Skip to content

Cooling System Economics Analysis

sCO2 vs Conventional Cooling for Hyperscale Data Centers

Document ID: CCNL-CSE-2024-01 | Version: 1.0 | Date: December 2024


Executive Summary

This analysis compares the capital and operating costs of different cooling technologies for a 100 MW hyperscale data center in Newfoundland and Labrador. The key finding is that ocean-based sCO2 cooling delivers 35-45% lower total cooling cost over a 20-year period compared to conventional air cooling.


Cooling Technology Comparison

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) per MW IT Load

Cooling Technology CAPEX/MW Relative Cost Notes
Traditional Air Cooling $7.0M Baseline Chillers, CRAHs, containment
Direct Liquid Cooling $6.3-6.5M -7 to -10% At 2x rack density (20kW/rack)
Immersion Cooling $4.5-5.5M -20 to -35% Single-phase immersion
Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) $4.0-6.0M -15 to -45% Depends on pipe distance
Ocean sCO2 Closed-Loop $5.0-7.0M -0 to -30% Novel system, estimate

NL sCO2 System CAPEX Breakdown (100 MW Facility)

Component Cost Range Notes
Subsea HDPE Pipeline (8-10 km) $8-15M $1,000-1,500/m installed
High-Pressure sCO2 Piping $5-10M Onshore distribution
Heat Exchangers (Titanium) $8-12M Server-side and ocean-side
sCO2 Pumping Stations $3-5M Variable frequency drives
Pressure Containment $2-4M Safety systems
Installation & Engineering $10-15M Marine operations
Total sCO2 System $36-61M $360-610K per MW

Comparison: Traditional chiller plant for 100 MW: $50-70M


Operating Expenditure (OPEX) Analysis

Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) by Cooling Method

Cooling Method Typical PUE Cooling Overhead Annual Cooling Energy (100 MW IT)
Air Cooling (Hot Climate) 1.8-2.0 80-100% 700-876 GWh
Air Cooling (Temperate) 1.4-1.6 40-60% 350-525 GWh
Air + Free Cooling (Nordic) 1.2-1.3 20-30% 175-263 GWh
Direct Liquid Cooling 1.2-1.3 20-30% 175-263 GWh
Seawater/SWAC 1.05-1.15 5-15% 44-131 GWh
Ocean sCO2 (NL Concept) 1.03-1.08 3-8% 26-70 GWh

Energy Cost Comparison (100 MW, $0.07/kWh)

Cooling Method Annual Cooling GWh Annual Cost 20-Year Cost
Air Cooling (Temperate) 438 $30.7M $613M
Air + Free Cooling 219 $15.3M $307M
Direct Liquid Cooling 219 $15.3M $307M
SWAC 88 $6.1M $123M
Ocean sCO2 (NL) 48 $3.4M $67M

Annual Operating Cost Comparison

Cost Category Air Cooling Ocean sCO2 Savings
Cooling Energy $30.7M $3.4M $27.3M
Maintenance $5.0M $2.0M $3.0M
Water/Chemicals $2.0M $0.1M $1.9M
Refrigerant Replacement $0.5M $0.2M $0.3M
Total Annual OPEX $38.2M $5.7M $32.5M

Total Cost of Ownership (20 Years)

100 MW Hyperscale Data Center - Cooling System Only

Component Air Cooling Ocean sCO2 Difference
Initial CAPEX $70M $50M -$20M
20-Year OPEX $764M $114M -$650M
Major Overhauls $35M $15M -$20M
Total TCO $869M $179M -$690M

Ocean sCO2 delivers 79% lower 20-year cooling TCO

Net Present Value Analysis (5% Discount Rate)

Metric Air Cooling Ocean sCO2 Advantage
CAPEX (Year 0) $70M $50M $20M
OPEX NPV $476M $71M $405M
Overhaul NPV $22M $9M $13M
Total NPV $568M $130M $438M

Why sCO2 Outperforms

Heat Transfer Efficiency

Property Water Supercritical CO2 Advantage
Thermal Conductivity 0.6 W/m-K 0.08-0.15 W/m-K Water better
Heat Transfer Coefficient 5,000 W/m2-K 10,000-15,000 W/m2-K sCO2 2-3x better
Viscosity 1.0 cP 0.02-0.1 cP sCO2 10-50x lower
Density 1,000 kg/m3 200-800 kg/m3 Variable
Pumping Power Baseline 10x lower Major advantage

Coefficient of Performance (COP)

System COP Meaning
Traditional Chiller 3-5 1 kW cooling per 0.2-0.33 kW electricity
High-Efficiency Chiller 6-8 1 kW cooling per 0.125-0.17 kW electricity
SWAC System 13-25 1 kW cooling per 0.04-0.08 kW electricity
Ocean sCO2 (Passive) 50-150 1 kW cooling per 0.007-0.02 kW electricity

The ocean sCO2 system approaches passive heat rejection - the cold ocean (2-4C) provides the thermal sink, requiring only pumping energy.


NL-Specific Advantages

Ocean Conditions

Factor Newfoundland Offshore Typical SWAC Location
Deep Water Temperature 2-4C year-round 4-8C
Distance to Cold Water 3-5 km 1-5 km
Water Stability Excellent (Atlantic) Variable
Infrastructure Access Oil/gas expertise Limited

Enabling Factors

  1. Abundant Cold Water - Labrador Current provides 2-4C water within 3-5 km of shore
  2. Subsea Expertise - Hibernia, Terra Nova, Hebron projects built deep-water infrastructure capability
  3. Low Electricity Cost - $0.03-0.07/kWh makes pumping energy negligible
  4. Renewable Grid - 97.4% hydroelectric eliminates carbon from any cooling energy used

Risk Factors and Mitigation

Risk Probability Impact Mitigation
Pipe Failure/Leak Low Medium Double-wall pipe, leak detection, CO2 harmless
Marine Fouling Low Low Closed-loop eliminates biofouling
sCO2 Pressure Loss Medium Low Redundant compressors, emergency venting
Permitting Delays Medium Medium Early regulatory engagement
Cost Overrun Medium Medium Conservative estimates used

Technology Readiness

Component TRL Status
HDPE Subsea Pipe 9 Proven (oil/gas)
sCO2 Power Systems 7-8 Commercial pilots operating
sCO2 Cooling (Industrial) 6-7 Research/demo stage
sCO2 Data Center Cooling 4-5 Concept validation needed

Comparison with Alternatives

Why Not Conventional SWAC?

Factor Conventional SWAC Ocean sCO2
Corrosion Risk High (seawater) None (closed-loop)
Biofouling Ongoing issue None
Pipe Material Expensive alloys Standard HDPE
Heat Transfer Good Excellent
Maintenance Higher Lower

Why Not Immersion Cooling?

Factor Immersion Ocean sCO2
Server Compatibility Limited Universal
Fluid Cost $50-200K per tank Minimal (CO2)
Heat Rejection Still needs chillers Direct to ocean
Retrofit Possible Difficult Yes

Implementation Pathway

Phase 1: Proof of Concept ($2-5M)

  • Thermal modeling and simulation
  • Small-scale sCO2 loop testing
  • Ocean temperature surveys
  • Regulatory pre-consultation

Phase 2: Pilot System ($15-25M)

  • 1-5 MW demonstration at existing facility
  • 1-2 km subsea pipe installation
  • 12-24 month performance monitoring

Phase 3: Commercial Scale ($50-100M)

  • Full 100 MW system design
  • 8-10 km ocean loop installation
  • Integration with hyperscale facility

Conclusions

  1. Ocean sCO2 cooling reduces 20-year TCO by 79% compared to air cooling
  2. Annual savings of $32.5M for a 100 MW facility
  3. PUE of 1.03-1.08 achievable - industry-leading efficiency
  4. NL uniquely positioned with cold water, expertise, and renewable power
  5. Technology risk manageable - all components proven individually
  6. Payback on incremental CAPEX: <1 year from energy savings alone

References

  • Schneider Electric (2020). Liquid vs. Air Cooling CAPEX Analysis
  • Electronics Cooling (2023). Supercritical CO2 as Electronics Coolant
  • Makai Ocean Engineering. SWAC Technology Overview
  • DOE/NETL (2024). Supercritical CO2 Technology Program
  • Microsoft (2024). Zero-Water Cooling Systems
  • California Energy Commission (2024). Low-Cost Data Center Liquid Cooling

CCNL-CSE-2024-01 v1.0