Hacker News Reader

hmm, 500 gigawatts dissipated over 300k square gigameters of ocean surface gives a forcing effect of 1.6 milliwatts per square meter. Global warming right now is forcing 1w/sqm, so it's not a problem at this scale. But it's not a crazy question either.

View on HN

It’s not evenly spread, though. It’s concentrated along the cable. It won’t heat up the ocean much as a whole, but it will create “hot spots”, which may change the balance of ecosystems in the regions of the ocean the cable passes through.

Worth it to stop carbon emissions? Absolutely, in my opinion.

Something that should be considered and minimized if possible? Also yes.

That's a good point. 500 gigawatts over 15 megameters gives 20kw/m of local heat to deal with, which sounds kind of yikes.. but then again a pool heater draws 5kw. Seems clear the biggest effect will be on the seabed-- but that's already true because you gotta drop the cable. I reckon the cable itself, and its underwater infrastructure, might have more impact than the heat it generates. Another consideration is that there have always been heat sources in the deep ocean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com