this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
610 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

85914 readers
3790 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

I’m far more concerned with the suggested floating datacenters. Just dumping more waste heat into the ocean. WCGW.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

That space data center might end up dumping more waste into the oceans with all thise launches but certainly more into our atmosphere.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 hours ago

Does it actually make much of a difference whether it's dumped into the ocean or into the atmosphere? I thought the ocean warming happens because the atmosphere is hotter.

[–] wuffwuffwuff@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You wildly underestimate the size of the oceans. If they're going to be built anyway, and if they can have a long lifespan even in salt water, this would be far better for the environment than the currently popular method of using rivers for cooling - rivers can be warmed by perceptible and significant amounts until they carry that extra heat into the oceans, plus fresh water is more rare, precious, and in need of protection than salt water.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If the heat made by the data centers can warm rivers, and those rivers can warm the oceans... Aren't the data centers already warming the oceans? Which would mean that putting data centers directly in the ocean would definitely warm the oceans?

[–] wuffwuffwuff@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Temperature is what matters. The same amount of heat out into a river can significantly warm the whole river downstream, but have no detectable effect on the ocean temperature, just because the heat is diluted so much.

Like, dilute a bottle of tequila with two liters of cola, sure you'll get drunk - but pour that same tequila into a full swimming pool, and you'd never get drunk even if you drink the pool water all day.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You understand rivers largely empty into oceans, right? Your tequila analogy leaves that part out. Eventually, you're still dumping tequila (heat) into the pool (ocean).

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It's a matter of size. You'll be dumping the tequila into the pool, but the alcohol percentage of the pool is in all practical sense, still 0.

[–] Ismay@programming.dev 1 points 35 minutes ago

The size of the pool is of no importance globally. You're still creating the same amount of heat

The only real difference is that the river heat can get higher because it's more localised and, therefore, can cause more trouble along the way.

But from the pov of the ocean ? Rounding error