computer in a coal mine

Sun Microsystems to put 10,000 servers in a box in a Japanese coal mine

I kid you not

"Sun and a consortium of other businesses are going to lower self-contained computing facilities into a no-longer-used Japanese coal mine. The goal is to create an underground data center that will use up to 50% less power than a ground-level data center, the vendors claim.

(h/t Muhahhahaaaa)

The coolant will be ground water and the site's temperature is a constant 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) all year, meaning no air-conditioning will be needed outside the containers. This reduces the energy required for the water chillers, used with Sun's surface-level Blackbox containers"

Cost is estimated at $405 million.
And they want to save $9 million per year doing this.
Starting in 2010.

The fiber optic cable going down the shaft will be interesting.
Presumably there will also be a lift for a physics grad student (oops sorry neutrino experiment flashbacks) tech to be lowered down to jiggle the connectors to the swithces, or something

Typical.
What is wrong with doing this in South Dakota, I ask?

Tags
Categories

More like this

Sun Microsystems is href="http://www.techworld.com/green-it/news/index.cfm?newsID=10667">planning to put a data center in an old coal mine.  The idea is to save on energy costs.  In fact, they expect nine million dollars per year on electricity.  This is because much of the electrical…
[Updated 4/21/2011 below] [Updated 4/25/2011 below] Deep in the Bitterroot Mountains of the Idaho panhandle, mine rescue teams are working around the clock to locate Larry "Pete" Marek, 53. Marek and his brother were working in Hecla Mining's Lucky Friday silver mine on Friday afternoon (4/15)…
The Large Hadron Collider is finally turning on. A quick step backwards: the LHC is a particle accelerator, the largest of its kind, underwritten by all the wild money in science, a ringed tunnel some 27 kilometers long, deep underground, crossing the French-Swiss border at four points. It's been…
There are a number of memorable quotes in the Center for Study of Responsive Law's newly released report "Undermining Safety: A Report on Coal Mine Safety."   In one section, report author Christopher W. Shaw discusses the mining industry's lobbying for "targeted inspections" (a la the OSHA…

"What is wrong with doing this in South Dakota, I ask?"

Maybe because there are no deep, abandoned coal mines there?

There are certainly unused, deep mine sites in the US though - PA, WVa, KY, TN, etc.

But has anyone asked what the cost of keeping the mines pumped dry will take out of the savings for cooling?

Cost is estimated at $405 million.
And they want to save $9 million per year doing this.

It is going to take them 45 years to pay this off.

I guess they are planning on a big carbon tax/run up in power prices soon?

By Brad Holden (not verified) on 19 Nov 2007 #permalink

Hm. I don't think it being a COAL mine is intrinsic to the process.
They just want someplace cool, dry and underground with existing tunnels and roofing and access infrastructure.
And since thing are planned for deep South Dakota mines already, an extra 10,000 servers would be nice.
Actually, they could use Yucca Mountain also, AND put the nuclear waste in there.

As for the cost - presumably any place you put 10,000 servers is going to cost a fair amount for infrastructure - data farms that big take square footage and that costs, but it is still a small fractional saving, so there must be additional motivation, cause it is a lot of hastle.