Slashdot Mirror
Google Details and Defends Its Use of Electricity
theodp writes "On Thursday, Google finally provided information on its energy usage, revealing that it continuously uses enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. Still, the search giant contends that by using more power than Salt Lake City, Google actually makes the world a greener place. Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library. As Police Chief Martin Brody might say, 'Google's going to need a bigger windmill!'"
Google is not simply using that energy, that energy is being used by google users all over the world.
Those same users are also using energy locally to connect to the internet.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Google is also paying for their energy.
that they are investing into clean energy. Other companies run around screaming that they want coal, while Google says AE. Personally, I wish that Google would make use of some of that money to help create demand for geo-thermal energy, rather than simply investing in it. Honestly, if they insisted on buying energy directly from some geo-thermal locations, they could still manage to keep their costs low, while creating enough demand to stimulate it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You will find that humanity's desire to fill the aching void of its pitiful existence with lolcats and porn is not, in fact, our doing.
Further, because power is one of our major operating costs, you will find that our competitors are unlikely to be able to deliver lolcats and porn appreciably more efficiently than we can.
Here endeth the justification.
but rather are they using the electricity efficiently
The more relevant comparison seems like it'd be to other commercial users. It's not likely that if Google were disbanded, it would turn into residential population; it's more likely that, if we didn't have Google, we'd have other companies employing these people and occupying a certain niche of the economy.
From that perspective, is Google's energy usage high or low for a company of its market-cap / revenue / profits? For example, it has almost exactly the same market cap as Wal-Mart; how does the energy usage of the two companies compare, both in terms of overall size, and things like greenness of the source?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
by defending Steve Ballmer's use of oxygen.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So it's a fair trade.
The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming. When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites. They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
. Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library.
Sure, because the guy who just searched Google to find out what goatse is would clearly have gone to the library to look up such trivial information had Google not been available....
In our digital era, if it weren't for Google to offer Search, emails, video streaming, maps, etc ... another company would do it. With that in mind, the question becomes: which company offers these services in the greenest way ? I'm pretty sure Google does.
iTx Technologies: Open source development in Montreal
Eh, not necessarily. I'm sure they're hypocrites to an extent, but you could make the same argument about people who claim to be animal lovers who aren't vegan. Just because a feeling doesn't rule all aspects of your life, that doesn't mean you're a hypocrite. People who eat meat can still work to benefit animals in other ways (working at the shelter, cleaning up a habitat, etc) and people who care about carbon emissions can both invest in cleaner energy while using massive amounts of it. Besides, Google is one of the largest corporations in the world and is primarily geared towards electronic-powered devices; why wouldn't it use a lot of power?
Also, when you have that kind of money, why shouldn't you be able to see the celestial event of a lifetime? Yeah, they could have put it towards more energy, but people could also use the money they spend on entertainment and give it to charity instead. There's nothing wrong with doing both.
Al Gore didn't invent electricity to be wasted on the internet.
I did a back-of-napkin calculation last night, and came up with about 30-33% of the energy consumption would be related to office operations, and the remainder data center operations. Their data center total came out to something like 170MW demand. Given that a 100,000 square foot data center would be expected to draw about 20MW all-in, the total was much lower than I would have expected. For some reason, I pictured their demand being much higher.
As for alternative energy, green energy, and efficiency, Google really is doing a good job. Comparing them to Bank of America, I would say Google does significantly more for the kWh.
"Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library."
This is exactly akin to Software/Content makers saying that every piracy count is exactly one lost sale. If I had to actually drive to the library, I wouldn't actually DRIVE each time I was wondering about some trivial answer to a meaningless question.
All of that said, data centers use electricity.. if we want to do anything e- or i- (or o- or u-, and sometimes y-) we need to realize that. Google is well aware of how much it spends on electricity, and I'm pretty sure they take steps to try and minimize their expenses (such as using warm-boxes instead of cooling ambient air, etc..)
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean what they're *saying* isn't valid; it means that what they're *doing* isn't valid.
If you believe someone gives good advice, then calling them a hypocrite isn't a free pass to spend more time criticizing their following of said advice than you do following it yourself.
I honestly don't care how much energy Sergey and Larry use: we'd get a thousand times farther if we reduced the energy footprint of the average American by a tenth of a percent than we will bitching at Google founders until they implement every green technology known to man. Just accept that they're flawed, self-righteous, and hypocritical and move on.
The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming.
But that is a false dichotomy since extreme use of energy does not necessarily imply the energy is obtained from burning coal, fecal matter, babies, dolphins and wood from endangered species in mega furnaces churning tons of smog, sooth, chlorofluorocarbons, weaponized anthrax spores and sarin gas directly into the polar ozone holes.
Taking drastic actions against global warming does not mean turning off the lights completely. It means a lot of other things regarding how to use energy efficiently. And if your business requires to use tremendous amounts of energy but you are doing it in an energy-eco-efficient manner, then you are taking drastic actions.
When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
And which is fine and dandy, so long as people do not jump to stupid conclusions of the form (using lots of energy) -> (energy inefficient).
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites.
Your logic is absolutely flawless</rolls eyes>
What is happening here is that you are trying very hard to find a) something to be upset about and b) someone to point the finger at to justify the former.
They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins. The audacity of taking a pleasure trip afforded by someone's earned wealth is an unspeakable horror in this world of absolute black and whites, erasing anything of value done or spoken by the aforementioned tree killers when it comes to eco-responsibility.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!! The horror, the horror.
Congratulations sir, here is your trophy for winning the competition of infallible logic: a crowbar. It comes very handy to unplug your one's head out of one's ass.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!!
If you believe that Global Warming is a problem that justifies massive government intervention into the everyday lives of the majority of people, then the answer is "Yes". There is a difference between talking about energy responsibility and saying that we need to stop building new coal fired electric generating plants and shut down existing ones. Page and Brin are in the latter camp.
I do not have a problem with Page and Brin using thier wealth to fly to the south pacific to view the eclipse. I have a problem with them doing so when they try and tell me that Man caused Gloabal Warming is such an urgent problem that it justifies a vast increase in government power.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Calling someone a hypocrite doesn't invalid their point, but it does put it in a meaningful context. If someone is saying the world is going to end next year and we should all repent, how seriously would you take them if they put a great deal of money into a 2 year CD? That's hypocritical. If they truly believed what they were saying they'd be donating it, or at least blowing it. The fact that they're making a long term investment gives you a gauge on their confidence in their own beliefs. Maybe they're just hedging their bets, sure, but you can be sure they are especially certain (regardless of what they say) that their prediction is correct.
So in this case, you have two guys that in one joy ride spewed about 60 tons of CO2* (vs. 4.5 for a average year's car travel). How serious can they actually think global warming is? Do they want government intervention because they can't control themselves? Or do they not actually give a damn and think/expect the rules won't apply to those with enough money like them?
For me, at least, the latter is the real sticking point. You have all these rich/privileged people like CEOs and congressmen pushing for massive regulation to fix a problem that they disproportionally cause. Between that and the ridiculous cap and trade bill**, it becomes quite clear that people like them are using global warming as an excuse to leverage even more government control and prevent market competition.
So, yes, just because they're hypocritical doesn't mean that global warming is fake. It does, however, speak very strongly to their motivations which is mostly what the GP was addressing.
*According to http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/pages/methodology.aspx and a round trip estimate of 6000 miles, which looks about right.
**There's a small chance I'm remembering incorrectly, but even supporters of GW legislation said the bill would to nothing to combat the problem and would only prevent new/small businesses from growing and competing with existing large ones.
"..vast increase in government power."
what vast increase? Why do you keep saying that?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on