Internet Uses 9.4% of Electricity In the US

ribuck writes "Equipment powering the internet accounts for 9.4% of electricity demand in the U.S., and 5.3% of global demand, according to research by David Sarokin at online pay-for-answers service Uclue. Worldwide, that's 868 billion kilowatt-hours per year. The total includes the energy used by desktop computers and monitors (which makes up two-thirds of the total), plus other energy sinks including modems, routers, data processing equipment and cooling equipment."

Comments

Close to accurate?

[Kazrath]

The information he seems to be pulling from was from the early 2000's. Many things have changed since early 2000 lowering the amount of power needed for the average home PC to operate. Most users in early 2000 were using CRT monitors which use almost 3 times as much power than a modern LCD. If I took the time to research 2000-2002 vs components in the last two years I bet you will see the power consumption of average hardware is probably close to half as much.

Re:Close to accurate?

[trolltalk.com]

Many things have changed since early 2000 lowering the amount of power needed for the average home PC to operate. Most users in early 2000 were using CRT monitors which use almost 3 times as much power than a modern LCD. If I took the time to research 2000-2002 vs components in the last two years I bet you will see the power consumption of average hardware is probably close to half as much.

And the average cpu uses a LOT more juice. So does the average video card. Who's buying all those 550 watt PSUs?

And the average home has more computers in it than it did 5 years ago. Who do you know who has only one computer nowadays?

Re:Close to accurate?

[vio]

And the average cpu uses a LOT more juice. So does the average video card. Who's buying all those 550 watt PSUs?
And the average home has more computers in it than it did 5 years ago. Who do you know who has only one computer nowadays? Actually, the average CPU nowadays is pretty good at dropping down in power usage when idling (something mostly unheard of in the "mhz race" that characterized the early new millennium). And most people have integrated "video cards" now (ie. built into the motherboard) which use way less power... the 550w PS are for the crazies (extreme minority).

And lets not forget that the ratio of (power efficient) laptops to computers has increased dramatically over the years...

But yea, there are more computers than ever :-/

Re:Close to accurate?

[Technician]

A popular mis conception is a 65 watt laptop power supply draws 65 watts. A 350 watt desktop power supply draws 350 watts. A 550 watt power supply draws 550 watts. These numbers is mostly WRONG. The wattage a power supply draws is equal to the amount of power drawn from the supply plus the loss in conversion (efficiency) of the supply. The wattage stamped on the box is simply the capacity of the supply. A 550 Watt supply is supposed to be able to provide 550 Watts out. If the supply is 90% efficient, the total power supplied out the DC side is 550 Watts. The 550 Watts is only 90% of the AC power the supply draws.

Most of the time most computers draw far less than the peak power rating of the supply. Many computers draw only 1/2 to 2/3rds the supply rating. They use a little more for intensive activities such as writing DVD's and de-fragging the hard drive.

Many supplies lie about their rating and simply melt down in smoke if they are loaded to the stated capacity. (check the reviews)

Re:Close to accurate?

[Charcharodon]

That's a poor analogy.

Power supplies don't just magically use power when they are on. It takes a load (video card, motherboard, cpu, etc) to be drawing that power.

Now there is a question of efficiency, but that has nothing to do with it's power rating. A 400w power supply with a 60% efficiency rating is going to piss away more electricity in the form of heat that a 550w that is rated at 85% efficiency.

The el cheapo power supply with the lower rating may not cost much now, but you'll pay it all back in electricity and replacement costs.

Ridiculous Units

[John Hasler]

> that's 868 billion kilowatt-hours per year

That's simply 99 gigawatts. "kilowatt-hours per year" is silly.

I'm sure it's more

[njfuzzy]

If you are including every device contected to the Internet, then surely it is more than that. The vending machine in my building is on the Internet. My phone is on the Internet. My laser printer is on the Internet, and in a way, I believe my cable box is too. Between infrastructure, servers, telecommunications, and end systems, a huge fraction of the electricity-using devices we interact with are on the Net.

Re:Bittorrent

[postbigbang]

In another way of thinking, actual efficiency of systems is about .03% (really). Therefore for every watt consumed, at least another watt is used to *cool*.

If we lived on ice year-round, then it's not waste heat. But every data center spends at least 2x maintaining an even ambient temperature.

Wonder why the CPU makers and server makers are suddenly on a 'green' bandwagon? Think again.

Re:What about energy-saving servers?

[EaglemanBSA]

I can count 7 LED's on my equipment where I'm sitting that I could pretty much do without...that doesn't really amount to much. LED's don't consume very much power at all (especially the low-power type found in electronics equipment) - you're talking on the order of a couple volts, and in the tens of milliamps. Example: Digikey # 67-1047-ND has a peak voltage of 2 volts, and a max current of 30 mA. At peak conditions, this puts out .06 Watts. Convert that to energy spent in a year, and it amounts to (assuming 8766 hours per year) about a half kilowatt-hour, or 5 cents, if you left that one LED on constantly, at peak, all year. That's 35 cents for all the LED's in my room, a total of 3 and a half kilowatt hours (a typical home burns about a thousand per month, or 12,000 per year). I'll just switch my computer off.

WRAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit, I could guess at the meaning (some dinky efficient computer thing), but I wanted to be sure so I looked it up. so for those confuseth ones like I was, here is the definition for WRAP, or Wireless Router Application Platform

Ya, and VIA-I wish they had more support, they seem to have some quite neat stuff, small, quiet, powerful enough for normal low intensity web surfing and whatnot. Cheaper empty (and very very small) cases that fit their boards would be nice as well, and not shuttle small, I mean thin and tiny macmini sized cases. Solid state hard drive, and there ya go. Or an actual standard normal cheap laptop that you could upgrade every few years with just a new motherboard and ram would be nice. Small cheap more power savings, etc. OLPC for the non third world.

Re:What about energy-saving servers?

[Eivind]

Or a milde variant of the same: Giving a clear grade and mandate displaying the grade prominently.

Already the case in most of Europe if you buy a dishwasher, fridge, washer, drier or lots of other household-appliances.

There's a grade for energy-efficiency, where the average for that kind of appliance is a "C" whereas an appliance that uses 30% less than average would earn an A, and an appliance that wastes 30% more energy than average earns an "F".

The stuff has been a huge success -- to the point where appliances that don't rate atleast a "B" are just not marketable at all.

The standard gets stricter automatically: As more and more people buy the energy-efficient appliances, the *average* efficiency improves, so the energy-usage for a "C" gets adjusted accordingly.

Works like a charm.

Some appliances have more than one grade, they grade efficiency on more than one scale. A dishwasher may have a note on it saying:

Energy consumption: A
Water consumption: B
Wash effectiveness: A
Drying effectiveness: A

So, I don't see why a modern TV couldn't be sold with; "Energy consumption: A", "Standby consumption: B".