Ummm...

Where do coal burning power plants place in comparison?

thats what they mean. the servers are using coal power, or natural gas, or whatever.

go nuclear. the Clinton's can fuck themselves

~CR

I just want to know where the carbon emissions come from? Are they counting the emissions from the energy it takes to power the servers, or did they make up some other mystery source of carbon dioxide emissions?
If so, this is a really disingenuous report because we already know about the pollution problem from the power generation industry, and people are already working on things like alternative energy sources and carbon sequestration to help alleviate this. Unfortunately, you can't capture carbon emissions from an SUV, but whatever makes the SUV crowd feel better about themselves.

i think servers are worse. i have a project that just bought 2 servers that use as much power every day as 6 houses do for an entire year.

what are they storing? comical pictures of cats.

Whoa, I never knew servers were such amp-sucking bastards.

You bastards, you should be ashamed

I call Bull Sh*t. Look at Google, they're, um, large and are starting to use solar energy to run their data farms.

So, to save the planet we have to stop looking at porn?

I'm not sure it's worth it.

You can't blame a computer server for polluting emissions...

Power plants belching metric tons of damaging pollutants are the problem. Maybe we focus blame where blame belongs... on the power industry.

Don't be distracted by junk like this.

I left out a "should" somewhere.

@DustyButt:
of course you can. i mean, the world was fine before we started installing all these servers. it's not like they are necessary for living.

Also power plants only produce as much electricity as is needed, as electricity is difficult to store, so additional power requirements due to servers is definitely to blame, among other needs.

Now, the question becomes is powering servers of value to us in relation to environmental impact, and the answer is probably YES. Just like driving SUVs is of value to some people.

The average server is equivalent to a "15mpg SUV" in its carbon emissions, the report claims.

Unless I'm missing something, servers don't emit singificant levels of carbon dioxide. The A/C units cooling the air around them don't, either. It's the power generating facilities that create the energy that runs these devices that do.

Writing it that way is misleading, even though I doubt it was intentional. I can already see people starting suspiciously at their desktops, slowly reaching for a rag to cover their mouths...

From the report: Nearly 40% of servers are underutilised by more than 50%.

Servers need available overhead to meet times of high demand.

@bobcostas: yeah f**k the clintons. AND while you are at it, also the environment, the wellbeing of our future generations, AKA our kids, and the market of future technologies. Lets connect our most important way of storing, archiving, accessing, processing and distributing information to the most dangerous and expensive way to produce energy.

Just because those damn greeny treehuggers want, lets do the opposite. Not research and create a more independent and reliable way to power our way of life, one way that might be cheaper and cleaner.

Im with you Bob, you made a very compelling and reasonable argument in few words.

@Drewheyman:
Big oil and the power industry have been dragging their collective feet when it comes to eliminating fossil fuel depencancy.

If we used clean energy sources this would be moot. What you're saying is the equivalent of the power industry saying, "Look what you made me do"

@drewheyman: I Can Haz Carbun Emishunz?

Nuclear is the only solution that will actually work. Look up "breeder reactor" on wikipedia.

Cars will use fuel cells, only remaining question is how the fcuk do you store hydrogen with the density to make it all worthwhile...

Ignoring the fact that we need to eliminate coal plants anyway .. Ideally we virtualize all of our servers so they run as efficiently as possible. There is a whole lot of waste in the computing industry having separate boxes for each item, and if we place them all in VM Ware servers, that will do a lot to correct this issue.

Misleading article with nonsense info.
How about "Servers good for Climat" ... thanks to servers many meetings can be held online without the need of people flying or driving to a meeting point... servers also make online shopping possible.. so people don't need to drive to 5 separate shops before they fin the best deal and delivery is done directly from the warehouse, instead of warehouse>shop>buyer...servers also store huge amount of documents that otherwise would have been printed on paper and stored in boxes in special rooms... thus saving paper, ink, transport...."

Our works server was so old it may well have been coal-fired on its' own.

Yeah, I call bullshit as well. I'd also like to know what the difference in CO2 emissions is for a power plant running at 50% capacity and one running flat out. E.g, if this power isn't being used, does the plant's emmissions actually go down?

I think along the same lines as vegetarianism. If I, and loads of my friends were to suddenly give up steak, cows would still get killed, they just wouldn't be eaten. They'd go into landfill, until the world realises that it needs less meat.

If all the world stopped using less power hungry servers, would the power grid really run at reduced capacity?

Indeed, is it more or less CO2-efficient to have, say, 5 power plants running at 95% capacity, or 10 plants running at 42.5%? Surely they generate some CO2 just by idling?

Sorry, I've run out of knowledge.

@TrackpediaCow: Nuclear is a fine solution, unless something goes wrong.

@DustyButt:
So do you think all the engineers who work for electric companies stroke their evil moustaches while plotting to destroy the world?

Fossil is the best we've got right now; if it weren't, then some engineer would have designed something better and would be sleeping on a huge pile of beautiful women and money.

Stop being crazy.

@sos10:

of course it would. just like if you run your car at full bore, it's fuel will run out more quickly than if you take it slow. You can also turn off power generators that aren't being used, which results in less power used. Again, electricity can't be stored very efficiently, so it's generated as it is needed.

So... Servers running on electricity is bad, but.... cars running on electricity is good?

Somebody wants to have cake & eat it too!

@drewheyman:

Hungry for electricity, that is.

I don't even know where to begin my rant on this, it is so f-ing stupid of a comparison.

For starters, there isn't really a substitute for a server. If you want to serve data, crunch numbers or process transactions, you will need something classified as a server. Of course, there are thousands of variants of "server" and given that every Apple computer sold ships with Apache installed, you could argue they are all "servers."

On the flipside, about 90% of SUV's could be replaced with another class of vehicle - they are purely ornamental and not functional for the majority of SUV drivers. Many could easily achieve the same results with a Smart ForTwo.

Replacing a mainframe with a significantly smaller and less power-hungry MacMini is probably not going to cut the mustard.

Pfft. I'm in the Pacific Northwest, my servers run on ground-up salmon.

Oh great, so Al Gore is not only allowed to fly around in private jets while erstwhile advocating "Green living", but he invents the internet which causes even MORE pollution.

What a rube.

@drewheyman:

Do you really think engineers call the shots and control company direction at PowerIndustryBigOil INC.?

"Carbon footprint" is the biggest hoax and load of bullshit imaginable.

These Communists want to send the world back to the 15th century. They can go fuck themselves.

@TPSreports: Heh, heh, heh. A bit harsh, but I like the way you're thinking there.

Yeah, capitalism is the root of all evil, and servers are the life blood of capitalism. They're an abvious target.

I'm sure Gizmodo will now shut down its servers, dust off a hand-cranked printing press using recycled paper and their own blood for ink, then send us updates via free-range pigeons. It's the only logical thing to do.

Oh, and the pigeons will get free healthcare...

Rethink. Bytes are the life blood. Servers are more like the heart.

.

.

Or maybe the spleen...

Im switching off the computer and go back to my cave.

Best wishes:

Groto.
Gallery 5,
1 Cave Hill
Greenland.

@elwood:
As an aside: Carbon sequestration is not just an open-and-shut case. Aside from costing a horrible amount to implement, it saps on average an extra ~25% of the power plant's energy, so that on the whole, ~33% more coal needs to be burned to produce as much energy. The entire power industry is already riding on the razor edge of profit. Also, solar energy, on the whole, costs about twice or more as much over the lifetime of an installation. With the aforementioned profit margins of the power industry as a whole, I think we're all going to have to get used to paying a LOT more for energy. But it's worth it if we're to be good stewards of our resources. Though the question of carbon sequestration, then, becomes a tougher one.

Also, the entirety of the United States could be powered by wind if we covered the entire state of South Dakota with wind farms. But think of the environmental havoc it would cause. Plus, we'd still need some more "reliable" alternative, because without a terrible amount of batteries (read: not good for the environment) the system will fail when there's not enough wind.

As I've ranted before, I'd like one of the US Presidential candidates to propose a realistic moon-shot-scale initiative to make the US energy independent.

What's the big deal. It's not that hard to prevent coal power plants from emitting CO2. Expensive yes, but not impossible. Just take the CO2 and pump it underground.
In fact, superheat the CO2, and pump it into oil shales for crude oil extraction (for non-combustible use such as plastics).

@josejuan05: From what I understand (quoted from the Department of Energy), "...a solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules..."

This is with existing technology.

This total area requirement could be divided among US states per state and would take up less land than some military bases.

Didn't some oil companies report record profit years back to back to back? They should be chipping in to solve this dilema because their product is f***ing up the planet.

I'm not even a treehugger and I see a problem in the system.

@DustyButt:
yes, I do. You probably want an example.

Rex W. Tillerson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer EXXON MOBILE

A native of Wichita Falls, Texas, Mr. Tillerson earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin before joining Exxon Company, U.S.A. in 1975 as a Production Engineer.

David J. O'Reilly Chairman and Chief Executive Officer CHEVRON

David J. O'Reilly is chairman and chief executive officer of Chevron Corporation.
A native of Dublin, Ireland, O'Reilly earned his bachelor's degree in chemical engineering in 1968 from University College, Dublin, from which he also received an honorary doctor of science degree in June 2002.

@drewheyman: And do you think they're paid to be engineers or CEOs?

@Rust-MyEnemy:
It seems like you ran out of knowledge before you began typing. The article was related to the CO2 generated by servers. However many generators running at whatever capacity is an orthogonal issue.

But yes, if the world were to use fewer energy hungry servers, then the power grid would continue to run. The reduced demand would be met by shutting down some generation.

Your grasp of cause vs. effect is so loose and your cow metaphor is so tenuous, that it only obfuscates the issue further. However, if more people were to become vegies--that would be met with fewer resource hungry cows bred. Farmers wouldn't simply produce the same amount of cows and kill the unused ones.

@hakubak: Not going to happen, in order to do that a candidate has to mandate substantial change in power and transportation. That is on par with political suicide thanks to wingnuts, treehuggers and lobbies.

At best we can expect some half-assed, incremental, and pointlessly politically balanced maneuver that tries to make everyone happy but does nothing it was initially intended to do.

Just look at healthcare to see how well that system has been improved by decades of politically inept half-assery and a general lack of testicular fortitude.

First, servers are getting more efficient. They hold more data with less power every day. This will only accelerate in the future. Look at the Wester Digital Green 1 tb HD, that cuts down on energy consumption by a almost 1/2. However, there has clearly not been wide scale adoption of this new technology.

The problem is that people want their cake and want to eat it as well. There are plenty of methods of cutting costs and such, they will just cost more. And as Americans typically are, when it costs more, then its just not worth it or the fed gov't should cover the cost.

You can have more energy efficient servers, tell your CCard company, bank, local DMV, airlines, FAA, ANYONE what stores any data about you or what you own, that you would like to pay more next month and going forward, because you want more energy efficient servers.

Its just like the swarm of people who built their latest McMansion with cathedral ceilings, getting their first heating bill and then getting mad that energy prices are too high and that the gov't should do something about it. Please, didn't do well on physics I see, that whole heat rising thing just dawned on you now...

Now, as for the person that sarcastically comments that Nuclear is fine until something goes wrong... isn't that what has happened with our other power source? Just that nuclear happens to go wrong quickly doesn't make the "wrong" any worse then the massive damage that coal, oil and gas fired power plants have done over the last 50-80 years to the air, the land, sea, vegetation and health of millions. If we had pulled our head out of our arses and developed the technology instead of running in fear, we might been in a better place.

@Eltonito

To continue...another point everyone (including the "scientists" behind this study) seems to be missing is utility (Ha, pun!). An SUV carries between 1 and let's say 7 people a certain distance for that 15mpg. The average server handles thousands (if not millions) of queries per day. Anyone care to comment on the throughput of a server at their job?

How much of that served data is reducing the carbon footprint of nations by reducing brick-and-mortar impact and travel costs?

@drewheyman: They're paid to bring in the solutions for profit and not solving the developing pollution crisis. Are you actually defending oil companies? The same companies the raise oil prices "...to compensate for shortages..." yet they consistantly report their highest profit margin in history????

WTF! Put down the Kool-Aid, man!

@yetis: When you say "Its just like the swarm of people who built their latest McMansion with cathedral ceilings, getting their first heating bill and then getting mad that energy prices are too high and that the gov't should do something about it. Please, didn't do well on physics I see, that whole heat rising thing just dawned on you now..."

were you refering to Al Gore or John Edwards?

Oh, and if we didn't have all these servers, wouldn't we need a lot of paper to manage all the information they process? And paper comes from... anyone? Anyone?

@DustyButt:
they don't report the highest profit margins in history. their profit margins are less than 10%. that's not high. that's low.

also, that 100 sq miles is 100x 100 miles, ie a solar area larger than the state of massachusetts.

@drewheyman:
Quoting the Department of Energy again...

"...A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites-such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops-could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"-the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities-could supply 90% of America's current electricity."

@drewheyman: This if from a 2005 article from MSNBC:

"...By just about any measure, the past three years have produced one of the biggest cash gushers in the oil industry's history. Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion...."

MoneyCNN:
"...Exxon Mobil Corp. Thursday reported the biggest annual profit on record for a U.S. corporation - earning more than $75,000 every minute of 2006 on the back of record oil prices.

The world's biggest publicly traded company by revenue posted net earnings of $39.5 billion on revenue of $377.6 billion last year, topping its previous profit record of $36.1 billion in 2005, which at the time was the largest for any U.S. company.

Not adjusted for inflation, oil prices hit a record high of $77.03 a barrel last July, pushing gasoline prices above $3 a gallon nationwide."

Yeah... That 10% is a friggin whopper.

@josejuan05: "Also, solar energy, on the whole, costs about twice or more as much over the lifetime of an installation. "

Horseshit. Um, I mean you say you are making a a broad and somewhat outdated generalization my friend.

Here in the cloudy, rainy Northwest, people are spending $15,000 - $30,000 for roof and south-wall mounted solar panels that not only provide the energy needed to power the home on (most) days, but also put enough power back to the grid (on sunny days) that their electric meters run rapidly backwards and the public utility company writes them a check at the end of the month.

Big investment up front, pays for itself after 10 - 20 years depending on the specifics. This means your total energy costs for, say, 15 years of home ownership is zero.

Much cheaper than coal. Think of the benefits in Arizona, Kansas or even Ohio.

I think that servers should be directly powered by coal, so when global warming gets worse we can point to our steam-punk robot overlords.

@drewheyman: Total land area of Massachusetts, 10,555 mi^2. Had you said an area larger than the American Samoa, you would have been more accurate.

And besides, 100 square miles is 10x10. Not 100x100.

@TPSreports: Yes, everything's a hoax when it doesn't benefit our comfort level. We're all human, we all make mistakes, we know there are better ways of doing things through sheer ingenuity. Let's not politicise something which affects us all. Even if it doesn't exist and everyone is on crack, I'd rather side on "what if" and make changes that's actually cheaper and more efficient than maintain Commodore 64 -technology and do an "oops" later... No blame - let's just do things better.
Servers do suck power but I do have to agree that they also eliminate paper and ink and other wastes - that's efficient use of something wasteful - it's not an SUV carrying just one person from work and home every day. Overall it's probably more sustainable than anything else. Since video downloads will also be on there, that'll reduce CD and DVD manufacturing emissions.
What we can work on from the computer standpoint is better cooling, solid state technology, etc... It can be reduced - just be creative.