Comments on: Internet Is Energy Efficient, Despite What The Coal & Media Industries Might Tell You

By: Decker

Decker — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:56:00 +0000

A white screen on a computer monitor uses more electricity than does a dark screen. This is obvious from the fact that when you unplug a computer monitor, disconnecting it from its source of electricity, the screen goes dark.

This article uses more electricity than it should. In an effort to make the article easier to read, the webmaster has “lightened” the text somewhat. In some areas, the text is so light that one can barely see it against the white background of the page.

By: Eugenian

Eugenian — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:01:00 +0000

I still believe that the total cost is higher to drive instead of vegetating for hours in front of the TV, but what I was trying to say is that the assumed energy cost of staying connected to the internet is higher than the author states because the extended time on the internet was not included.

But to your calcs, you might need to add the energy use of a Comcast or satellite box, which is about 35 watts, 24/7. But I’d admit, it is still little energy compared to what a car uses. Unless, one bikes or walks.
Consider this: It takes one banana in energy (not counting production energy to grow the imported banana) to bike three miles. It would take 55 bananas to power a car the same distance.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:09:00 +0000

Why not try some math?

My sister recently purchased a 55″ TV that pulls 80 watts. Add in the wattage for laptop (50?) and router (5?). Let’s be generous and assume 200 watts for everything involved in her watching/texting. 0.2 kW per hour. That’s about 3 cents worth of electricity.

How far could she drive on a 3c per hour gas allowance?

By: Eugenian

Eugenian — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:54:00 +0000

While I agree that any time we can move electons instead of atoms is a savings, one aspect the article did not cover is discretionary computer/internet use. I call this the tendency to use a compter and the internet more simply because it is there and relatively cheap. So while my shopping by the internet produces less CO2 than traveling from store to store by car (or even catalogue to catalogue), the fact that it is so cheap and simple means I spend more time shopping online. And in regards to driving to see a movie or receiving one as a CD, that one can simply vegetate in front of the TV for hours means some savings is negated. We have a teen who loves to text while the TV is on (via the internet), and so I might be tempted to think she is saving energy by not driving to visit many friends and go to a movie. Then you have the opportunity cost of not getting exercise and eating too much for daily needs which leads to another set of problems from moving electrons instead of atoms.
So it is not simple. But the assesments of server farm energy use has been too simplisticaly applied, and to some degree, so has the analysis of other savings from moving electrons instead of atoms

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:51:00 +0000

It´s worth underlining that the issue is about much more than the Internet: it´s also mobile telephony, smart appliances, and machinery of all kinds. ARM alone (and it has compeitors) have now licensed 45 billion low-power processors. of which no more than 10 billion can be in mobile phones and tablets, even with multiprocessor SOCs. The majority are embedded in everything from cars to thermostats to TVs and MP3 players. Remember when greens worried about standby power consumption? The problem is history.

By: Joel Bird

Joel Bird — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:03:00 +0000

Just to give a good practical example of the improvements to efficiency in computing. Facebook’s Open Compute Project has been pushing for better and better datacenter efficiency and now leads the market in terms of power usage effectiveness (PUE). Not to mention the power consumed by their datacenters is offset by solar arrays that are installed alongside them.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:01:00 +0000

TL;DR What’s coal’s motivation again? What kind of stupid agenda would pit coal against the interwebs? Is this actually a case of a group of people being against good design, intelligence, and automation in our infrastructure? Talk about civilization-dooming anti-intellectualism, that should be the main headline here. I want much more evidence and explanation on the pit-of-hell stupidity/greed behind this motivation if possible. It doesn’t take long for a person to look around his house and compare his laptop or phone to his stove, air conditioner, or car and realize the original study is a turd.