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.
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
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....
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.
... not to mention all of the large .orgs and .edus I've seen that now use some flavor of gmail/docs instead of running their own 24x7 mail & file servers like they did 10 years ago.
"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.