[Dylan16807]

You can build a completely self-powered (and water-free) datacenter in the middle of nowhere for far cheaper than the satellite version. The NIMBY factor isn't so powerful as to keep datacenters off entire continents. Going to space for that is very stupid.

[piloto_ciego]

You still have to ask someone permission on the ground. It’s not about the money.

[Dylan16807]

Yes, someone. Just a couple have to say yes out of so so many municipalities.

So I'll just say the same sentence again. The NIMBY factor isn't so powerful as to keep datacenters off entire continents.

[bvcp]

now scale it ti 1 terrawatt

[Dylan16807]

Sure.

The satellite way: we launch a hundred million big satellites (or fewer even bigger satellites).

The land way: we cover 15000 square kilometers of the sahara desert in solar panels, or half-cover 30000, either way that's less than a percent of it. And some of the corners of the solar fields get turned into actual datacenter.

They both sound very hard but I don't see any notable reason to favor the first one.

[bvcp]

and when the sun goes out?

[Dylan16807]

The number of solar panels I quoted is enough to average more than a terawatt across 24 hours. For the usage part of the equation, you need to overbuild your compute and/or have batteries. Those options are expensive but in exchange you don't need to space-proof or space-launch anything.

[bvcp]

how many batteries do you need for a terrawatt of compute? do we have industry capacity to even build that much?

[Dylan16807]

If you can build the solar panels and satellites, I believe in you to build the batteries.

Reaching this scale is a huge problem, but 90% of the problem is shared between the different components.