A Server Farm Powered By a Wind Farm 164
1sockchuck writes "A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. Its first project will be a wind-powered server farm powered by 100 wind turbines in the Texas panhandle. The company has also leased 38,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico, where it hopes to build hundreds of 300-foot wind turbines that can each generate up to 5 megawatts of power to support additional facilities. Baryonyx plans to sell excess capacity to the local utility, which it will use as a backup when the wind dies down."
Why not just use the grid? (Score:4, Insightful)
"A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. [... ] it will use [the local utility] as a backup when the wind dies down."
If it's powered of the grid when it isn't windy out, and it's powered entirely by renewable energy, wouldn't it be powered entirely by renewable energy if it used the grid all the time?
Or are they just trying to say that it's net-positive? Or what? The linked article doesn't seem to claim that the data center will be "powered entirely by renewable energy", so it isn't much help.
-Peter
Something about this lacks "reality" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm still chuckling about those 300 foot tall towers that will be standing on the 450 acres of ocean they've leased. For extra credit, calculate the wind load of a turbine extracting 3.5 MW of power from the wind when it's at the top of a 300 foot tower. For extra credit, determine the size and number of supports it would take to keep this thing standing. Remember, it's standing in the Gulf of Mexico so be sure to design for the storms that blow through there from time to time and a long life standing in seawater.
It's an interesting story - but if you're approached about investing in this project you might want to keep your wallet in your pocket.
wake up folks need more nuclear power! (Score:4, Insightful)
We need more nuclear power.
Wind turbines are great and all, except for the fact they need tons of copper, aluminum, fiberglass and other resources which require a heck of a lot of energy to mine and produce.
All those resources are best used elsewhere, where it is more efficient.
Nothing beats nuclear power at providing base generating capacity.
Let's get some hydro in there too, hydro is a dirty word nowadays, which is insane. It's more green than all the "fashionable green technologies".
Give me an all of above approach please!!!
And don't forget we need to return to the moon and start mining Helium 3 now();
Re:Umm... (Score:1, Insightful)
I know that Texas is a big state and all, but need one hundred turbines that are three hundred feet tall doesn't strike you as a little excessive?! Drive past/through a wind farm some time, and then imagine how much space you need for 300 of these fuckers. Then think about how you're only powering one datacenter with them...
Re:Why not just use the grid? (Score:5, Insightful)
You calculate your average annual load, and scale your wind farm for that load. If you produce more, it goes into the grid for someone else to use. If you produce less, you draw from the grid and pay rip-off prices from the local power company. Basically you're using the power grid as a huge battery and hoping your numbers were close enough to produce what you draw.
It's better than just a net sum of zero. It's actually better when you use the produced energy yourself, because there is far less energy loss than if the power company sent it to you. Transmission losses for a short distance from the wind farm to you are much lower, assuming you don't skimp on the wiring, and any excess energy will be sent to downstream customers with less loss, too, especially if they make it a high voltage generating station (and I suspect they have to due to the size).
59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. (Score:4, Insightful)
59 square miles of land to generate a theoretical maximum of 1500 megawatts (300 turbines x 5 MW each). But the reality is even with all 300 turbines running, assuming they all get built, the actual power output much of the time will be well below their rated maximum output. A nuclear power plant, in particular, those containing multiple reactor units, can easily produce well in excess of 1500 MW on a much smaller foot print than 59 square miles, and more consistently.
In my view, wind power is a fad. I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated; many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down. To digress, right now, wind turbines, in most places, are still a novelty and seem neat, but once they're everywhere, and especially as they age, aren't going to seem so nice anymore.
Solar, especially home and business installations on roofs, which basically unused space now, shows much promise - won't eliminate the need for the grid, but will reduce demand somewhat while saving people money.
Ron
green marketing gimmick (Score:5, Insightful)
"Baryonyx plans to sell excess capacity to the local utility, which it will use as a backup when the wind dies down."
Translation: the local utility will need to build/buy additional generating capacity to cover the lack of base-load power from the wind farm.
This is a gimmick that isn't near as 'green' as they want you to believe.
- Necron69
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that, yes, our modern lifestyle is excessive. But this is happening with coal too. You just don't appear to live in a state where it's extracted, nor downwind of where the plants are releasing pollutants. Texas has a LOT of land that's not particularly good for animals, humans or plants over about 3 feet tall, and is perfect for wind farms.
Re:Why not just use the grid? (Score:4, Insightful)
From a cash standpoint, though... not sure it would be better.
Is it cheaper to build out your own power generation than it is to pay for the overhead and profits of the grid power suppliers? What are the efficiencies of scale in electricity generation? How does capital financing play into this -- would the utilities get much cheaper capital from the financiers?
I like the main idea of your post, though. Distributed (and sustainable/green) power generation with traditional power companies acting as a backup supplier would give a nice transition to a more sustainable generation system. Unfortunately, I think if that model were adopted widely, we'd lose one of the great efficiencies of centralized power generation -- predictable loads. The big power companies would need to shift to power supplies that have a quick response to increased demand (or they'd need to waste a lot of fuel maintaining higher base generation).
I'm by no means an expert in the industry, so I don't know tons about how it *could* play out, let alone how it *would* play out... but I do wonder how a grid-based backup supply could cope with highly variable demand.
Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind turbines are great and all, except for the fact they need tons of copper, aluminum, fiberglass and other resources which require a heck of a lot of energy to mine and produce.
So do fuel-burning plants (though not precisely the same amount or mix of materials). Whether the fuel is combustible or nuclear.
But the "fuel" for the wind turbine is just wind - which is free (except for the cost of using the site). And the "ash" is slower wind (typically in a place where using the land involves raising windbreaks anyhow). Beat THAT with your nuclear reactors and their uranium mines, processing plants, and waste disposal issues.
Call me when somebody gets a practical hydrogen-boron fusion design working and we'll compare costs over the life of the device.
Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is wind really "free"? If we install enough wind turbines, wouldn't we slow the spin of the earth because of the collective resistance of the turbines?
Nope. Angular momentum is conserved. You'd just be modifying the distribution of it between the atmosphere and the ground's motion - and the planet is a LOT more massive than the atmosphere. (Also: In the temperate zone you'd SPEED UP the Earth by slowing the wind. But not by enough to measure.)
As for weather effects and the like: A wind farm has about as much effect as growing a forest or raising some skyscrapers. It's a drop in the bucket, atmospherically speaking.
Give me a call when they're powering the whole planet by using dirigible-borne wind turbines to slow the jet stream by a few percent. It might make a detectable difference in storm tracks.
Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the ground in those 59 square miles will still be empty. Is there any reason wind can't co-exist on the same land with agriculture, grazing, or solar power?
Re:wake up folks need more nuclear power! (Score:2, Insightful)
I look forward to loosing the extra weight when we hit zero-G because of the spin stopping
What happened to gravitation?
Re:Something about this lacks "reality" (Score:3, Insightful)
Check the oil rigs they put in the North Atlantic & the ones they put in the Gulf. Look at which ones they build to take more punishment. It's not all about the Hurricanes.
Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd wager in 20 years there will be a booming business in wind turbine demolition as it becomes painfully clear, even to many wind power advocates, that their efficiency is lousy and the ongoing maintenance, especially as the turbines age, far larger than inticipated; many will be glad to see the eyesores turn down.
I live in the Netherlands, and I can tell you that windfarms can be turned into a thriving tourist business after a couple of centuries.
Re:Umm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Those wind farms really scar the countryside [...] These things destroy hundreds of square miles
What damage, precisely, is done to the countryside? Other than the tweaking of some peoples' overly-developed sense of aesthetics, and a few access roads and power lines, I don't see much damage being done. It's certainly a lot easier on the enviroment than mining, oil drilling, or hydro would be, and it has the added benefit of guaranteeing that no additional development will occur on the land, indefinitely -- i.e. once you've built your wind farm there, the chances of a city/freeway/landfill/etc being built on the same land are slim to none. For any plants/animals that can tolerate the presence of windmills (i.e. most of them), that's not a bad deal.
Re:59 Sq Miles for 1500 MW. Nuke Plant Better. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
excellent points , wind farms protect land and offer us the best compromise for getting power with low environmental impacts.
i for one find them enchantingly beautiful , monuments to both the intelligence and sensitivity of humans.
There are lots of designs beyond the big spinning blade models , you can use the vibration of taught threads and vertical rotating blades
(think spinning signs) so its possible to fit wind generation to lots of different sites.
the answer to the question of where to get our power is that there is not one answer but many little distributed answers :)
Toodle-pip
Amias