Google have been in the spotlight of an investigation regarding energy costs, stating that Google releases roughly as much carbon dioxide into the ozone in two Google searches, as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea. This all sounds like very little, but when you add it all up, including more than 200 million searches a day, that asks the question, how much does ‘googling' hurt the environment?The concern is not Google polluting the environment, but the increasing demand for energy that Google craves to operate its massive data centers, the energy needs to be created somewhere. For every second we stay connected to the internet, we produce 0.02g of carbon emissions, says Alex Wissner, a US physicist.
Google has since replied to the article, mentioning that for Google to be as fast and reliable as it is, so the need for mass data centers is required to beat competitors on the internet. To help break the numbers down, a typical Google search will last 0.2 seconds, the query is sent to and processed by the servers with just a few thousandths of a second. Google claims its servers only use 0.0003 (1 kJ) kWh per search, while the average adult needs 8000 kJ a day of energy from food.
One Google search in terms of greenhouse gases (CO2), releases roughly 0.2 grams into the ozone, while the standard EU for tailpipe emissions allows up to 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer. The average car doesn't reach these levels, giving off roughly 0.6 grams per kilometer driven produces as much greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches.
In 2008, Google invested $45 million in breakthrough clean energy technologies, and in 2007, co-founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative, a group that is dedicated to cutting computer energy costs in half by 2010, reducing CO2 emissions by 54 million tons per year.
Not really, when you consider "boiling a kettle for a cup of tea" releases no carbon dioxide. Water to gas form does not convert to carbon dioxide.
Perhaps they meant "the fuel burn off to boil a kettle of water". But they didn't say that - they implied water boiling turns to carbon dioxide.
Perhaps they meant "the fuel burn off to boil a kettle of water". But they didn't say that - they implied water boiling turns to carbon dioxide.
you are taking it to literally... i'm pretty sure they meant from the energy used to boil that kettle. who knows where that energy came from, perhaps a coal burning power plant?
Perhaps they meant "the fuel burn off to boil a kettle of water". But they didn't say that - they implied water boiling turns to carbon dioxide.
you are taking it to literally... i'm pretty sure they meant from the energy used to boil that kettle. who knows where that energy came from, perhaps a coal burning power plant?
Or an hydro-electric power plant ... oh wait ... damn
Perhaps they meant "the fuel burn off to boil a kettle of water". But they didn't say that - they implied water boiling turns to carbon dioxide.
You're correct.
All this scare-mongering really winds me up.
Carbon foot print this, carbon footprint that, whilst the populations get larger and more and more rainforest's are depleted of course we will have a surplus of carbon dioxide gas.
Nature is a good balance, I wonder if n00bs blamed (sarcasm) google when the ice age was upon us.
If we cut down on farting and planted more trees, then hey everything will be alright!
Perhaps they meant "the fuel burn off to boil a kettle of water". But they didn't say that - they implied water boiling turns to carbon dioxide.
You're correct.
All this scare-mongering really winds me up.
Carbon foot print this, carbon footprint that, whilst the populations get larger and more and more rainforest's are depleted of course we will have a surplus of carbon dioxide gas.
Nature is a good balance, I wonder if n00bs blamed (sarcasm) google when the ice age was upon us.
If we cut down on farting and planted more trees, then hey everything will be alright!
They didn't imply that at all:
"Google releases roughly as much carbon dioxide into the ozone in two Google searches, as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea"
If you assume they're talking about the actual water boiling releasing CO2 in that sentence you must also infer that Google is directly releasing CO2 directly from their servers as exhaust, which is obviously not the case.
All this scare-mongering really winds me up.
Carbon foot print this, carbon footprint that, whilst the populations get larger and more and more rainforest's are depleted of course we will have a surplus of carbon dioxide gas.
Nature is a good balance, I wonder if n00bs blamed (sarcasm) google when the ice age was upon us.
If we cut down on farting and planted more trees, then hey everything will be alright!
Ah, conspiracy theorists are hilarious... lots of complaining about everyone supposedly lying, yet no actual argument or logic.
The problem does not lie at Google, but how we gain such electricity. If it's about releasing stored and limited energy with CO2 as a byproduct (fossil fuels), it's worse than if using renewable and cleaner sources. That's the issue we should attack here. Google's commitment to funding such alternatives for energy is at least good; that's pretty much the only direction we can go. Sure, we can ask Google to serve users with less requests per day, and to a limited extent optimize the CPU usage, but that's not a real viable solution. Google has probably already optimized the queries and resource usage quite a bit, because it lies in their own interests to reduce the CPU and energy cost, as that equates to money in the end for Google.
Because Google is a big money making company and any company making lots of money becomes a target for this sort of BS. [sarcasm]Those evil companies. They have to be stopped so they can't employ people anymore.[/sarcasm]
Oh how terrible. The world isn't nice and simple, I'm sorry.
Articles shouldn't be simplified just because they include real data.
Is big business polluting the globe?
And of course, the answer to that question is.. Yes. Why single Google out when it's business and industry as a WHOLE which is doing the polluting. The measly carbon emissions from Google aren't even noticeable compared to SOME corporations.
Mind you, the total sum of carbon emissions from mankind as a whole can barely be measured compared to amount emitted from natural sources; well, except maybe what comes out of politicians yaps... :p
I think the idea was to put the usage in more familiar terms. (However, that seems to have backfired as the usage looks to have been incredibly overestimated).
I'm a google fan boy though, and I just think the investigations is BS. Do they get on Microsofts butt about what they produce in the o-zone? what about Apple's???
And at least Google has put the effort into cutting carbon emissions.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/pow...gle-search.html
If you're oh so concerned about the environment, do it the ultimate favor and go live in the woods.
I'll do some Google searches while boiling me some water for tea just so I can **** the earth double hard. Carbon footprint, hell yeah!
If you're oh so concerned about the environment, do it the ultimate favor and go live in the woods.
I'll do some Google searches while boiling me some water for tea just so I can **** the earth double hard. Carbon footprint, hell yeah!
Important quotes from the sources:
"according to a Harvard University academic [Dr Wissner-Gross]", "A recent study by American research firm Gartner suggested that IT now causes two percent of global emissions."
Edit: unfortunately it seems that journalists exaggerated and misrepresented the claims. However, that doesn't excuse being an ass about the environment. You might not care, but I assure you, others do.
Last edited by Kirkburn on 13 Jan 2009 - 12:02
Or maybe I was wrong, and he's actually defending Google because boiling water doesn't emit any CO2.
Well done on completely misunderstanding what CO2 emission statistics mean.
It is talking about the equivalent emissions created when producing the energy to boil that kettle - i.e. at the power plant.
The implied suggestion is not that companies close down, but that they should try and use less energy. How is that not obvious?
In addition he did not call them "bad", or specifically call them out as being "the worst". Read the article.
that 'global warming' stuff i think is exaggerated cause some people say it's the earths natural cycle to do what it's doing.
I'd argue that we probably ARE speeding it up, but by how much is the big question. However, blaming Google for it is stupid. The power stations would be generating that electricity anyway, whether it was Google using it or not. So the solution rests at the power station end, not the consumer end.
There is no conclusive information to prove global warming exists, all that has been proved is that in a laboratory, in a closed environment, methane, CO2 etc. are able to trap heat. This is hardly conclusive due to the extreme complexity of our planet.
The answer is though its possible not to create these harmful gases - so we might as well, just incase.
The real answer to why oil companies are starting to look for alternative is because of increased energy prices and reduced fuel supplies. Money is the reason, it always has been.
that 'global warming' stuff i think is exaggerated cause some people say it's the earths natural cycle to do what it's doing.
You seem pretty sure of that. Looks like you've done lots of research.
Please note, anomalous results are not a sign of the overall trend being wrong. As you state, the planet is complex, so you can't expect year-on-year warming, without fail.
Google was singled out because most people know about it. If they did the same for Live Search, far fewer people would care (or understand). At no point did the researcher single out Google as being worst. In fact he said:
"Google isn't any worse than any other data centre operator. If you want to supply really great and fast result, then that's going to take extra energy to do so"
There is mayhem all around the world, government waste and squander trillions of their currency, and we are being told that our Internet searches (provided by Google at no cost to the end user) cost huge amounts of energy. Total bol|ocks!
This is yet another deceitful move to tax and control Internet usage. Don't believe it sheeple. If your government is promoting this rubbish, they will soon be declaring war (Martial Law) on you. This world belongs to all of us, not the government, corporations and the banksters.
People need to wake up to this Rothschild / Rockefeller / Bilderberg / CFR / Davos agenda. They want to enslave us all, and are using the media to brainwash us all. Read George Orwell's 1984 now!
+1
Did he miss anything, or is "take your meds" some ghetto slang for "Oh ****, this guy could be right and I just don't want to do anything at all to help out the world because I'm comfortable in my little ignorant hole!"
The world is changing. Wake up.
Do you not notice these things?
edit:Read these if you can't comprehend the other link.
Sure it uses energy - but its still better than alternatives.
and it's all Andrew's fault
How much did the so called research spend in CO2, and should we really care?
Facts are Facts, the UN another others have accepted the numbers, and even published the 300-350 parts per million as the total CO2, if you want some more details check out http://inconvenienttruth.us/
This is a joke, I know that there are many claims against global warming but you argument is flawed. For example...
Take a currently stable system - say fill a cup to the top with water.
Now add 1% more mater to the system
System Fails
How many server Google owns and keep running ?.
More that a million.
So
How much energy those million of server is needing?. A lot, its mean more coal, gas and nuclear material is used to produce energy.
How much efficient is the server recycling of Google?. Let's say if this service was 90% efficient (Google say it is around 100% but of course is a lie), then :
1 million server, the lifespan of a server is around 5 year, so Google is swapping 200'000 server x year, or around 20'000 server as a electronic garbage x year (10% is garbage). Plus Google must buy a new batch of server, usually in a couple of industries in China that really don't care about pollution.
So, directly Google is not polluting but indirectly is a serious deal.
And the worst part, Google say they use 0.0003 (1 kJ) kWh per search, while the reality Google uses almost the same amount of energy even without any search.
Their underground
slavebase where hundreds of thousands employees work to read your Gmail inbox produces massive amounts of pollution. Of course, making sure those ads target you properly is of most importance, even if they're only right maybe half the time.They have attempted to reduce this pollution though. Their employees are now fed with a proper dietary supplement so they produce less body waste, and their seats are now mounted to the ground acting as a sort of "porter potty" at the desk, increasing productivity by reducing the time spent walking to the restrooms.
Its the United States overall.
Now, converting the world to solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power? That's a fight worth having.
Now, converting the world to solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power? That's a fight worth having.
The US might not be running out of landfill, but the US isn't the world, and has a hugely lower population density. Countries like the UK do have such problems though.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/revea...he-tea-kettles/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/revea...he-tea-kettles/
*sigh*, I hope the BBC update their own article soon.
It's not exactly a bad thing that it got people talking about the subject - data centres do use a lot of energy, so any measures to save on it is good.
Last edited by Kirkburn on 13 Jan 2009 - 21:17
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.