers is entirely still possible. I would not be surprised to see it come out down the road.
The heated water is tempered with cold sea water so it's closer to the temperature of the gulf when returned. This prevents a hot water plume at the outlet, which can cause environmental problems.
This could not happen in Canada due to its geography. Most of our inhabitants are sitting right by the border with the USA yet in the North we could easily cool buildings for free with our weather and water.
You can also use water for a quiet(er) PC rather than strictly an overclocked one. It's not that expensive nor labor-intensive to convert a regular system to a watercooled one.
it also seemed to be a great idea to use outside cool water for "free" cooling of nuclear power plants. Happens to be not such a good idea after many years of that [ab]use. While on the global scale the datacenters itself don't have the impact yet, it will definitely affect the water ecosystem local to the datacenter. There is no free lunch. Though Googlers may be under impression that there is.
It seems silly that so many datacenters are in central Texas, where not only are tornados and tropical storms fairly common, but it's hot and humid for 7 months out of the year.