Orbital datacenters suffer from the same problem: limited surface area. You think cooling is a problem now? Try not having conduction or convection. Radiation is all you get. A huge proportion of the mass and size of the ISS is radiators, and that only has to deal with the heat of low-power electronics and a few measly human beings.

Using an entire Mars only nets us about a 2x multiplier for our energy expenditure budget. Then we need four planets to double it again. Exponential growth is a bitch.

Thermodynamics and the tyranny of exponential growth are going to win this battle every time, regardless of the unobtanium technology you try to invent.

Compute doesn't need to happen here, but it can, so it will. Building datacenters on Mars or Jupiter doesn't reduce our ability to build datacenters here, so naturally, they will still be built, everywhere that they can be. It's an orthogonal capability.

This is basic thermodynamics, not greenhouse gases. If you put some amount of energy into a system with a fixed surface area, you will get a minimum equilibrium temperature.

Greenhouse gases and Earth’s internal nuclear decay engine make the situation worse, but even without them this would boil the oceans.

The greenhouse effect is not what's cooking the planet in this example, it's the heat that results from turning all that energy into work.

The more I think about space elevator, the less I believe in it.

The material alone is in a quantity beyond what we can reasonably manufacture.

and the material needs to be perfect. All design we have today have cascade failure mode -- any material failure translates to a total catastrophic failure.

and geostationary does not really meant Geostationary. There are lots of jiggling everywhere. It wear down over time. and let's hope nothing resonance

and we need some maintenance / decommission plan. How can we decommission this when it fail or need upgrade?