• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

NVIDIA and OpenAI Reportedly Discuss $250 Billion Deal for 10-Gigawatt Ohio Data Center

erek

erek

Fully [H]
2FA
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
17,532
"For OpenAI the deal would be its first directly leased data center, reducing dependence on Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle for cloud infrastructure. The company has since raised its projected computing spend to around $750 billion through 2030. For NVIDIA, backing the project effectively locks in chip demand for years. Power for the site is controlled by the U.S. government and funded separately through a recent trade deal with Japan, which agreed to invest $33 billion in a natural gas plant on the federal land in exchange for lower tariffs. Power allocation is controlled by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, and Google have all been in contact with him about the site. The first phase is expected to be completed in 2028 at around 800 megawatts. However, the terms of the deal are not final, and it could be scrapped."

Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/351120/...billion-deal-for-10-gigawatt-ohio-data-center
 
'Leased' data center. Wondering what the terms of the lease are?

OpenAI didn't qualify for credit since they haven't turned a profit which is why they are in talks with nVidia.

Recirculation money only backed by credit. Precarious situation indeed.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So 1/3 the power generation capacity of the whole state of Ohio... yet I'm asked to conserve for the environment...
Click to expand...
Yep this is thing is going to end with us having controlled blackouts to run AI to track everything we do.

God the world would have been such a better place had we not had that wave of dumb people afraid of nuclear power plants back in the 80 that turned into no new power plants for 30+ years
 
tunatime said:
Yep this is thing is going to end with us having controlled blackouts to run AI to track everything we do.

God the world would have been such a better place had we not had that wave of dumb people afraid of nuclear power plants back in the 80 that turned into no new power plants for 30+ years
Click to expand...

Can you imagine how awesome it would be if we had ultra-cheap near unlimited power because we actually built out nuclear?

Can you imagine how awesome it would be if we had ultra-cheap near unlimited compute?


What's going on now with data centers is very similar to what went on with nuclear power plants.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So 1/3 the power generation capacity of the whole state of Ohio... yet I'm asked to conserve for the environment...
Click to expand...

You can counter the impact of this by using a paper straw and by funneling money to a government-connected NGO in the form of "carbon offsets". What's a carbon offset, and how does it work? No one knows, but it ends climate change somehow.
 
tunatime said:
Yep this is thing is going to end with us having controlled blackouts to run AI to track everything we do.

God the world would have been such a better place had we not had that wave of dumb people afraid of nuclear power plants back in the 80 that turned into no new power plants for 30+ years
Click to expand...

Blaming it on "dumb people" is somewhat disingenuous. There was some big money behind the anti-nuclear movement and they bought a lot of politicians. The fossil fuel industry was not happy about nuclear power potentially stealing its lunch money and as a result funneled a lot of money into environmental groups to oppose nuclear. Also, multiple disasters have not exactly make people love the industry.
 
Ididar said:
Blaming it on "dumb people" is somewhat disingenuous. There was some big money behind the anti-nuclear movement and they bought a lot of politicians. The fossil fuel industry was not happy about nuclear power potentially stealing its lunch money and as a result funneled a lot of money into environmental groups to oppose nuclear. Also, multiple disasters have not exactly make people love the industry.
Click to expand...
In Texas and you are exactly right. Fossil fuel has been behind a lot of the decisions in this country. And, we're already on the list for some of those controlled blackouts; especially in the far west of the state. Expect controlled water outages won't be far behind. Several towns in this region already experiencing water shortfalls.
 
Ididar said:
Also, multiple disasters have not exactly make people love the industry.
Click to expand...
Really limited and no where close to the killing coals did over that time, nuclear killed less than Hydro power dam failure since 1960. it is the safest with solar, a bit safer than wind.

The reaction ot massive dam failure incident is no where the same as what Nuclear got, there is a spectacular element to it and of course linked with the bomb use (lot of nuclear application removed it from the name, like MRI machine, maybe they should have made the sense for electricity generation)

Big money from Oil going against competition and buying environmental group is the norm, all alternative did face it so it cannot be the only-main explanation, the shale gas industry got a massive disinformation and terror campaign against it, shower will catch fire, earth will shake unstop, agriculture will stop, movie made financed by big oil starring Matt Damon, it still achieved to work in some part of the US.

Anti nuclear worked so much because the average voters was convinced and actively rewarded it, Bernie Sanders giant near life long anti nuclear campaign was not because he got money from the oil industry.
 
LukeTbk said:
Big money from Oil going against competition and buying environmental group is the norm, all alternative did face it so it cannot be the only-main explanation, the shale gas industry got a massive disinformation and terror campaign against it, shower will catch fire, earth will shake unstop, agriculture will stop, movie made financed by big oil starring Matt Damon, it still achieved to work in some part of the US.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, which is why I mentioned them in my point.
 
tordogs said:
In Texas and you are exactly right. Fossil fuel has been behind a lot of the decisions in this country. And, we're already on the list for some of those controlled blackouts; especially in the far west of the state. Expect controlled water outages won't be far behind. Several towns in this region already experiencing water shortfalls.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you guys need regime change to fix it.
 
Ididar said:
Yes, I agree, which is why I mentioned them in my point.
Click to expand...
Not sure we are on the same line, Oil challenged and financed campaign against all alternative, i.e. so they are not the important varialbe why nuclear failed while shale gas-solar did work.

Nuclear project have so much more time for the public against it to organise the campaign to stop it, have multiple election cycle with it has a debate and elected official getting elected to stop it and so on.
 
LukeTbk said:
Not sure we are on the same line, Oil challenged and financed campaign against all alternative, i.e. so they are not the important varialbe why nuclear failed while shale gas-solar did work.

Nuclear project have so much more time for the public against it to organise the campaign to stop it, have multiple election cycle with it has a debate and elected official getting elected to stop it and so on.
Click to expand...

Nuclear had the oil challenges ... AND Chernobyl casting a big shadow over the whole thing. Before that it was the fear of the bomb post-WWII. Remember, the oil industry started lobbying against nuclear VERY early after WWII and it took time before the 60's peacenik movement caught up with them. You couple oil money with bomb scares and Chernobyl in the 80's and it isn't hard to see why nuclear has had a hard time of it. Solar and wind really haven't had big disasters that scare people. Money can only take you so far. You need some fear to promote with all that money if you want results. Nuclear power had the fear they could amplify. What are they going to amplify with solar or wind? Oooh think of the birds? Oooh the panels are wasteful? I mean that doesn't generate near the reaction in the public as the thought of a nuclear meltdown. Yes, I know the likelihood of that happening again is pretty small but it is easy to fear that if you aren't knowledgeable about the industry and there is lots of money pushing the message.
 
Ididar said:
Nuclear had the oil challenges ... AND Chernobyl casting a big shadow
Click to expand...
1986 Chernobyl was a bit after the nail in the coffin was official in the US (that was 3 mile island incident) I feel like, the anti nuclear had won in the USA pretty much by the late 60s early 70s, Nixon project to build 1,000 to create future resiliance in face of the consequence from the oil embargo faced giant backlash, that was around 1973. Not a single one was made and pretty much all the cancellation were pre 1986.

Ididar said:
Solar and wind really haven't had big disasters that scare people.
Click to expand...
True it is piece meal worker death usually, but hydro dam have a long list, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure, over 25,000 death, some esimate around a quarter of millions, bigger than any nuclear incident by a large margin.

Did not do 1/100 of what Chernobyl did to that industry. Opposition had quite the spectacular stuff to work with was a bigger factor than oil money, I think (which is there for everything and cannot really be one).

Ididar said:
What are they going to amplify with solar or wind? Oooh think of the birds? Oooh the panels are wasteful?
Click to expand...
that it does not work well or costly, unreliable etc... tend to be the main point, Shale gaz is a better example, oil industy and other competitor pushed hard shower taking into fire, earthquake hysteria, end of agriculture, it still went through massive opposition because of how good it was and the project being super fast, not leaving time for citizen-politicians to mount and achieve their opposition goals, it went so fast that it achieved to prove everyone wrong before the opposition could fully organize and work. Would they have been long horizon project, they would have been all stopped has well, it is my guess, in some jurisdiction they were.

And now solar industry will also push and finance anti nuclear a lot, we see it being quite active, one good trick they have is that they can make nuclear hyper costly by making the project hyper slow and over regulated (even if China prove every month that no, it is not inherently costly for reliable on demand massive dense kh/w on the technological front), then use the fact that it is costly in the juridiction they control as a reason to not do it.
 
I was gonna say i did notice a ton of 'no datacenters' signs in yards this weekend driving around.
 
Randall Stephens said:
They’ll be dead soon enough
Click to expand...
We have ZERO nuclear power plants physically being constructed in the US. There are plenty of anti-nuclear people still.

Average age of nuclear power plant in US: 44 years.
Average age of nuclear power plant in China: 11 years.

1785276837472.png
1785276579534.png
 
tordogs said:
Expect controlled water outages won't be far behind. Several towns in this region already experiencing water shortfalls.
Click to expand...
That's one reason putting this in Ohio makes sense, or could depending on where in Ohio. As long as they build enough power plants states putting datacenters near the great lakes make a lot of sense aside from perhaps Illinois & maybe Indiana. The area near Lake Michigan in the Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary corridor is a little too built up. Plus a cooler climate makes chillers more efficient. The great lakes aren't the only good spot, but it's a lot better spot than hot & dry places in the southwest.

Maybe someday they'll figure out how to cool datacenters with seawater rather than fresh. That would open up a ton of sites within pipeline distance of the coast. Just have to figure out how to deal with salt building up on the condenser. Maybe not easy but seems doable.
 
zandor said:
That's one reason putting this in Ohio makes sense, or could depending on where in Ohio. As long as they build enough power plants states putting datacenters near the great lakes make a lot of sense aside from perhaps Illinois & maybe Indiana. The area near Lake Michigan in the Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary corridor is a little too built up. Plus a cooler climate makes chillers more efficient. The great lakes aren't the only good spot, but it's a lot better spot than hot & dry places in the southwest.

Maybe someday they'll figure out how to cool datacenters with seawater rather than fresh. That would open up a ton of sites within pipeline distance of the coast. Just have to figure out how to deal with salt building up on the condenser. Maybe not easy but seems doable.
Click to expand...

They choose to build data centres where they stand the best chance of bribing or bullying the local politicians and utilities into giving them cheap access. They could choose to build in locations with more robust water and power systems in place but those places tend to have more organized and larger resistance to their presence. So, in their calculation it is easier to bully small towns and rural counties for access to limited water and power than build where water is more abundant.
 
Ididar said:
They choose to build data centres where they stand the best chance of bribing or bullying the local politicians and utilities into giving them cheap access. They could choose to build in locations with more robust water and power systems in place but those places tend to have more organized and larger resistance to their presence. So, in their calculation it is easier to bully small towns and rural counties for access to limited water and power than build where water is more abundant.
Click to expand...
And you know those small towns that start running out of power and water are just going to get told o well move we can't shut the data centers down
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sherk
like this
zandor said:
Maybe someday they'll figure out how to cool datacenters with seawater rather than fresh
Click to expand...
with close loop (and Rubin being able to use hottish 45C water to cool), the water consumption for cooling datacenter is really low, that a non-issue. It is near zero consumption, power generation side will be the main water use depending what it use.
 
sfsuphysics said:
So 1/3 the power generation capacity of the whole state of Ohio... yet I'm asked to conserve for the environment...
Click to expand...
Meanwhile at Taylor Swifts home.

View: https://youtu.be/-tRaa4c6VXU?si=iTkgku2DdkfE-774
Ididar said:
Blaming it on "dumb people" is somewhat disingenuous. There was some big money behind the anti-nuclear movement and they bought a lot of politicians. The fossil fuel industry was not happy about nuclear power potentially stealing its lunch money and as a result funneled a lot of money into environmental groups to oppose nuclear. Also, multiple disasters have not exactly make people love the industry.
Click to expand...
The problem with nuclear power is the trust towards corporations. You expect companies to properly operate a nuclear power plan and properly dispose of it's waste without thinking of the shareholders? We already have problems with power companies not maintaining their power lines and as a result will create forest fires. So many situations where waste is just dumped in the woods or in a stream. Data Centers are even polluting water in Ohio. Eventually, someone will get greedy and cut corners with nuclear, which could leave environments totally fucked for hundreds of years. Especially when we know renewable energy works. If we want nuclear then we need to heavily regulate them.

LukeTbk said:
Really limited and no where close to the killing coals did over that time, nuclear killed less than Hydro power dam failure since 1960. it is the safest with solar, a bit safer than wind.

The reaction ot massive dam failure incident is no where the same as what Nuclear got, there is a spectacular element to it and of course linked with the bomb use (lot of nuclear application removed it from the name, like MRI machine, maybe they should have made the sense for electricity generation)
Click to expand...
The difference is that hydro can be reversed while a melt down can't. Besides, nuclear isn't the ultimate solution to expensive power.

View: https://youtu.be/jBwSuSuGhyk?t=49

France which I know you're familiar with is nearly 70% Nuclear and yet their electric cost is 0.1940 €/kWh.
20210813-AleaSoft-france-electricity-generation-mix.png

Hungary is only 31% nuclear power and their electric cost is €0.10 per kWh. Besides having a good deal of renewable energy, the Paks Nuclear Power Plant company is state owned. If you want to lower electric cost then we should mimic Hungary.
Hungary.png

Turkey is even cheaper at €0.06 per kWh and they have no nuclear power. They're going to soon but there's already concerns since the power generated will be significantly more expensive than what Turkey is already producing. Nuclear power will cost €0.11 per kWh. Turkey is 45% renewable energy.
turkey.png
 
DukenukemX said:
d. If you want to lower electric cost then we should mimic Hungary.
Click to expand...
it is about physical reality of the cost of producing here (and distributing, battery needed or not), the actual price people pay that a choice that people can subsidie, but complete different subject. they pay via taxes in those 2 country, which is still paying for power.

DukenukemX said:
hydro can be reversed
Click to expand...
What reverse mean when I dam break and the flood kill people ? and it is not like modern reactor can physically have a meltdown a la chernobyl.

Renewable can be cheap to produce, but distribution need (or battery) to make up for the up and down they tend to have if they are not wood coals-biofuel and other renewable of that type make them extremelly costly to do (we see that in ireland or in the usa more and more, people point to datacenter but the grid needed to make them work would have happened)
 
tunatime said:
And you know those small towns that start running out of power and water are just going to get told o well move we can't shut the data centers down
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that I live in a place with excess power (we export it) and lots of water. Nobody is building data centres here that I've heard a whisper of. If you look at their public criteria they should be banging down our doors to build here. But, I'm in the "back water" of Canada and none of the big US companies wants to piss off Donald by building too much up here.
 
DukenukemX said:
Meanwhile at Taylor Swifts home.

View: https://youtu.be/-tRaa4c6VXU?si=iTkgku2DdkfE-774

The problem with nuclear power is the trust towards corporations. You expect companies to properly operate a nuclear power plan and properly dispose of it's waste without thinking of the shareholders? We already have problems with power companies not maintaining their power lines and as a result will create forest fires. So many situations where waste is just dumped in the woods or in a stream. Data Centers are even polluting water in Ohio. Eventually, someone will get greedy and cut corners with nuclear, which could leave environments totally fucked for hundreds of years. Especially when we know renewable energy works. If we want nuclear then we need to heavily regulate them.


The difference is that hydro can be reversed while a melt down can't. Besides, nuclear isn't the ultimate solution to expensive power.

View: https://youtu.be/jBwSuSuGhyk?t=49

France which I know you're familiar with is nearly 70% Nuclear and yet their electric cost is 0.1940 €/kWh.
View attachment 817565

Hungary is only 31% nuclear power and their electric cost is €0.10 per kWh. Besides having a good deal of renewable energy, the Paks Nuclear Power Plant company is state owned. If you want to lower electric cost then we should mimic Hungary.
View attachment 817566

Turkey is even cheaper at €0.06 per kWh and they have no nuclear power. They're going to soon but there's already concerns since the power generated will be significantly more expensive than what Turkey is already producing. Nuclear power will cost €0.11 per kWh. Turkey is 45% renewable energy.
View attachment 817567
Click to expand...

so MAGA means having much higher prices than these "middle income" countries?:confused:
 
Ididar said:
The funny thing is that I live in a place with excess power (we export it) and lots of water. Nobody is building data centres here that I've heard a whisper of. If you look at their public criteria they should be banging down our doors to build here. But, I'm in the "back water" of Canada and none of the big US companies wants to piss off Donald by building too much up here.
Click to expand...
OK but what about possible changes in 2029?
 
Ididar said:
The funny thing is that I live in a place with excess power (we export it) and lots of water.
Click to expand...
water for close loop is nearly irrelevant.

Ontario tend to be the last province with a relevant net export now (quebec is still a good in $ exporter but a net twh importer since 2023).

One aspect, people can exaggerate how little worker they imply when running and the importance to have a really good-giant fiber connexion to the Internet for them, tech talent-transmission (not just power) limit where they can be and some legislation make things really slow to connect to the power and internet grid and some of that power is reserved for those upcoming EV battery giant factory.

One difference will be that Canada tend to have a massively subsidized residential electricity paid by the commercial-industrial customer, unlike the US, but that not the only factor and small datacenter that can go through legislation are happening in the GTA.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
water for close loop is nearly irrelevant.

Ontario tend to be the last province with a relevant net export now (quebec is still a good in $ exporter but a net importer since 2023).

One aspect, people can exaggerate how little worker they imply when running and the importance to have a really good-giant fiber connexion to the Internet for them, tech talent-transmission (not just power) limit where they can be and some legislation make things really slow to connect to the power and internet grid and some of that power is reserved for those upcoming EV battery giant factory.

One difference will be that Canada tend to have a massively subsidized residential electricity paid by the commercial-industrial customer, unlike the US, but that not the only factor and small datacenter that can go through legislation are happening in the GTA.
Click to expand...
Data centers are not closed loop. The loops going to the actually gear might be but all the cooling towers are open to evaporate the heat and that's probably 99% of the water usage for any type of chiller system.
 
tunatime said:
Data centers are not closed loop. The loops going to the actually gear might be but all the cooling towers are open to evaporate the heat and that's probably 99% of the water usage for any type of chiller system.
Click to expand...
They often are, specially new one. Rubin can be cool with mild-warm water which make close loop possible in pretty much all climate now.

https://blog.vantage-dc.com/2026/04...closed-loop-systems-cut-day-to-day-water-use/
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...ructure-faces-mounting-environmental-scrutiny

One big aspect of the water usage increase is all older datacenter are running more heavily than before.

Some study point that for new building, cooling is less than 5% of Ai datacenter water usage:
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/most-new-us-ai-data-centers-are-going-up-on-drought-land

fabs that make the chips and the power central making electricity is way more of it for close loop cooling system, but those water source (obviously for the fabs and in part for power can be in different location than the datacenter itself, lot of water usage of a gaz turbine is the extracting-refining gaz part not electricity making with it itself)
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
it is about physical reality of the cost of producing here (and distributing, battery needed or not), the actual price people pay that a choice that people can subsidie, but complete different subject. they pay via taxes in those 2 country, which is still paying for power.
Click to expand...
The taxation is built into the electrical bill for Hungary, but I could be wrong. Hungary's website does list who's paying, and it isn't the average person.
  • energy traders,
  • non-household energy users,
  • businesses producing energy for their own use, and
  • district heating service providers.
What reverse mean when I dam break and the flood kill people ? and it is not like modern reactor can physically have a meltdown a la chernobyl.
Click to expand...
In the event of a catastrophe, what are the consequences and how reversible are they? In upstate NY there was a dam that broke and killed many people, which was due to negligence. A dam is just as safe as a nuclear power plant if maintenance is kept up, but we know that is not always the case.
Renewable can be cheap to produce, but distribution need (or battery) to make up for the up and down they tend to have if they are not wood coals-biofuel and other renewable of that type make them extremelly costly to do (we see that in ireland or in the usa more and more, people point to datacenter but the grid needed to make them work would have happened)
Click to expand...
We see countries that are already benefiting from it, so why make up a scenario where we need batteries when we clearly don't? Turkey still uses more coal and gas to generate power, so they don't have those issues. You could use nuclear instead but as we've seen the cost benefits of nuclear is clearly exaggerated. China is surprisingly very renewable with less coming from coal and nuclear. China's cost of electricity when converted to USD is $0.08, and that's on the expensive end for China. Batteries or not, it's clear the way to cheaper electricity is renewable.
figure7.png
 
LukeTbk said:
water for close loop is nearly irrelevant.
Click to expand...
And yet they're fighting for large scale water usage in many different locations right now. If it is irrelevant why are they asking for access to so much water? These aren't numbers made up by opponents, but the water numbers coming directly coming from the AI data centre builders themselves. Why is the data centre in California wanting access to 287 million gallons ... per year ... if they don't need much to run a data centre? Hell, they want to buy and shut down farmland to offset their water use. Yeah, that's brilliant. Again, it may be technically possible to limit water use but it doesn't mean they're doing it.
 
DukenukemX said:
The taxation is built into the electrical bill for Hungary, but I could be wrong. Hungary's website does list who's paying, and it isn't the average person.
Click to expand...
when the state subsidize something, who is paying for it is a fuzzy everyone as money is 100% fungible. They have a state-subsizide utility pricing framework, the actual price per kwh for some users here is not the only question (or an actual, a bit like gazoline price in some arabs country is not representative of its technology there or something).

Yes big consumer like in canada help subsidize the residential price (which is like in canada sold at a loss), but the state also chip in, a lot of this has absolutely nothing to do with how you produce electricity or a good clue to how much it did cost or not. state funded price cap backed by heavy corporate surtaxes will hide a lot of it.

An other point, marginal solar-wind can be quite cheap (when they are use simply as marginal extra electricity to save gaz from time to time), Hungary has 42% nuclear in its electricity generation which is massive (making the using them as a way to show you do not need it for a good baseline a bit strange) all renewable (wood-solar-biofuel), etc... is about only 10% of energy a good spot to stay cheap.

Also they are a large net importer of electricity, we need to look how the neighbors that sales to them make it.

DukenukemX said:
In the event of a catastrophe, what are the consequences and how reversible are they
Click to expand...
When a dam collaspe and a population is flooed and died, how reversible it is ? For some part of it, obviously not at all. As for being as safe, can believe it, which is the point.

DukenukemX said:
We see countries that are already benefiting from it, so why make up a scenario where we need batteries when we clearly don't?
Click to expand...
you do not need battery or good distribution system as long they stay marginal and you reliable baseline can do everyting alone, that create a system were you overbuilt a lot max production capacity and save on fuel from time to time, if you go over that, you need modern and heavy long distribution system and battery, which all country going heavy on them do , this is not hypothetical scenario that what they have been doing.

China has giant distribution and battery system, if you can use a big hydro dam and pump for it that not too bad and the tech is getting better and better. china installed for 373 GWh of storage last year, in battery aloe it could be an other 240 GWh this year
DukenukemX said:
China is surprisingly very renewable with less coming from coal and nuclear.
Click to expand...
And surprisingly low at the same time, people make the "mistake" at looking at electricity and not energy (or often calling electricity energy), in 2025 more than half of China energy still came from coal, their electrification rate is still under 30%
 
LukeTbk said:
They often are, specially new one. Rubin can be cool with mild-warm water which make close loop possible in pretty much all climate now.

https://blog.vantage-dc.com/2026/04...closed-loop-systems-cut-day-to-day-water-use/
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...ructure-faces-mounting-environmental-scrutiny

One big aspect of the water usage increase is all older datacenter are running more heavily than before.

Some study point that for new building, cooling is less than 5% of Ai datacenter water usage:
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/most-new-us-ai-data-centers-are-going-up-on-drought-land

fabs that make the chips and the power central making electricity is way more of it for close loop cooling system.
Click to expand...
What that article doesn't tell you is how much more power and physically larger that type of chiller is vs cooling towers in most climates....I would hate to see the condenser real estate for gigawatts of load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top