Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches
Physicist Alex Wissner-Gross says that performing two
Google searches uses up as much energy as boiling the
kettle for a cup of tea
By Jonathan Leake and Richard Woods
The Sunday Times, UK
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can
generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling
a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.
While millions of people tap into Google without
considering the environment, a typical search generates
about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g.
"Google operates huge data centres around the world that
consume a great deal of power," said Alex Wissner-Gross, a
Harvard University physicist whose research on the
environmental impact of computing is due out soon. "A
Google search has a definite environmental impact."
Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon
footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its
data centres. However, with more than 200m internet
searches estimated globally daily, the electricity
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by
computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent
report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global
IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world's
airlines -- about 2% of global CO2 emissions. "Data centres
are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,"
said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing
billions of web pages require power.
Though Google says it is in the forefront of green
computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2
because of the way it operates. When you type in a Google
search for, say, "energy saving tips", your request doesn't
go to just one server. It goes to several competing against
each other.
It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart.
Google's infrastructure sends you data from whichever
produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays
but raises energy consumption. Google has servers in the
US, Europe, Japan and China.
Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by
the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
and has also set up a website www.CO2stats.com. "Google are
very efficient but their primary concern is to make
searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra
capacity that burns energy," he said.
Google said: "We are among the most efficient of all
internet search providers."
Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO2 emissions caused
by individual use of the internet. His research indicates
that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO2
per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a
second when viewing a website with complex images,
animations or videos.
A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of
carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy,
puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and
10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not.
Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g per hour,
he says. of CO2 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies
to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a
Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes' computer
use).
Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the
World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known
as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game,
requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That
is almost as much used by the average Brazilian.
"It's not an unreasonable comparison," said Liam Newcombe,
an expert on data centres at the British Computer Society.
"It tells us how much energy westerners use on
entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries."
Though energy consumption by computers is growing -- and
the rate of growth is increasing -- Newcombe argues that
what matters most is the type of usage.
If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive
activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that's
good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption
that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.
Newcombe cites Second Life and Twitter, a rapidly growing
website whose 3m users post millions of messages a month.
Last week Stephen Fry, the TV presenter, was posting
"tweets" from New Zealand, imparting such vital information
as "Arrived in Queenstown. Hurrah. Full of bungy jumping
and 'activewear' shops", and "Honestly. NZ weather makes UK
look stable and clement".
Jonathan Ross was Twittering even more, with posts such as
"Am going to muck out the pigs. It will be cold, but I'm
not the type to go on about it" and "Am now back indoors
and have put on fleecy tracksuit and two pairs of socks".
Ross also made various "tweets" trying to ascertain whether
Jeremy Clarkson was a Twitter user or not. Yesterday the
Top Gear presenter cleared up the matter, saying: "I am not
a twit. And Jonathan Ross is."
Such internet phenomena are not simply fun and hot air,
Newcombe warns: the boom in such services has a carbon
cost.
Related Link
o How you can help reduce the footprint of the Web
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5488934.ece
Click here for how to reduce the footprint of the Web
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5488934.ece
A comment:
So, what is this www.CO2stats.com site set up by Mr.
Wissner-Gross?
- "a novel software suite"
- "is very smart"
- "detailed, patent-pending calculators"
- "all for a flat, affordable monthly fee"
Yet another snake oil from a self-proclaimed
"certification" body. Applied science at its worst.
- Vadim, Lund, Sweden
More at:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
V for Vendicar - 12 Jan 2009 08:48 GMT
> Physicist Alex Wissner-Gross says that performing two
> Google searches uses up as much energy as boiling the
> kettle for a cup of tea
Well, not really.
There is <NO> significant difference between the power consumption of
Google's servers sitting idle compared with them actually performing a
search.
So not performing a google search eats up the same amount of power as
perfroming one.
Htnakirs - 12 Jan 2009 14:26 GMT
Ergo to reduce wasteful enegy consumption, it is best to force all
other search engines to shut down. Makes not sense for Yahoo and MSN
to have their own datacenters that are on all the time, with very few
searches being conducted.
Puppet_Sock - 12 Jan 2009 21:58 GMT
On Jan 12, 3:48 am, "V for VD-infested"
[snip]
> There is <NO> significant difference between the power consumption of
> Google's servers sitting idle compared with them actually performing a
> search.
This is incorrect. When a CPU performs calculations
it will consume more power. Some CPUs also have
an "idle" mode where they consume even less power.
Intel based computers, just as one example, when
given a CPU intense task, will produce more heat.
As well, running a search may mean more disk seeks.
This uses additional extra power.
Once again, VD-infested Scotty Nudds demonstrates
his complete lack of contact with reality. How many
months in winter there Scott-tard?
Socks
V for Vendicar - 13 Jan 2009 21:25 GMT
On Jan 12, 3:48 am, "V for VD-infested"
> There is <NO> significant difference between the power consumption of
> Google's servers sitting idle compared with them actually performing a
> search.
> This is incorrect. When a CPU performs calculations
> it will consume more power.
Insignificantly so. When running typical software the CPU is typically
sitting idle waiting for data from RAM.
For high throughput heavily parallelized tasks - like the 3d processing of
video games - the typical CPU can manage to double it's power consumption.
But for web hosting, and text processing/searching there is no substantive
difference.
> As well, running a search may mean more disk seeks. This uses additional
> extra power.
Wrong again. All modern hard drives use voice coils to position thier
read/write heads Voice coils use a fixed current and hence a fixed power to
maintain the position of the head over a specific track on the platter
stack. Hence, performing No Action consumes power. Seeking on the other
hand requires no more additional power to keeping the head to the desired
track.
As always... Puppet Sock shows itself to be exceptionally ignorant.
Eric Gisin - 13 Jan 2009 23:04 GMT
> On Jan 12, 3:48 am, "V for VD-infested"
>> There is <NO> significant difference between the power consumption of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Insignificantly so. When running typical software the CPU is typically sitting idle waiting for
> data from RAM.
Sure, Snotty.
> For high throughput heavily parallelized tasks - like the 3d processing of video games - the
> typical CPU can manage to double it's power consumption.
>
> But for web hosting, and text processing/searching there is no substantive difference.
More bullshit, Scotty. Never read a CPU spec sheet, have you?
>> As well, running a search may mean more disk seeks. This uses additional extra power.
>
> Wrong again. All modern hard drives use voice coils to position thier read/write heads Voice
> coils use a fixed current and hence a fixed power to maintain the position of the head over a
> specific track on the platter stack. Hence, performing No Action consumes power. Seeking on
> the other hand requires no more additional power to keeping the head to the desired track.
Snotty has never seen a hard drive spec sheet either.
The Fujitsu MAU 15K drive consumes 11.5W at idle, 17W at 80 IO/s.
> As always... Puppet Sock shows itself to be exceptionally ignorant.
Snooty is an arrogant drolling moron, as usual.