Bell Labs Says Networks Can Be 1000 Times More Energy Efficient

judgecorp writes "Bell Labs believes that data networks can be more efficient and has launched a consortium which aims to develop technology that uses only a thousandth of current network energy requirements by 2015. The Green Touch initiative is going to focus in particular on wireless, seeking to reduce wasted energy in signal broadcasts. Cynics might say Alcatel-Lucent is using its research division to distract attention from its troubles — the Financial Times described it as 'a poster child for much that is wrong in the telecoms equipment industry' — but Bell Labs still commands respect and support, and the goal it has set is an interesting one."

Comments

One does wonder.

[LWATCDR]

Just how much power is being used for Cell transmissions? What about Wifi?
Think about it. Our appliances are getting more efficient all the time but how much power are our gadgets sucking up.
WiFi, Game Consoles, DVD players, Home networks, Home NAS servers, cable boxes, and TVs.
Way back when when you went to bed you turned off our TV and it was actually off.

Re:One does wonder.

[Monkeedude1212]

I highly recommend this to everyone who has to pay an electricity bill: Unplug your appliances.

I have saved over 60% of my electrical bill by following the simple process of unplugging everything when its not in use. The only 3 things that remains plugged in are the Fridge, Stove, and the alarm clock. The Television, sound system, game consoles, all that is on a power bar so its easy to just unplug the power bar. The laptop, computer, microwave, toaster, all that stuff can be left unplugged when I'm not using them. I even do it for the washer and dryer. It is only inconvencing yourself like 3 seconds max, and after a while you get used to it.

I heard someone once say that your electronic devices still use 80% of their power consumption if plugged in, even while not in use. I think that number might be bogus, but I do believe that they still use power, even when not used.

Point is, you can save alot of money by unplugging.

Re:One does wonder.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you using some sort of programmable, logic-controlled toaster? I've never seen one that wasn't electro-mechanical. I highly doubt that your toaster, your clothes dryer, or your washing machine use a single watt when you're not actually running them.

Luddite. MY toaster is web 2.0-enabled, runs ajax, ruby-on-rails, jboss, .NET, updates my twitter feed & facebook status (I'm making toast!) and then pushes an rss feed to my iphone when the toast is ready.

Re:One does wonder.

[vlm]

True but how much power do all the cell towers use? I am not anti tech but the explosion of tech we have has got to be running up our power bills.

Thats a very amusing question, because a typical setup of 3G equipment draws about 3 KW, yet you're asking how much the tower itself draws, which is of course zero. The equipment draw at a site varies based on auxiliary gear, power level, multiple sites on multiple towers, multiple antennas on multiple gear, etc. Suffice it to say a cell site draws enough power to keep warm in the winter, but its not much compared to a steel mill or a retail establishment. The local power company is generally unimpressed in urban and suburban areas, although in rural areas the towers tend to be in the middle of nowhere resulting in some logistical difficulty, although the power required is no major thing. Local power companies do not install new substations just for a cellsite, for example, on the other hand when colocating in a building they will require a dedicated circuit or two, maybe a tiny subpanel, probably a separately billing power meter.

On the other hand, the FAA requires substantial tower lighting, you're looking at about 1.5 KW of lighting on a big tower. See link to a typical supplier, note that light requires TWO 700 watt bulbs, pretty impressive. Then again a couple hundred watt light bulb is probably what you'd need to light up a couple hundred feet of street, it just makes sense.

So, yes you could reduce the power used by the equipment. From 3KW to 3W to fit the pie in the sky 1:1000 ratio, probably not. Even if you could magically reduce the equipment power draw to zero, by using magic pixie dust and space alien technology, tower lighting requirements alone mean you'll never be able to reduce the total site power draw below about %33 of what is currently used.

http://www.gordtelecom.com/Tower%20Lighting.htm

and thats before you get into discussions about aluminum towers, what with aluminum being "liquid electricity".

Re:One does wonder.

[cheesybagel]

Remember when computers had a real power button on front? A power button you had to actually push with a moderate amount of strength to operate? That button is today in the back of the computer near the power supply.

Now in these days of soft power buttons, nothing is ever really disabled. But rejoice! EPA Energy Star (TM) devices only use a minimum amount of power when in standby mode. Uhuh.

1000 times

[oldhack]

Is that number just pulled out of their ass? Is there a base for it?

Re:1000 times

[Monkeedude1212]

I assume they are using Base 10.

Re:1000 times

[BESTouff]

I assume they are using Base 10.

Hey, actually maybe they use base 2. They got the hint from the harddrive marketing guys.

Re:1000 times

[kohaku]

I assume they are using Base 10.

Hey, actually maybe they use base 2.

That's what he said.

Speaking of crystal radios

[mangu]

The first radio receivers, about a hundred years ago, needed no batteries, they got all the power they needed from the antenna.

Re:Speaking of crystal radios

[gyrogeerloose]

The first radio receivers, about a hundred years ago, needed no batteries, they got all the power they needed from the antenna.

That's true, and you can still build one with a few feet of wire, a ten-cent diode and a set of headphones. It will still work, too, although not very well. You must remember that 100 years ago, there wasn't the plethora of transmitters that currently exist so a receiver did not have to be particularly selective. A simple set as described will generally be overwhelmed by a local station and that's all you'll receive.

Oh, yeah--no FM either.

Not the facts you're looking for

[Lord Grey]

From TFA:

Scientists addressed the problem over the summer of 2009, and concluded that the energy used in networks could be reduced by a factor of up to 10,000 without breaking fundamental laws such as the Shannon Limit, but it would require a fundamental rethink to achieve a massive reduction, said [Gee Rittenhouse, vice president and head of research at Bell Labs]: "Today's networks are optimised for performance and simplicity".

...

The technology produced would be commercially viable and would naturally replace existing networks, as it will be backwards compatible, [consortium] members assured the audience.

Emphasis mine. There's a lot more crap in there that I didn't bother copying and pasting.

This "announcement" reads a lot like a snake-oil advertisement. This consortium will likely produce only one thing: An efficient mechanism for extracting money from investors (government or otherwise).