Log in

View Full Version : Cost of the internet?



razz
3-7-13, 9:16pm
Rarely is it discussed - the cost of all the energy to store, send and develop the resources that enable an internet. The carbon cost must be considerable as well.
Has anyone ever seen an actual amount of money and energy? We have become so reliant on the internet, is it sustainable?

Something to think about?

From:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-03-05/is-using-the-internet-as-carbon-heavy-as-flying

A book published last year, ‘Greening the Media’, reports that in 2007 emissions from electricity consumed by information technology were 2.5-3% of the total, and comparable with aviation, but this is not something my Transition group have yet discussed, nor something there seems much getting away from....

cell phones have their own distressing part to play, both in environmental and human terms. They rely on very many dangerous minerals and gases. Plus a core ingredient is coltan which relies on mining, mostly done in Congo, by enslaved and frequently raped workers who are victims of the civil war. Coltan is then transported to China to be smelted into tantalum. The money for it has funded a war in which 5 million people have died.

There’s a big debate about the carbon footprint of a Google search. Google and Facebook are big users of server energy. They use massive amounts of coal power, nuclear power and to a certain extent solar, but don’t explain publicly either the amount or the sources of all this energy. There are also massive server farms which process web data. When we connect to the cloud we’re not connecting to the sky; we’re connecting to massive machines that have an insatiable appetite for electricity. Cloud computing is a misleading metaphor because these server farms are all too material, in their work and their environmental impact.

SteveinMN
3-7-13, 11:24pm
There’s a big debate about the carbon footprint of a Google search. Google and Facebook are big users of server energy. They use massive amounts of coal power, nuclear power and to a certain extent solar, but don’t explain publicly either the amount or the sources of all this energy. There are also massive server farms which process web data. When we connect to the cloud we’re not connecting to the sky; we’re connecting to massive machines that have an insatiable appetite for electricity. Cloud computing is a misleading metaphor because these server farms are all too material, in their work and their environmental impact.
I've been around large-company IT departments for my entire career. I've seen a lot of changes. Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and every other company that makes its money from storage and streaming -- and companies which use large amounts of their own data -- are all very much aware of what their carbon footprints look like. They're paying for them monthly.

And anything they can do to reduce those costs gets a look. Virtualized servers -- what looks to you like a file server but actually is a partition on a much larger server. The space and electricity that used to be taken up with three or four rack-mount servers is now used for one box that provides maybe a dozen virtualized servers. LCD screens and hard disks and CPUs don't use the power that their predecessors did, and they certainly don't generate the heat that had to be compensated for by additional air conditioning. Energy management for the computers is now part of the operating system as well as the hardware. Companies even have switched to LED lighting in computer rooms rather than fluorescent because it is that much cheaper to run (though here the cradle-to-grave impact of replacing a working system must be considered).

And the cloud isn't the big bad energy vampire some may think. There is a value to having your files in one location -- rather than your phone, your music player, your home computer and all the duplication of hardware and electrical use that represents. Dislike the cloud for other reasons, but energy usage should not be in the Top Ten. Trust that you're not hitting your own individualized server somewhere-who-knows-where. It's virtual and far more efficient for it.

razz
3-8-13, 9:51am
Thanks, Steve, that info does help me understand better.