Google searches a big CO2 producer

BendiBus

Dr Alex Wissner-Gross, a physicist from Harvard University, has done some sums on using the Internet

Looking at a simple website generates 0.02g CO2 per second
Looking at a complex website generates up to 0.2g CO2 for every second you look at it.
But the carbon emission of a Google is 7 to 10g CO2! 2 searches is the CO2 equivalent of boiling a kettle!

Now this could all be garbage, but the statistic that struck me most was

According to Gartner, an American research firm, IT now causes about two per cent of global CO2 emissions and its carbon footprint exceeded that of the world's aviation industry for the first time in 2007.

IT is a bigger polluter than aviation AND it's growing faster. So posting anti-aviation messages on the Interweb would appear to be getting things a bit arse-about-face.

I think Greenpeace should be flying around the world telling people to turn off their PCs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/4217055/Two-Google-searches-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html

zod

I believe Google have disputed these figures.

IT actually reduces CO2 because it makes processes more efficient, its akin to saying we should stop using tractors to plough .. when the alternative (using animals) is more wastefull and more CO2 polluting when you calculate the TCO.

Húrin

BendiBus wrote: »

Dr Alex Wissner-Gross, a physicist from Harvard University, has done some sums on using the Internet

Looking at a simple website generates 0.02g CO2 per second
Looking at a complex website generates up to 0.2g CO2 for every second you look at it.
But the carbon emission of a Google is 7 to 10g CO2! 2 searches is the CO2 equivalent of boiling a kettle!

Now this could all be garbage, but the statistic that struck me most was



IT is a bigger polluter than aviation AND it's growing faster. So posting anti-aviation messages on the Interweb would appear to be getting things a bit arse-about-face.

I think Greenpeace should be flying around the world telling people to turn off their PCs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/4217055/Two-Google-searches-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html

Hmm, this is a cause for concern. However I would suggest that perhaps a lot more people's living standards are being raised through the application of IT than by aviation.

BendiBus

zod wrote: »

IT actually reduces CO2 because it makes processes more efficient, its akin to saying we should stop using tractors to plow .. when the alternative (using animals) is more wastefull and more CO2 polluting when you calculate the TCO.

If I was playing Devil's Advocate , I'd suggest that making processes efficient doesn't reduce CO2. It may reduce emissions per unit of output, but actual output increases at an even greater rate.

Aviation would be an excellent example of this. Efficiency reduces costs and increases demand.

H&#250 wrote: »

However I would suggest that perhaps a lot more people's living standards are being raised through the application of IT than by aviation.

Justifying it doesn't make it go away. The environment doesn't care if the CO2 is coming from a school or a private jet.

probe

Imagine the "damage" google could do if it moved all its servers to Ireland. The greenest, wettest, windiest country on the planet with an angry coastline that enjoys tidal extremes that are probably 20x intense as one finds for example on the Mediterranean. A country with one of the highest CO2 per KWh ratios for electricity generation on the planet. Thank you ESB/Eirgrid/CER.

Sergey & Co should move to Norway! Run the show on hydro....

BendiBus

I'm assuming much of the power consumed is for cooling purposes.

Do server farms worldwide routinely just vent extracted heat into the open air? I would have thought such an operation, based in an industrial park, would find a ready market for supplying heat to other buildings.

I'm talking globally and not inviting sneering Irish examples. But if you must...:)

ElBarco

Googles response (for balance):

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html

Looks like the Times were trying to spin things a little bit

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

Do server farms worldwide routinely just vent extracted heat into the open air? I would have thought such an operation, based in an industrial park, would find a ready market for supplying heat to other buildings.

I'm talking globally and not inviting sneering Irish examples. But if you must...:)

Of course. But how many buildings have heat exchangers in IRL? It is as if there was a virtual heat exchangers (Banning Order) (Prevention of Abuse) (and malicious avoidance of revenue) SI 999 of 1935 (in favour of An Bord Soláthair an Leictreachais, An Bord Gais and the oil companies). Combined with the real ban on green energy producers in 2009. And the same banning order has unfortunately been imposed in many states across the EU, and beyond. Vested interests dominate over green. Period.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

I'm assuming much of the power consumed is for cooling purposes.

Do server farms worldwide routinely just vent extracted heat into the open air? I would have thought such an operation, based in an industrial park, would find a ready market for supplying heat to other buildings.

I'm talking globally and not inviting sneering Irish examples. But if you must...:)

PS: Nice sidetrack Bendi. The real issue is where does the energy come from? Dirty, running out of steam, gas, oil and coal or renewable?

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

PS: Nice sidetrack Bendi. The real issue is where does the energy come from? Dirty, running out of steam, gas, oil and coal or renewable?

I wouldn't call it a sidetrack. I'd consider it a parallel one. Given that we won't be 100% renewable overnight, or for quite a while for that matter, it's important to get the most useful work we can out of any energy we have available.

A further development of my question. Do many data centres use CHP? The heat from the power plant could be used to provide absorption chilling to provide the necessary cooling while the electricity from the same plant could power the servers. Any surplus heat could be distributed as I previously suggested, or surplus electricity fed into the grid. I'm liking this idea a lot. If it makes you feel better the CHP plant can be a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Once it becomes economical.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a sidetrack. I'd consider it a parallel one. Given that we won't be 100% renewable overnight, or for quite a while for that matter, it's important to get the most useful work we can out of any energy we have available.

A further development of my question. Do many data centres use CHP? The heat from the power plant could be used to provide absorption chilling to provide the necessary cooling while the electricity from the same plant could power the servers. Any surplus heat could be distributed as I previously suggested, or surplus electricity fed into the grid. I'm liking this idea a lot. If it makes you feel better the CHP plant can be a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Once it becomes economical.

So it is settled then..... we move google.com to Ballymun (or Merrion Village) alongside an incinerator CHP plant. An all-in-one job. If we go the Merrion Village route, there might be a bit of noise from Shrewsbury / Ailesbury Road lot - however I suspect if we offer them free heat and electricity in this world of Russian gas supply uncertainty, after the next cold patch in the D4 area they will be lining up to say "yes please". Every little bit helps if you have a €50 million mortgage....

Tails142

This whole news item was all just a load of rubbish anyway, it was just the Times stirring up controversy out of nothing.

The professor who carried out the research never mentions google in it and says that it is based on average computer use. Check out the link below.

http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzcyMzgsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

Harvard Physicist Sets Record Straight About Google

Here’s a weird one...the Harvard physicist that was quoted in an article we posted yesterday (here) says that he never mentioned Google by name and that his work had nothing to do with Google. So, what this is saying is that the research data is correct (the 20mg of CO2 number) but the physicist was talking about internet use in general, not Google. Ummm, okay. While the eggheads argue over who is killing the planet, feel free to spend your 20 milligrams of CO2 per second visiting [H]ard|OCP. wink

One problem: the study's author, Harvard University physicist Alex Wissner-Gross, says he never mentions Google in the study. "For some reason, in their story on the study, the Times had an ax to grind with Google," Wissner-Gross told TechNewsWorld. "Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes on average about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second to visit a Web site."

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/65794.html

BendiBus

Tails142 wrote: »

This whole news item was all just a load of rubbish anyway, it was just the Times stirring up controversy out of nothing.

That the Google thing is nonsense doesn't surprise me.

But has anyone contested the assertion that IT is worse than aviation for CO2?

That was imo the most interesting part of the article.

Húrin

BendiBus wrote: »

Justifying it doesn't make it go away. The environment doesn't care if the CO2 is coming from a school or a private jet.

But if I.T. does benefit more people, then the price of the carbon dioxide emitted can be more easily shared by many than by few people.

robtri

Had a look around, couple of websites below, it sort of looks like the IT sector is responsible for just as much Co2 as the airline industry.....

I can't get any numbers on IT users worldwide, so can anyone help out on that one, but airline passengers looks around 4.75billion passengers...

interesting alright, looks like IT is just as responsible as airlines, benfits propably a bit more people, and yet no is suggesting turning of or limiting IT infrastructure, but yet some people are pushing for airports to be limited...



http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1623958/co2_emissions_from_it_sector_a_growing_concern/index.html?source=r_technology

and

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/airline-emissions-far-higher-than-previous-estimates-821598.html

and

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54_666_2__

quentingargan

I have heard some time ago that server farms produce 2% of the worlds CO2, but that emissions from aircraft are a far greater cause of warming because of the altitude at which they are emitted, along with other factors including vapour. There are different estimates on the effect of this, but somewhere between twice and three times the greenhouse effect is caused.

In fairness to Google and Silicon Valley folks in general, many of them are the largest venture capital investors in renewables as well. Nanosolar for example, producing thin film solar PV at a price which aims to achieve grid parity is largely backed by Google. I don't see Michael O'Leary throwing much of his resources in that direction.

lostinsuperfunk

Gigablast claims to use less energy than Google:

http://www.gigablast.com/green.html

The search engine isn't bad at all once you get used to it, but it's impossible to substantiate any of their claims on energy efficiency.

Húrin

It is also the case that there are renewable sources of the electricity that powers the IT sector, while there is no sustainable technology to power the expansion of aviation. That is why aviation needs to be restricted.

Capt'n Midnight

TBH most of the noise over google has only appeared since they launched their own CO2 reduction plans

http://www.google.com/corporate/green/
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#
http://www.google.org/egs/

can't find the link to the google offshore wind powered data centres but they were to be fully powered by local wind

mumhaabu

I wonder what is the carbon footprint of boards.ie? Now mods get your calculators out and check all your users and amount of time they are on plus the server loads etc and give us the Co2 footprint effect of boards.ie :cool:

barnicles

Think about it, if you spend a long time trying to find a webpage instead of Googling, how much more energy will you waste?

jackofalltrades

H&#250 wrote: »

It is also the case that there are renewable sources of the electricity that powers the IT sector, while there is no sustainable technology to power the expansion of aviation. That is why aviation needs to be restricted.

Trials have already been conducted into the use of biofuels to power commercial aircraft, so there is a sustainable technology that can power the expansion of aviation.

In fairness to aviation industry they've been breaking their backs to reduce their fuel usage and consequently their CO2 emissions ever since the airplane was invented. The IT industry has only cottoned on to the Green movement in recent years.

quentingargan wrote:

In fairness to Google and Silicon Valley folks in general, many of them are the largest venture capital investors in renewables as well. Nanosolar for example, producing thin film solar PV at a price which aims to achieve grid parity is largely backed by Google. I don't see Michael O'Leary throwing much of his resources in that direction.

Don't the founders of Google own a Boeing 767, two private jets and an ex-military fighter jet.

Capt'n Midnight

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Trials have already been conducted into the use of biofuels to power commercial aircraft, so there is a sustainable technology that can power the expansion of aviation.

In fairness to aviation industry they've been breaking their backs to reduce their fuel usage and consequently their CO2 emissions ever since the airplane was invented. The IT industry has only cottoned on to the Green movement in recent years.

Don't the founders of Google own a Boeing 767, two private jets and an ex-military fighter jet.

biofuels in aircraft LOL when I saw that

jet engines will burn hydrocarbons from natural gas to paraffin , once you can pump it and it burns , check out what the Abrams A1 can tolerate
they also run on hydrogen and IIRC high energy boron compounds have been looked at too

the first cars ran on alcohol so jets are very late in the game

if you could figure out a way to store hydrogen we could switch jets to it easily , USAF did a survey on it and spend a billion dollars or so on the project , 1960's dollars and it's an ideal fuel if you can figure out how to store it , you could use windmills to generate the hydrogen too


OR we could invest in more TGV's

quentingargan

The airline industry isn't really considering hydrogen. Boeing did produce an experimental plane running partly on a fuel cell, but have abandoned that project. Memories of the Hindenberg perhaps. But they have looked at biofuel.

Virgin has experimented with an oil made from coconuts. According to New Scientist, "The problem with so-called first-generation biofuels...remains the amount of feedstock and land required. During Virgin's test flight from London to Amsterdam, the Boeing 747 consumed 22 tonnes of fuel, of which only 5 per cent was neat biofuel. Producing even that much required the equivalent of 150,000 coconuts.....had this single flight been run entirely on biofuel, it would have consumed 3 million coconuts....

Richard Branson suggested at the launch of his airline's test flight, would be to produce fuel from the nuts of Jatropha curcas. This hardy bush grows in the tropics on relatively poor land with little water or fertiliser, so it needn't displace food production. However, the amount of land required to fuel the world's jet planes would still be prodigious...
Aviation currently consumes around 5 million barrels of jet fuel per day, or 238 million tonnes per year. On current Jatropha yields - 1.7 tonnes of oil per hectare - replacing that would take 1.4 million square kilometres, well over twice the size of France. "

Assuming that peak oil is a reality (which I believe it to be), there would seem little point in building another runway at either Dublin or Heathrow. Servers can get their power from solar, wind and other sources, but aviation's growth will be limited by fuel supplies.

That doesn't mean we won't fly or have holidays, but perhaps we can go less often and stay a bit longer. No more popping off to Rome for the weekend. By the time you've been herded through security, it'll be a change you welcome.:)

Capt'n Midnight

quentingargan wrote:

well over twice the size of France. "

Assuming that peak oil is a reality (which I believe it to be), there would seem little point in building another runway at either Dublin or Heathrow. Servers can get their power from solar, wind and other sources, but aviation's growth will be limited by fuel supplies.

Electricity and water gives you Hydrogen
you can also add carbon dioxide and yet more energy to give you methane and methanol

jackofalltrades

capt'n midnight wrote:

biofuels in aircraft LOL when I saw that

jet engines will burn hydrocarbons from natural gas to paraffin , once you can pump it and it burns , check out what the Abrams A1 can tolerate
they also run on hydrogen and IIRC high energy boron compounds have been looked at too

the first cars ran on alcohol so jets are very late in the game

if you could figure out a way to store hydrogen we could switch jets to it easily , USAF did a survey on it and spend a billion dollars or so on the project , 1960's dollars and it's an ideal fuel if you can figure out how to store it , you could use windmills to generate the hydrogen too


OR we could invest in more TGV's

Yes I know that gas turbines aren't fussy when it comes to what you feed them, I was just pointing out that you can use a "green" fuel in them.

Capt'n Midnight

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes I know that gas turbines aren't fussy when it comes to what you feed them, I was just pointing out that you can use a "green" fuel in them.

Yeah since they aren't fussy about what you feed them, the bio fuel is not a technical problem, just PR.

They've tried coal dust in jet engines too , but problems of residue on the blades.
Coal dust has also been tried in diesel engines but again residue is a problem.

They might need more herbicides though and the energy density is lower.

However, I am against palm oil from places like Indonesia where destruction of forests and bogs means that the CO2 released will take until the twenty third century to be break even.

Húrin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Trials have already been conducted into the use of biofuels to power commercial aircraft, so there is a sustainable technology that can power the expansion of aviation.

Biofuels are compromised by the lack of sustainable sources (i.e that won't cause deforestation or competition with agriculture). Also, they need a fuel that will not become gelatinous or solid when the temperatures go below -30 celsius as they do high in the air.

In fairness to aviation industry they've been breaking their backs to reduce their fuel usage and consequently their CO2 emissions ever since the airplane was invented. The IT industry has only cottoned on to the Green movement in recent years.

Total nonsense; the aviation has broken its back to convince governments that it "needs" to grow and damn the climate. Heathrow in London is the best example of this.

If the aircraft manufacturers cared so much, they would not have invented the A380. Any increase in engine efficiency is more than offset by the industry's growth.

quentingargan

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Electricity and water gives you Hydrogen

The round-trip efficiency of turning electricity into hydrogen and getting that energy back again is about 30% as far as I know. That would want to improve quite a bit before this would be a viable option.

We are deluding ourselves that growth in aviation can continue indefinitely. If it ain't sustainable, there's no future in it.:rolleyes:

jackofalltrades

H&#250 wrote: »

Biofuels are compromised by the lack of sustainable sources (i.e that won't cause deforestation or competition with agriculture). Also, they need a fuel that will not become gelatinous or solid when the temperatures go below -30 celsius as they do high in the air.

Algae based fuels don't compete with agriculture or fresh water resources.
Jetropha can be grow on land that is being left fallow without degrading the soil quality.

Continential Airlines recently completed a trial flight using 50%(Jetropha/Algae mix) and 50% JetA in one engine. The fuel met or exceeded the standards that are set for JetA including having a lower gel point.

H&#250 wrote: »

If the aircraft manufacturers cared so much, they would not have invented the A380.

The A380 was built to compete against the 747. It can carry the same cargo using less fuel, how is that a bad thing?

quentingargan

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Jetropha can be grow on land that is being left fallow without degrading the soil quality.

Continential Airlines recently completed a trial flight using 50%(Jetropha/Algae mix) and 50% JetA in one engine. The fuel met or exceeded the standards that are set for JetA including having a lower gel point.

This is all true. The problem is that if Jetropha was to be used as the sole fuel for all aviation it would require 1.4 million square kilometers of land. By comparison it is estmiated that using solar thermal to produce electricity would require just 300,000 Sq Km of land (in the Sahara and similar areas) to produce the worlds total energy needs (eh...., including Google to get back to the original subject).

There are a few technologies that totally depend on reserves of oil for them to be so affordable, and popping down to a holiday home in Turkey for the weekend is one of them. Google searching isn't. Aviation may never cease, but it will become less affordable.

jackofalltrades

quentingargan wrote:

This is all true. The problem is that if Jetropha was to be used as the sole fuel for all aviation it would require 1.4 million square kilometers of land. By comparison it is estmiated that using solar thermal to produce electricity would require just 300,000 Sq Km of land (in the Sahara and similar areas) to produce the worlds total energy needs (eh...., including Google to get back to the original subject).

There are a few technologies that totally depend on reserves of oil for them to be so affordable, and popping down to a holiday home in Turkey for the weekend is one of them. Google searching isn't. Aviation may never cease, but it will become less affordable.

I doubt any fuel that has to be grown on land will ever become commercially viable as an aviation fuel. The best bet is an algae based fuel grown in bioreactors.

Google's Data centres whilst not as dependant on aviation for cheap fuel are still very dependant on fossils fuel for a reliable source of power. Renewables are still a long way away from being able to power their data centres on their own.

BendiBus

quentingargan wrote: »

By comparison it is estmiated that using solar thermal to produce electricity would require just 300,000 Sq Km of land (in the Sahara and similar areas) to produce the worlds total energy needs (eh...., including Google to get back to the original subject).

Which would mean that aviation could carry on using fossil fuel and although it's contribution might now be 90% of carbon emissions, it wouldn't matter as total emissions would be so low.

Everybody wins.

Put another way, those demanding reductions in emissions should be concentrating on those who actually can use alternative, clean fuels. e.g. the IT industry!

air

Exactly, we are squandering scarce fossil fuel resources in applications where there are lots of viable alternatives. Until something with comparable energy to weight ratio & convenience emerges to replace fossil derived jet fuel we should try & spare fossil fuels for aviation etc.

Capt'n Midnight

jackofalltrades wrote:

In fairness to aviation industry they've been breaking their backs to reduce their fuel usage and consequently their CO2 emissions ever since the airplane was invented. The IT industry has only cottoned on to the Green movement in recent years.

Don't the founders of Google own a Boeing 767, two private jets and an ex-military fighter jet.

So the founders of google have less jets than John Travolta ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Star

Energy Star is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products. It was first created as a United States government program in 1992,

There was no direct payback to IT of doing this back in 1992

Airlines were interested in reducing CO2 only because that's a side effect of being more fuel efficient. Fuel can be up to half the takeoff weight of a long haul jet. For cargo aircraft a rough rule of thumb for maxium takeoff weight is 1/3 air frame 1/3 maximum payload 1/3 max fuel. A heavily armed and armoured C130 at max payload has a range of only 70 miles !

Back in 1957 (iirc) the Boeing 707 was launched , it was based on earlier bombers and earlier German research. The 727, 737 and 757 still use the same fuselage sections the overall shape is very similar even though blended wing / lifting body passenger aircraft existed back in the 1920's

Fuel economy has been achieved by computer control, weather forcasting the jet stream, reducing the air turnover since the smoking ban ( gave about 1% but more sick passengers ) , winglets , lighter planes , and mostly by more efficient engines. All are bolt on solutions that could be retro fitted to older planes.

While the soinc cruiser Boing have hyped for the last 20 odd years is faster and probably more fuel efficient , the speed increase is only about the same as buying better slots. The fuel economy , no idea since no one in the airline industry seems that interested in it.

The aviation industry seems like the car industry , until someone starts selling diesel hybrids it's mostly lip service and continuous tweaking rather than real stepwise improvement.

BendiBus

One of the best ways to reduce aviation emissions has nothing to do with aircraft and all to do with air traffic control.

Within Europe at least, aircraft have to follow some daft routes to get from A to B instead of flying direct. The main reason being nonsensical boundaries between national ATC services.

With modern aircraft & ATC systems, and some genuine European-ness from our political leaders (I continue to believe hope will triumph over expectation ) a pan-European ATC system would deliver shorter flights, saving time, money, fuel, CO2 emissions and generally make life a little better.

Like I say, all it takes is for European politicians to stop being parochial for a minute.

Capt'n Midnight

BendiBus wrote:

aircraft have to follow some daft routes to get from A to B instead of flying direct.

planes from Dublin flying to London go via Liverpool instead of Wales

RAF training is the excuse used but the have mountains in scotland / NI too with less traffic