<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The energy impact of web searches is very low]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/ Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:55:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/1 Depends ...

Good points, except I'm dubious about the assertion that the Internet necessarily saves energy.

It's certainly possible, but right now I think the opposite is the case. In an era of consumerism and cheap energy, we commute AND do our Google searches. AND we keep buying hardware which becomes obsolete every couple of years.

Basically the Internet is one more toy in our consumerist world.

But there are counter-trends.  As Joseph says, a lot of work can be done online ... so that it would be POSSIBLE to avoid moving heavy objects (e.g. cars) around.

When prices of energy and resources are high (or we are poorer), we will begin to use the potential of the Internet to save energy.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

]]> Depends ...

Good points, except I'm dubious about the assertion that the Internet necessarily saves energy.

It's certainly possible, but right now I think the opposite is the case. In an era of consumerism and cheap energy, we commute AND do our Google searches. AND we keep buying hardware which becomes obsolete every couple of years.

Basically the Internet is one more toy in our consumerist world.

But there are counter-trends.  As Joseph says, a lot of work can be done online ... so that it would be POSSIBLE to avoid moving heavy objects (e.g. cars) around.

When prices of energy and resources are high (or we are poorer), we will begin to use the potential of the Internet to save energy.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

]]> Comment #2 by BiggusCattus http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/ Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:35:46 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/2 See My Take

You, like I, fell victim to perpetuating this story:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/seven-grams-per-g ...

Agree
The LBL study is definitive
Telecommuting, if you can it, is a good thing

Disagree
I don't take Google's number as gospel - they have a self-interest in reporting something low.
Efficiency is not the solution, conservation is.

YouTube as much as possible?

mark





]]> See My Take

You, like I, fell victim to perpetuating this story:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/seven-grams-per-g ...

Agree
The LBL study is definitive
Telecommuting, if you can it, is a good thing

Disagree
I don't take Google's number as gospel - they have a self-interest in reporting something low.
Efficiency is not the solution, conservation is.

YouTube as much as possible?

mark





]]> Comment #3 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/ Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:38:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/3 Lean and clean

BiggusCattus: "Efficiency is not the solution, conservation is. "

Actually I think both are important when it comes to the Internet.

Short of social collapse, there's no possibility of going back to a pre-Internet world. It just does so much for us. Access to a computer and the Internet means that you have more information at your fingertips than all the previous generations.

In the long run, the Internet is a key part of our getting through the coming scarcity of energy and resources.  

But it does make sense to make the whole Internet infrastructure as efficient as possible.  

Computer hardware has become much more efficient, but there's still a long way to go. There's also the waste involved in having to discard an entire unit in order to upgrade. Electronic equipment can be designed with upgrades and repairs in mind. (In my former life, I worked in the computer hardware industry.)

Software tends to evolve into energy-hogging bloatware. This in turn fuels the requirements for faster processors, more memory, faster networks.  Users can help tame the beast by not making purchases based on flash and pointless bells-and-whistles.

The same is true of web software. Glitz = bloated software, prone to errors.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

]]> Lean and clean

BiggusCattus: "Efficiency is not the solution, conservation is. "

Actually I think both are important when it comes to the Internet.

Short of social collapse, there's no possibility of going back to a pre-Internet world. It just does so much for us. Access to a computer and the Internet means that you have more information at your fingertips than all the previous generations.

In the long run, the Internet is a key part of our getting through the coming scarcity of energy and resources.  

But it does make sense to make the whole Internet infrastructure as efficient as possible.  

Computer hardware has become much more efficient, but there's still a long way to go. There's also the waste involved in having to discard an entire unit in order to upgrade. Electronic equipment can be designed with upgrades and repairs in mind. (In my former life, I worked in the computer hardware industry.)

Software tends to evolve into energy-hogging bloatware. This in turn fuels the requirements for faster processors, more memory, faster networks.  Users can help tame the beast by not making purchases based on flash and pointless bells-and-whistles.

The same is true of web software. Glitz = bloated software, prone to errors.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

]]> Comment #4 by rajan http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:04:18 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/4 software --> hardware

Good point, Bart. If companies like microsoft weren't insisting on hardware manufacturers to make everything bigger and more energy intensive, people wouldn't have such energy intensive hardware! as a linux user, i'm prone to blame microsoft for more than it's fair share, but I think this is fair.

also, while google probably has lots of reasons to inflate the efficiency numbers of their servers, it also has a big rea why those servers should actually be efficient. so those numbers will certainly come down in the future.

]]> software --> hardware

Good point, Bart. If companies like microsoft weren't insisting on hardware manufacturers to make everything bigger and more energy intensive, people wouldn't have such energy intensive hardware! as a linux user, i'm prone to blame microsoft for more than it's fair share, but I think this is fair.

also, while google probably has lots of reasons to inflate the efficiency numbers of their servers, it also has a big rea why those servers should actually be efficient. so those numbers will certainly come down in the future.

]]> Comment #5 by daveknutz http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/ Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:10:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/Keep-on-Googling/5 clearly using broadband to communicate is a lot more effective and better for the environment than previous methods, but at the same time the cost is still there. We are continuing to use vast amounts of resources and minerals to build PC's and a phones. This study doesnt take into consideration the use of these resources and the CO2 emissions of their production or the growth of mobile broadband. The rise of mobile internet is still completely new and the impact of it is still unknown, there are still alot of health considerations to take into account as well

]]> clearly using broadband to communicate is a lot more effective and better for the environment than previous methods, but at the same time the cost is still there. We are continuing to use vast amounts of resources and minerals to build PC's and a phones. This study doesnt take into consideration the use of these resources and the CO2 emissions of their production or the growth of mobile broadband. The rise of mobile internet is still completely new and the impact of it is still unknown, there are still alot of health considerations to take into account as well

]]>