--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> > wrote: > > > > This news will come as a relief to FFL users > > everywhere. That's because I am sure many at FFL > > will have seen the reports this weekend of the > > damage being done to the planet by the web server > > farms of the likes of Yahoo! & Google: > > > > "Two search requests on the internet website Google > > produce 'as much carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle'" > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7823387.stm > > "In a statement on its official blog, Google said that > Dr Wissner-Gross' figures were 'many times too high.' > > "The firm said that a typical search returned a result > in less than 0.2 seconds and that the search itself > only used its servers for a few thousandths of a second. > This, said Google, amounted to 0.0003 kWh of energy per > search - equivalent to 0.2g of CO2." > > Seems to me such statistics aren't very useful, given > the wide range of other effects of the Internet on > carbon dioxide production. How many Google searches, > for instance, would be "paid for" by the elimination > of a single trip to the library by car or public > transportation? > > How much carbon is saved by ordering products over > the Web rather than driving to the mall to buy them? > By paying bills electronically rather than mailing > checks? Downloading a film, or even renting a DVD > from Netflix, rather than going to a movie theater? > > And so on. How much carbon dioxide was produced to > obtain and publicize the teakettle statistic, for > that matter? > > Maybe the Internet does ultimately increase carbon > dioxide production, but the calculations involved > even to come up with a reasonable estimate would be > almost infinitely complex (and would themselves > produce some amount of carbon dioxide). >
I do agree that the stats could well be way out. (And after all it's just Schemp and I causing mischief by playing dialectic judo with alarmists). Having said that, I've heard that any one simple Google query actually sets off a competition amongst multiple Google servers to deliver the fastest response. If true, this may explain Dr Wissner-Gross's calculation? "This, said Google, amounted to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search - equivalent to 0.2g of CO2." I believe Google might handle around 200 million searches per day. is that about 14000 metric tons of CO2 per year? It's true of course that the web will save CO2 in some ways (going to the library etc. as you mention). But it also creates completely new CO2 pumps (e.g. Facebook, eBay, and, dare I say it, FFL!)
