To ensure growth in electricity demand from data centers (DCs) through the construction of underwater DCs integrated with hydroelectric power plants using HYPOT technology, a number of technical, economic, and environmental challenges must be addressed. Let’s examine the key aspects of this approach.
HYPOT Technology
HYPOT (Hydro Power Tower) is an underwater hydroelectric technology that converts the kinetic energy of ocean currents and the potential energy of a water hammer into electricity. Key features:
It leverages the Pitot–Prandtl tube principle and Bernoulli’s law to enhance efficiency.
Its hyperbolic hull geometry creates an artificial vortex and stabilizes the flow.
It can operate at depth, harnessing pressure and temperature differences between water layers [1].
It is potentially competitive with other marine energy projects, as it converts both kinetic and potential energy.
Advantages of Underwater Data Centers
Deploying DCs underwater enables:
Reduced cooling costs by using seawater, cutting cooling energy consumption to about 10 % versus 40–50 % in land‑based DCs .
Lower consumption of freshwater and land area .
Integration with renewable energy sources, such as wind farms—as seen in the Shanghai‑based Chinese project.
Integration with Hydroelectric Power Plants
Co‑locating underwater DCs with hydroelectric plants using HYPOT technology can provide:
Local electricity generation directly for the DC, reducing transmission losses and dependence on land‑based grids.
Peak load management thanks to the flexibility of hydroelectric plants, which can rapidly increase output during high‑demand periods.
Use of waste heat from the DC to boost hydroelectric plant efficiency—for example, by preheating water in systems that improve turbine performance.
Risks and Challenges
Technical Complexities:
Need to protect equipment from seawater corrosion.
Difficulties in maintaining and upgrading underwater facilities .
Risk of acoustic waves affecting information security .
Environmental Risks:
Thermal pollution of the marine environment from DC operations .
Impact on marine ecosystems during construction and operation .
Economic Factors:
High upfront investment costs for underwater infrastructure .
Need to develop new technologies for integrating DCs and hydroelectric plants.
Short‑Term Impact on Electricity Prices
In the short term, implementing such projects may lead to higher electricity prices for several reasons:
Increased construction and maintenance costs for underwater facilities will raise generation costs.
Project localization in specific regions may strain local power grids, especially if DC demand exceeds existing infrastructure capacity.
Investment needs for new technologies and research may temporarily drive up electricity costs.
However, in the long term, such projects can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and enhance grid resilience by leveraging renewable energy sources.
Recommendations
To minimize negative impacts and improve project efficiency, it is recommended to:
Conduct thorough environmental assessments prior to construction to evaluate impacts on the marine environment.
Develop hybrid systems combining HYPOT with other energy sources (e.g., wind farms).
Adopt energy‑efficient technologies in DCs to lower overall electricity consumption.
Establish regulatory mechanisms to incentivize investment in such projects—for instance, via subsidies or tax breaks.
In summary, building underwater DCs in conjunction with hydroelectric plants using HYPOT technology holds potential to address the growing electricity demand from DCs. However, it requires a comprehensive approach to technical, environmental, and economic considerations.
Techno‑Economic Feasibility Study for an Underwater Data Center with HYPOT Hydroelectric Plant in the Florida Straits (Gulf Stream) vs. a Land‑Based Analog (Stargate, Texas)
1. Project Baseline Parameters
HYPOT Underwater Complex (Florida Straits):
Hydroelectric capacity: 2.5 GW.
Location: Gulf Stream current (flow speed ~2–2.5 m/s).
Technology: HYPOT hyperbolic turbines in a submerged large‑radius tower.
Cooling: natural seawater (direct or via heat exchangers).
Footprint: minimized via vertical integration.
Stargate (Texas, planned for 2026):
IT load capacity: approx. 1–1.5 GW (public data limited).
Location: land‑based site, arid climate.
Cooling: air‑based systems + evaporative cooling towers.
Power supply: Texas grid (mix of gas, renewables, nuclear).
2. Technical Aspects
HYPOT Underwater:
Advantages:
Free seawater cooling → PUE reduced to 1.05–1.15 (vs. 1.4–1.6 on land).
Self‑generation of 2.5 GW → energy autonomy, no grid tariffs.
Protection from external threats (natural disasters, vandalism) due to submersion.
Compactness: vertical integration of hydro plant and server halls.
Challenges:
High capital costs for underwater construction and sealing.
Maintenance in marine environment (corrosion, biofouling).
Limited access for repairs/upgrades.
Regulatory hurdles (maritime zone, ecology).
Stargate (Texas):
Advantages:
Developed infrastructure: roads, grid, workforce.
Lower capital costs (vs. underwater option).
Ease of maintenance and scalability.
Challenges:
High cooling costs in hot climate.
Dependence on grid power (price fluctuations, outages).
Land acquisition and water use for cooling towers.
3. Economic Indicators
Capital Expenditures (est.):
HYPOT: $3–5 billion (underwater structure, turbines, sealed server modules, cabling).
Stargate: $1–2 billion (land‑based building, IT equipment, cooling systems).
Operational Expenditures (annual):
HYPOT:
Hydro plant maintenance: $50–100 million.
IT operations: $30–50 million.
Environmental monitoring: $10–20 million.
Total: $90–170 million.
Stargate:
Electricity: $150–250 million (at $0.07/kWh).
Cooling and water: $40–80 million.
IT operations: $50–100 million.
Total: $240–430 million.
Payback Period:
HYPOT: 12–18 years (due to zero electricity costs and low PUE).
Stargate: 8–12 years (with stable energy tariffs).
4. Energy Efficiency and Ecology
PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness):
HYPOT: 1.05–1.15 (ocean as heat sink).
Stargate: 1.4–1.6 (air cooling in heat).
Carbon Footprint:
HYPOT: near zero (renewable energy, minimal cooling).
Stargate: dependent on Texas grid (~0.4 kg CO₂/kWh currently).
Water Consumption:
HYPOT: zero (closed‑loop cooling).
Stargate: tens of millions of liters per year (cooling towers).
5. Risks and Constraints
HYPOT:
Technological maturity: HYPOT requires pilot testing.
Maritime regulations: U.S. and international approvals.
Natural hazards: hurricanes, underwater currents.
Workforce: shortage of underwater maintenance experts.
Stargate:
Rising energy prices in Texas.
Water restrictions during droughts.
Land competition.
6. Conclusion: Comparative Assessment
HYPOT Advantages:
Energy independence and zero operational electricity costs.
Ultra‑low PUE and carbon footprint.
Infrastructure protection.
Stargate Advantages:
Lower capital costs and construction timelines.
Easier maintenance and scaling.
Fewer regulatory barriers.
Recommendation:
HYPOT is viable if:
Long‑term decarbonization strategy is prioritized.
Funding is available for high CAPEX.
Willingness to accept technological risks.
Stargate is optimal for:
Fast payback.
Minimizing upfront investment.
Leveraging existing infrastructure.
Final Verdict:
The HYPOT underwater complex is a promising but high‑risk project with long‑term benefits. Stargate is a more conservative option with faster returns. The choice depends on investor priorities: ecology and autonomy (HYPOT) vs. economics and speed (Stargate).