this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
830 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
77816 readers
2687 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why isn't the roof of that facility covered with solar panels? It might not provide all the juice they need, but it will offset some. Future facilities like this should be forced to install some sort of energy mitigation strategy before getting approval.
Of course it should be covered in solar panels but so should most roofs everywhere but this single roof would be less than a drop in the bucket.
A square meter solar panel gives you about 100 watts while the sun is at it's highest point, and only when aimed directly at the sun. Typically over the entire day, the average will be a fraction of that
Meanwhile these servers use multiple CPUs that each take around 200 watts. A single server can take between 1-5 kilowatt in power. A single rack than carry dozens of those server's, so you see that you'd need way, waaaayyy more solar panels to make up for all of that
Again, not saying they shouldn't. All buildings should have solar panel roofs, but for this one building it won't do much to the point that the difference would be a blip
When’s the last time you looked into this?
I just went fully off grid and I have a relatively large house and workshop.
The panels I used, which are great but aren’t the absolute best on the market come out to about 231W per sq. meter.
I have a 39kW system installed just for my house. It’s overkill, yeah but I plan for the future (telling the regional power monopoly to go fuck themselves for the next 30 years).
Covering one of these centers with solar would absolutely make a huge impact. Not only by providing power during the day but also with keeping the building cooler.
For reference, the panels I have (65 of), coupled with 100kWh battery bank.
https://www.runergy.com/wp-content/uploads/download/DH156N8-30F.pdf
Even at over double the other guys estimate on power per area, it isn't even touching the requirements of major data centres. What it takes to run a normal house is tiny, they likely have servers that individually draw more power than my entire household, and they have hundreds if not thousands of these servers.
Do it anyway because solar is the closest thing to free power we have, but it isn't gonna cover the building.
Well of course. Which is why I mentioned it making a significant impact. Full offset wouldn’t be feasible without it being as large of a scope a the data center construction itself; not even considering storage requirements.
The unfortunate likelihood of projections (currently taking shape) being well understood, and accepted, at the time is extremely high.
It’s a win-win if you’re the owner of the server farm who had closed door discussions with the power company beforehand. I mean the citizens don’t win, but when has this ever been a concern?
If it was in their best interests financially, it would be included in the financial model before construction. My guess is that it was more appealing to just cut deals with various players.