Google will have some of the same issues as that "other startup",
and lots that are different. A floating oil platform
(to me) works better than a ship based datacenter.
_IF_ Google was to do a floating datacenter, I'd love to see
them take one of the old nuke flat-tops, and use that...
The big E as a datacenter would be killer, better than a pile of scrap.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003578.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CV64.htm
EACH of the A2W power plants can deliver over 26,000 kw
(over 200,000 kw total) , and if you combine the reactor
hot water output, with an amonia based cooling system,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
http://www.nh3tech.org/absorption.html
can give low cost cooling.
Here is a letter that I sent to one of the VARS for the "other startup",
strangely enough, I never got an answer back. Perhaps it just got spam filtered out.
The questions remain unanswered....
*********** Mon Feb 4 11:23:17 2008
Received: from [****************.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:23:17 PST
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:23:17 -0800 (PST)
**********************
Subject: Floating Data Centers?!?
To: ken@teamsilverback.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 8789
I saw your article about floating datacenters, and since you asked for
input, I thought I would chime in. Let me start off by saying I like the idea,
I know that there is great room for delivering a good product, at a good price point.
Now before I put my racks in a floating data center, here are some of my
concerns and references to real world issues. (I have a lot more, but
that depends on the ship and configuration.),
1) ""using sea water for their chill water"". Having seawater around is
a good heat sink, and since the ships are at dock most of the time, a long
pipe can be run to the cooler water zones to draw in water that is
close to freezing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_lake_water_cooling
Using colder sea water (after a standard air heat exchanger) can result in
good economies, if the heat exchangers can stand up to the corrosive environment.
2) ""All generators will have access to the ships fuel storage during disaster scenarios, which
allows them to operate for nearly a month without the need to refuel.""
Traditional fuel for gen sets and large ship engines are very different. An
onboard gen set is like a modern rail road locomotive engine
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3000hp_curve_ver2.jpg ), and it runs on diesel,
a main power plant for a ship (also a diesel) traditionally runs on Heavy Fuel Oil
(HFO). Without modifications to either the main power plant, or the gen sets, both
engines can not share the same fuel source. Please note the differences between #2
(the traditional fuel for ship board gen sets) , and #6 (Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), AKA
Bunker C, the traditional fuel for ships manufactured in the 1980's). #6 is almost
a jelly at cold temperatures, and must be heated (to around 100c ) for efficient
movement, and burning. The main engine on a large cargo vessel is also much more
efficient (up to %50) in its use of fuel, making them more economical than the
smaller generators. Gen sets use a small amount of diesel per day, (compared
to the main engine) a 3100 kw gen set will use 4253 gallons of fuel per day
(http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/diaries/rrs_james_clark_ross/antarctic2000_2001/jrupdate86.php
) VS the very large ship engines at 1,660 gph of HFO ( http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/ ).
3) ""able to quickly provide large scale real estate in some of the most real estate impacted
areas of the country."" Dock fees in some of those sections of the country can be
excessive, or what looks like good space can be unsuitable (silt, decaying Warf/dock ,
reserved space), and those spaces can be in some high crime zones. And while the
square footage is impressive, what matters is the gigawatts and gigabits that the
datacenter can throw around, these are dependent on the land based connections.
And now some of my own concerns.
Corrosion, poor ship building and maintenance
A report on the different kinds of corrosion how they occur, and how to detect them
http://www.ocimf.com/view_document.cfm?id=332
"of 29 fatal accidents involving bulk carriers between 1990 and 1994, 55% were due to plate
failure."
"According to Lloyd's September 1995 Shipping Economist, HTS (high-tensile (HT) steel) built ships
are also prone to a phenomenon known as "springing": because the ships are flexible and tend to
vibrate with short sea waves."
http://www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/issues/safety/transport_telecomm/bulk_carrier/bulk99_una_2.htm
"In the early 1990s three carriers went down after their bows literally fell off. In other
instances, holes suddenly developed in carriers' hulls and some ships vanished without trace. One
bulk carrier that narrowly avoided this fate was the 24-year-old Gallant Dragon. In 1991 the ship
limped into port with a crack 50 metres long in its hull. It was scuttled shortly afterwards and
went down in 7 seconds."
"Last year the 139 000-tonne Diamond Sea, carrying a cargo of iron ore, was forced to put in for
repairs in Portugal with a 20-metre hole in its side. Another bulk carrier, the Protoklitos, was
scuttled, together with its cargo of iron ore, 400 kilometres off the coast of Brazil after it
became too badly damaged even to make the nearest port. And last November, at Ponta da Madeira in
northern Brazil, the Trade Daring broke its back while being loaded with iron ore."
"The best known of the bulk carrier losses is probably the Derbyshire, which went down in the
Pacific in 1980. But it was not a typical loss. The Derbyshire was only four years old, while most
bulk carriers that are lost are older. According to Intercargo, the average age of the carriers
lost between 1990 and 1994 was 18 years. And an investigation by the Australian parliament,
published in 1973, found that iron ore carriers over 15 years old were at the greatest risk of
sinking."
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg14619752.200-clampdown-on-the-rust-buckets.html
"first-class ship maintenance has become increasingly rare in recent decades. Since the 1970s -
when the Erika, Nakhodka, and Castor were built - profit margins in the tanker business have
fallen steadily. Today, tankers change hands two or three times before they're taken out of
service. Temporary owners of second- or third-hand ships tend to be less interested in maintaining
their vessels than maximizing the return on their investments."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/superrust.html
"The plating of the oil tanker Castor corroded up to seven times faster than normal, causing
massive cracks across its deck that put the ship at risk of explosion or a hull rupture, the
American Bureau of Shipping has determined."
http://www.professionalmariner.com/ME2/SiteMaps/Sites/Document.asp?DocPath=4DEC050EBBB8412E8B2C27A67F745978%7C%7C%7CPublications%3A%3AArticle%7C%7C%7CMain%2BSite%7C%7C%7C
"The tanker being built today is flimsy, highly unreliable, unmaneuverable,
and nearly impossible to maintain. And the situation is becoming
progressively worse."
"Ship managers know that looks are
important. So they do enough chipping and painting to induce the
casual inspector to conclude that the ship is well-maintained. This
also allows them to send pretty pictures back to the owners showing
what a good job they are doing. But real maintenance, especially on
stuff that is not easily visible, is almost non-existent."
"If steel is found to be more than 25% wasted, then it must be replaced.41 Most
tanker owners let their steel deteriorate between Special Surveys and then
negotiate with the surveyor as to how much steel has to be replaced.
25% thickness loss is horribly wasted steel. Steel corrodes very
unevenly."
"The maritime press immediately announced that ABS had discovered a new
phenomenon which it dubbed "super-rust". There is no such thing. What
there is is the same old combination of poor maintenance, and understanding/
forgiving survey standards which eventually leads to a major hull failure."
"As soon as you tell an owner that a ship will be
worthless after age X, where X is any number less than 50, he will rightly
try and build a ship that is designed only to survive to age X. And if you
design a ship that can only survive to age X, you automatically have a ship
that will be a problem at age 0. An age restriction is an open invitation to
shoddy design. In order for a ship to be a good ship, it must be designed
to last forever."
http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf
Why use "end of life" commercial ships of unknown history, when stronger hulls ,
better overall constructed ships, and power plants that are converted to run on
light weight oils, are available for a low cost? (the mothball fleet).
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/dont-pay-us-well-pay-you-say-scrappers-ghost-fleet-ships
To me, a better option would be to refurbish the USS Constellation CV-64
(http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CV64.htm ) , Ranger CV 61 (best choice) ,
or Independence CV 62 (to be sunk as a target because of poor construction practices) ,
these aircraft carriers have large long flat open spaces such as the sheltered
hangar deck and rooms below for lots of storage.
Tidal heaving, and wave action?
Storm damage?
Gen set loads, and load shedding.
Getting gigabit connections to a ship.
Getting enough electric power to a ship.
What happens when a ship must enter dry dock?
How will the hull be maintained?
Dock fires?
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=e9b46da6-9af2-4178-a7c2-ebaa6129024c&k=85472
