• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    9GW is first. That’s metric. The other number is to give an estimate that is more relatable.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, who doesn’t know the heat of an atom bomb? (which famously can vary by 4 orders of magnitude)

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well, everyone knows it’s at least a lot. That’s the point. Most people don’t know what 9GW means, in terms of heat. Even a small nuclear bomb it’s enough to vaporized a large area. This tells even the least informed person that it’s an amount of energy that should be concerning.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        which famously can vary by 4 orders of magnitude

        That’s why “Hiroshima” is now a unit. We’re lucky “Tsar Bomba” isn’t.

    • assa123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      but first is peak power, not waste energy, we’re still missing the SI estimated number of Wh wasted per day

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        True, yeah. It should be Wh, not just Watts. I think most data centers are designed to run 24/7 though, so the Wh might be close to the same as peak.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        If they can tell us how many “atom bombs” per day it takes to power it, at least we could figure it out!