Interesting feature in the March issue of Harper's if you missed it: Google's server farms use a heckuva lot of energy. A planned server farm in The Dalles, Ore. will probably use 103 megawatts of mega-hydro electrons, enough to power 82,000 homes, according to the author, Ginger Strand. Server farms used more power than TVs in the U.S. in 2006, and this may increase as other search firms gear up to battle Google. Of course, the proliferation of flat-screen energy hogs since then may level that playing field ...
But the point here is that internet search isn't impact-free, and Google's good efforts to develop the renewable industry through grants and investments might be better viewed as more of an offset for its own impacts.
DeFazio lambasts cap-and-trade
Meet your eco-mate with Planet Earth Singles
Ask Umbra on living off the grid
Comments View as Flat
Jonas Posted 7:05 pm
21 Apr 2008
Go to Iceland, Alaska, Greenland
Go to some nice cold place with plenty of renewable energy potential. Say Alaska (wind) or Iceland (geothermal).
Put your server farms there. You save big time on cooling them (which takes up most of the energy, I think). And power them with renewables.
Export data.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:29 pm
21 Apr 2008
And thats of course why
Google is aggressively trying to advance renewable energy and server efficiency.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:29 pm
21 Apr 2008
Links
http://greyfalcon.net/google
http://greyfalcon.net/google2
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:57 pm
21 Apr 2008
Yawn
Whenever will GreyFalcon post something meaningful?
Why does he run (or at best obfuscate) from rational questions posted on other threads?
The raptor has no claws
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:02 pm
21 Apr 2008
One third cooling
"the servers require a half watt in cooling for every watt used in processing."
So solar powered geo heat exchange cooling would knock off 33%.
And a solar mirror CSP generating system on the roof and over the parking lot would produce enough electric power to more than offset the use of the hydropower.
Google could get this done, if someones lets them know it is possible. Google, just google. "Geo heat exchange cooling grist amazingdrx".
There it is..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Geo+heat+exchang ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bigTom Posted 11:39 pm
21 Apr 2008
Green computing.
The place where they could do the most good would be to pressure the server manufacturers, Intel, AMD, IBM, SUN etc. to make power efficiency a priority. For the most part the manufacturers have been concerned about power budgets mainly from the standpoint of keeping the computer from overheating. Once they feel that the market is demanding computational power efficiency we should see substantial progress. Until then speed bragging rights rules.
One note on power consumption (other things being equal) scales as about the third power of the computer clock frequency. A quad core 1.5GHz chip has the same theoretical performance as a dual core 3GHz chip, but only needs a quarter of the power. Of course the server user then has to be able to use twice as many weaker processors as before to do the same thing.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:18 am
22 Apr 2008
Servers in North Dakota?
I thought I read somewhere that somebody (I'm a big help, huh?) was considering putting big server farms in North Dakota, next to a big wind farm constructed for the purpose.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:14 am
22 Apr 2008
Yes, it's an offset...
But the point here is that internet search isn't impact-free, and Google's good efforts to develop the renewable industry through grants and investments might be better viewed as more of an offset for its own impacts
It's not like that's any big secret. matter fo fact, I'm pretty sure Google has stated several times that much of their interest in renewables is to offset their own consumption.
What? Would ya rather they not try to offset?
It's not like there's much of an alternative here.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:26 am
22 Apr 2008
Reality check
No servers = no Internet. Should we lobby Grist to cut its number of servers in half so we can wait another minute for a comment preview? This article is a prime example of lay media fluff I'm always whining about. You make up a story to entertain people with, complete with bad guys and good guys.
Is she suggesting we dump the Internet, or that Google should stop trying to use CO2 free sources of energy? Color me confused.
Not to mention, without any links or footnotes, who is to say anything in the article is valid? For example, watts is not the same as watt-hours. The average American home uses about 11,000 kWh per year. That is 11 MWh. To say the average American home uses a certain number of watts per year is meaningless unless you know how many hours they used that many watts, ditto for this server complex. To say it will use 103 MW is meaningless. She surely didn't mean 103 MWh, because that is only equal to nine households. 82,000 homes would use 902,000 MWh (902 GWh)
Ironic... here we all are, using Google's servers to criticize the amount of energy they consume. I've used Google several times for this article and I'm sure there will be many thousands of Google searches generated by this article before the day is over, not to mention you can bet your right arm the author used Google extensively to write her article. Not to mention the resources consumed by a print run of a Harper's magazine edition. The paper industry is the 4th largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions among U.S. manufacturing industries. Google it.
The entire planet, not just the United States, uses Google servers. According to her numbers, the defunct aluminum smelters mentioned, and all of the emissions they belched forth (Google it) consumed 65% more energy than this server complex. Pointing out that a server complex will use the energy equivalent of a city the size of Tacoma (assuming she is even right) is a bit misleading, considering that this complex will serve an entire planet. "www." stands for World Wide Web.
"As the compete to offer software music and movies over the web ..." there will be fewer and fewer people driving GHG spewing cars to music and video stores. Telecommuting saves ten times the energy this server farm will consume. Google it.
"In 2006 data centers consumed more power than televisions ..." and with more people watching movies over the internet, you can expect fewer people watching televisions.
"Thus through city infrastructure, state givebacks, and federally subsidized power, YouTube is bankrolled by us ..." Is this all this article boils down to? The fact that a State government has wooed a business with incentives? What state doesn't do that?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 4:14 am
22 Apr 2008
well
TP: sometimes stating the obvious is just helpful.
BD: I feel pretty confident that Harper's fact checked this. Whether they got it right is their deal. This section of their magazine doesn't tend to use footnotes. Make of it what you like. This blog is powered by servers that are happy to host your thoughts.
The point is that, well, their renewable investments are, well, more like offsets, which 'aren't evil.'
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Hal 9000 Posted 7:11 am
22 Apr 2008
Iceland
Not that The Dalles isn't a good spot, but Iceland may be ideal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/22/renewab ...
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:38 am
22 Apr 2008
Powering Google servers with solar power is what?
Cutting butter with a chainsaw.
CPUs can be directly cooled with cold water.
For a half measure, IBM found that they could reduce 40% of their cooling power with cold water plates above their servers.
Google should go simple efficiency for big energy savings before they go complicated solar for big green goodwill.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:00 am
22 Apr 2008
A more relevant thing to point out
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:07 am
22 Apr 2008
Not shooting the messenger Eric, or Harpers
per se. Her article is pretty much par for the course.
I see your point about offsets, but short of building their own solar or wind farm, I don't see what else they can do.
Nice link, Grey
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:27 am
22 Apr 2008
Did build a solar farm...
I see your point about offsets, but short of building their own solar or wind farm, I don't see what else they can do.
Actually, they have built their own solar farm. Their entire headquarters is powered by it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:22 pm
22 Apr 2008
Yep cold water
Cold water cooled by geo heat exchange. Closed cooling loop. There it is. The pumps that circulate the water, solar powered.
Savings, 33%.
Solar powered geo heat exchange heating/cooling buildings can save 36% of GHG emissions.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 12:28 pm
22 Apr 2008
Google is wasteful in many ways
Google is totally about waste.
The very nature of the company -- Boolean search, is the most invasive, least efficient, most destructive type of search.
From that origin, the costs expand.
What is not Google?
Hakia:
http://www.hakia.com
J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:09 pm
22 Apr 2008
Wanna go search-guilt free?...
...use Goodsearch. Every time ya search, they donate money to the charity of your choice.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:13 am
23 Apr 2008
Cooling Google's whitebox power
Makes more sense than solar power.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:15 am
23 Apr 2008
Google/IBM energy link
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080423-ibm-serves- ...
Permalink