Forget security (which worries me less), the legalities of this are notoriously tricky (especially if the ship might ever leave the waters of one nation), and the economics are even worse.
I wouldn’t touch civil maritime nuclear with a barge pole, and if I did, the clear win is decarbonizing big cargo ships.
Agreed, the largest container ships put out some serious pollution, going nuclear (a decades old proven technology for shipping) would be a massive improvement
But the people championing nuclear data centers are not trying to solve climate change
I doubt Russian nuclear ice breakers have naval escort. Until recently they operated within the coverage of on-shore long range SAM systems (but most of these SAM systems were moved elsewhere recently e.g. to protect oil refineries so Northern Sea Route is no longer protected).
I don’t think that anyone would want to steal an icebreaker, but a datacenter full of valuable equipment and interesting information is a more likely target.
Would a marine raid by ship be lower risk than a smash and grab by panel-van on land?
I imagine land is a lower bar to entry, accessible to a much larger criminal base, but security response times and road surveillance is tough.
I'm too much of a land-lubber to know how easy it is vanish from a coastal crime scene by ship. The sea... nowhere to hide but very big. Can satellites track you these days? If wanting to nab a container or two that's a big ship. Not much you could put in a minisub or sub-surface thing. A James Bond villain could cut the supports and drag the whole thing to the hollowed out mountain of their island lair.
I need Michael Mann to make "Heat but on a boat" to educate me.
Guys, guys, guys... so hear me out - remember last month when we were all giddy about datacenters in space? Well, apparently investors weren't too keen on that idea so we've come up with something much better: Nuclear datacenters at sea!
Now this is truly a visionary proposition that will certainly become another unicorn and have no issues whatsoever.
Up next: a fleet of nuclear data center Zeppelins!
Innovative new air cooling: instead of moving the air through the servers, we simply move the servers through the air!
And while we're at it, we'll completely disrupt the existing Zeppelin market that depends on expensive helium for some reason. We use innovative hydrogen for a massive cost reduction!
The current major roadblocks for any datacenter are, planning permissions, power connections, and cooling. The on a barge approach solves all of the above, unlike space which makes all of these problems worse.
It's a drop in a bucket. Global warming is due to ~5e18 Wh of excess heating. A nuke dumping 5e12 Wh of additional heat into water makes no difference at all.
I ran the numbers for this about six months ago and it works out a lot better than all the other alternatives.
The fact you're surrounded by coolant, can use intrinsically safe versions of high pressure reactors and have low latency between multiple markets with one datacenter is a big plus.
That you're not competing with humans for electricity or water is another.
That said you'd want to build a semi submersible platform with the nuclear reactors in the pontoons and the superstructure able to house container based datacenter units. The only place with enough experience to build these is South Korea which isn't a deal breaker per se, but Samsung can pretty much eat your lunch if these get successful.
How do they deal with saltwater corrosion, do the barges go in drydocks after a couple of years? What about weather do they have their own propulsion do they need to be towed to avoid bad weather? Can't you put the same gear in containers next to the shore and avoid the whole weather issue?
There are some very stupid VC folks around. I have spoken to some, and watched them shart millions away on the back of a powerpoint and some stage presence
Stupid is uncharitable. They lock into the small picture, like some details about it, and get carried away. Then again, it's their job to get carried away.
TL;DR: Pangeos was a concept for a floating free city that trended a few years back, but was never built for obvious reasons, just like how these floating data centres will never be built. Presumably some people were bilked into paying money to the Pangeos scammers, just like there will be those who "invest" in this.
The problem is that it costs a lot more to put a nuclear reactor into a permanently sea-worthy form-factor than it does to build on land and put up with some pesky taxes. There are plenty of places with lax regulations (environmental and otherwise) that will be happy to let you build whatever size data centre you want if you're willing to build the power generation too.
So Much land. Even non civilized lands, Even near sea for piping water.
What does this idea solve? Or just adds problems like, Non secure assets/nucclear on the sea.
Wasn't there a Microsoft idea to build data centres in shipping containers a few years ago, again using the ocean for cooling?
What happened to that?
Given the expense of the latest AI chips, or just the RAM for them, the price of land, cooling and power is not top of the expenses bill, so all talk of sea-based or space-based data centres has to be regarded as having jumped the shark.
As of yet I have not seen the use of server racks as structural architectural features. They always seem to need a vast shed that has its own supports, when server racks could also be the walls and supports for much of the building, or some other structure, maybe a road bridge.
Translation: they won't let us build datcenters on land because we screw things up too much there. And we can't afford space. So we'll do it at sea where we can run all the gas turbines we want and wreck the Earth from there.
Write up an ai generated biz plan, shop it around quick. make the necessary human pyramid, get it on the stock market. it'll be as irresistible as peanut butter & chocolate.
Would be a great element in a story, a pirate model trained on 10 million GPU hours by pirates who commandeered the data center for the necessary time then cast it adrift.
Current nuclear-powered ships are run by the world’s premier naval powers and protected by their own stealth or a huge array of armed escort ships.
Have these guys factored in the cost of a task force of protective missile frigates, subs, and destroyers at each site?
That's a problem for the future, no need to worry investors with these silly questions.
Hey if you can externalize that cost, more money left for you and the investors !!!
Forget security (which worries me less), the legalities of this are notoriously tricky (especially if the ship might ever leave the waters of one nation), and the economics are even worse.
I wouldn’t touch civil maritime nuclear with a barge pole, and if I did, the clear win is decarbonizing big cargo ships.
Agreed, the largest container ships put out some serious pollution, going nuclear (a decades old proven technology for shipping) would be a massive improvement
But the people championing nuclear data centers are not trying to solve climate change
Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort. Russian nuclear icebreakers and floating SMRs also do not have heavy military escorts.
I doubt Russian nuclear ice breakers have naval escort. Until recently they operated within the coverage of on-shore long range SAM systems (but most of these SAM systems were moved elsewhere recently e.g. to protect oil refineries so Northern Sea Route is no longer protected).
I don’t think that anyone would want to steal an icebreaker, but a datacenter full of valuable equipment and interesting information is a more likely target.
Would a marine raid by ship be lower risk than a smash and grab by panel-van on land?
I imagine land is a lower bar to entry, accessible to a much larger criminal base, but security response times and road surveillance is tough.
I'm too much of a land-lubber to know how easy it is vanish from a coastal crime scene by ship. The sea... nowhere to hide but very big. Can satellites track you these days? If wanting to nab a container or two that's a big ship. Not much you could put in a minisub or sub-surface thing. A James Bond villain could cut the supports and drag the whole thing to the hollowed out mountain of their island lair.
I need Michael Mann to make "Heat but on a boat" to educate me.
of course they did not calculate it! it will come later when they want to calculate real costs, they will release it after investor update
Don't be a killjoy, the bloom of harebrained ideas around AI should be celebrated!
Why would a carrier battle group be a prerequisite for this? Capital ships will have escorts anyways, the propulsion system doesn't matter.
YCombinator S26?
Guys, guys, guys... so hear me out - remember last month when we were all giddy about datacenters in space? Well, apparently investors weren't too keen on that idea so we've come up with something much better: Nuclear datacenters at sea!
Now this is truly a visionary proposition that will certainly become another unicorn and have no issues whatsoever.
Up next: a fleet of nuclear data center Zeppelins!
Innovative new air cooling: instead of moving the air through the servers, we simply move the servers through the air!
And while we're at it, we'll completely disrupt the existing Zeppelin market that depends on expensive helium for some reason. We use innovative hydrogen for a massive cost reduction!
The current major roadblocks for any datacenter are, planning permissions, power connections, and cooling. The on a barge approach solves all of the above, unlike space which makes all of these problems worse.
Why not fusion powered data centers on the moon?
We just need to solve the issue of fine moon dust in those computer fan bearings /s
"Gas today, nuclear tomorrow" in the power section, with a LNG tanker docked to it.
I think the word "today" in that phrase is extremely generous.
With the current capabilities of drone warfare is literally putting ecological bombs near to the shores. Awesome!
I thought the same... huge security risks (or huge security costs ?).
Sure, lets heat up the oceans even more.
The sensible way would be to use the waste heat for district heating, but let's heat the fish instead
It's a drop in a bucket. Global warming is due to ~5e18 Wh of excess heating. A nuke dumping 5e12 Wh of additional heat into water makes no difference at all.
Drops add up, just like using gas, oil, coal...
Avoiding legal jurisdiction, regulation and tax by being offshore.
Bring on the exploding drone boats.
I ran the numbers for this about six months ago and it works out a lot better than all the other alternatives.
The fact you're surrounded by coolant, can use intrinsically safe versions of high pressure reactors and have low latency between multiple markets with one datacenter is a big plus.
That you're not competing with humans for electricity or water is another.
That said you'd want to build a semi submersible platform with the nuclear reactors in the pontoons and the superstructure able to house container based datacenter units. The only place with enough experience to build these is South Korea which isn't a deal breaker per se, but Samsung can pretty much eat your lunch if these get successful.
So I take it you’re a marine engineer or similar?
No, but I did have my father check the maths and he built oil rigs for 30 years.
How do they deal with saltwater corrosion, do the barges go in drydocks after a couple of years? What about weather do they have their own propulsion do they need to be towed to avoid bad weather? Can't you put the same gear in containers next to the shore and avoid the whole weather issue?
Genuinely, have these guys done anything other than AI generated ship pictures? The top down ones look like they didn’t even use a good model.
I’d be stunned if anyone takes this seriously
There are some very stupid VC folks around. I have spoken to some, and watched them shart millions away on the back of a powerpoint and some stage presence
Stupid is uncharitable. They lock into the small picture, like some details about it, and get carried away. Then again, it's their job to get carried away.
This reminds me of the Pangeos megayacht from a few years back.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pangeos-terayacht-turtle/
TL;DR: Pangeos was a concept for a floating free city that trended a few years back, but was never built for obvious reasons, just like how these floating data centres will never be built. Presumably some people were bilked into paying money to the Pangeos scammers, just like there will be those who "invest" in this.
The problem is that it costs a lot more to put a nuclear reactor into a permanently sea-worthy form-factor than it does to build on land and put up with some pesky taxes. There are plenty of places with lax regulations (environmental and otherwise) that will be happy to let you build whatever size data centre you want if you're willing to build the power generation too.
Sealand[1] is becoming attractive real estate again...
[1] https://sealandgov.org/
What's the benefit from using an off shore platform against building them on the beach and using pipes for cooling?
Zoning laws and jurisdiction, perhaps.
Why the website and the images look like AI-generated?
because they are :))
Accident waiting to happen... who's gonna insurance these facilities?
Privatize the earnings, socialize the risk. The neoliberal dream.
So Much land. Even non civilized lands, Even near sea for piping water. What does this idea solve? Or just adds problems like, Non secure assets/nucclear on the sea.
You can not move datacenter built on land. But you can tow this datacenter to new direction if needed. Just like "Howl's Moving Castle" :)
> What does this idea solve?
The obvious answer is NIMBYs.
freedom from laws
Wasn't there a Microsoft idea to build data centres in shipping containers a few years ago, again using the ocean for cooling?
What happened to that?
Given the expense of the latest AI chips, or just the RAM for them, the price of land, cooling and power is not top of the expenses bill, so all talk of sea-based or space-based data centres has to be regarded as having jumped the shark.
As of yet I have not seen the use of server racks as structural architectural features. They always seem to need a vast shed that has its own supports, when server racks could also be the walls and supports for much of the building, or some other structure, maybe a road bridge.
Translation: they won't let us build datcenters on land because we screw things up too much there. And we can't afford space. So we'll do it at sea where we can run all the gas turbines we want and wreck the Earth from there.
How do they handle rough seas?
Write up an ai generated biz plan, shop it around quick. make the necessary human pyramid, get it on the stock market. it'll be as irresistible as peanut butter & chocolate.
who's ready for gpu piracy?
Would be a great element in a story, a pirate model trained on 10 million GPU hours by pirates who commandeered the data center for the necessary time then cast it adrift.
The question now becomes: Will the AI bubble pop before we get sea datacenters?
[dead]