Slashdot Mirror
This Solar-Powered, 'Low Tech' Website Goes Offline When It's Cloudy (vice.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Every website and product connected to the internet would not be able to exist without a vast network of wireless routers, fiber optic cables running underground and underwater, and data centers that house the servers which bring the internet to life. Data centers in the U.S. alone eat up 70 billion kilowatts of energy per year, according to a 2016 estimate from the Department of Energy -- that's 1.8 percent of all energy use across the country.
The internet is not ethereal, and a new project from the blog Low-Tech Magazine aims to make that issue more tangible. Low-Tech Magazine -- a blog operated by Kris De Decker that has run on Wordpress since 2007 -- launched a "Low-Tech," solar version of the site that's designed from the ground-up to use as little energy as possible. (Check out the solar version of the site here.) In a Skype call with Motherboard, De Decker said that he doesn't think people don't care about how much energy it takes they use the internet, they just don't understand the extent of the problem. "There's this idea that the internet is immaterial, it's somewhere floating in clouds," he said. "Of course, it's a very material thing that uses resources, materials, energy -- and quite a lot actually."
The internet is not ethereal, and a new project from the blog Low-Tech Magazine aims to make that issue more tangible. Low-Tech Magazine -- a blog operated by Kris De Decker that has run on Wordpress since 2007 -- launched a "Low-Tech," solar version of the site that's designed from the ground-up to use as little energy as possible. (Check out the solar version of the site here.) In a Skype call with Motherboard, De Decker said that he doesn't think people don't care about how much energy it takes they use the internet, they just don't understand the extent of the problem. "There's this idea that the internet is immaterial, it's somewhere floating in clouds," he said. "Of course, it's a very material thing that uses resources, materials, energy -- and quite a lot actually."
Wouldn't leaving it off truly use as little energy as possible?
It's power.
Did you mean 70 billion kilowatt hours?
As backup. Or have wind mill's to also contribute to the power used. Dumb as dirt, both as an article. And the idiots that tried designing something like this.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
So I work with a non-profit that is off the grid. As with any organization in the modern era, we have become extremely dependent on IT systems to conduct our day to day business. For our system, which is a campus network spread out over about 20 buildings, the electrical load is approximately 3.5 kilowatts or so. The trouble is that we're off grid, with our own private hydro-electric power plant. In the winter months, the output of our plant can drop as low as 30 to 40kw, meaning that the IT infrastructure is consuming upwards of 10% of the total output of our electrical system.
Now, we look at that power as an investment of sorts, as it allows us to use some pretty sophisticated load management systems to better make use of our limited resources. We've also put the gear into spaces that need to be kept from freezing in the winter, so the waste heat contributes to that, rather than running heaters.
But yes, the internet isn't free (electrically).
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Goddammit! I see this conflation of energy in power in the mainstream press all the feakin' time. Kilowatts is not a unit of energy! It's a unit of power (energy consumption over time). If a reporter doesn't know the difference, and doesn't realize that the different is really important, then I can't trust that any of the rest of their reporting is worth my time.
However, since they couldn't be bothered to do even a modicum of technical checking, I will help fill in the blanks. There are two ways to interpret this statement:
In the first case, they would be talking about 70 terawatts of power, and that being 1.8% of the US consumption. This is absurd: the average energy consumption of the U.S. is only a few terawatts.
In the second case, they would be talking about 70 terawatt-hours of energy, implying a total consumption in the U.S.of about 3888 TWh. This is in line with recent statistics for U.S. electricity consumption. However, electricity consumption is not the same as total energy consumption, where one also has to consider energy for heating, transportation, industrial processes, etc.
So, the reporter is talking about energy, not power. He or she doesn't know the correct units, and conflates electrical consumption with total energy consumption. In short, the reporter is sloppy as all get out with their information. No wonder we can't have a proper debate about energy in this country - no one knows what the hell they're talking about.
Look, if you just used Clean Energy Institute (CEI) specs, you'd have a fully powered green energy website, entirely powered by solar, and excess solar energy stored either in modern batteries (70-80 pct) or compressed air storage (80-90 pct).
No reason for it to go offline during a cloudy day. Heck, the CEI is literally located in a fairly cloudy and rainy city, Seattle, and we get 70-80 percent energy from our solar arrays on cloudy/rainy days, so you must be doing something wrong.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you're a troll, is clicking one of your affiliate links literally feeding a troll?
AC, you are wrong about every single statement there, to such a degree that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Renewable power is in fact cheaper on the market because it has no start up time, base load is a myth since dynamic solution of power mix provides greater stability, and higher production cost from fixed capacity and minimum output thermal generators (all fossil fuels and nuclear depend on steam) just means they can't adjust operation to reduce prices for the market. Sure individually solar depends on the sun, turbines on wind or water, etc. but the amalgam is gives greater efficiency and reliability than coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Costs are lower and grids are more responsive. The only requirement is active management, which reduces costs anyway.
AC, nope, wrong again. Really wrong.
What's funny is, they could save even more power by simply using tinypng.com! :) I was able to reduce the file size of the png by 2k
geeky stuff I'm proud to have been a part of: linux.com / themes.org / sourceforge.net / sicnus.com
The last link is interesting. From what it says, the cost for making the cell is recouped in 1.5 years in a southern area, and 2.5 years in Germany.
"Welcome to Live Eclipse Watch online. The event will start in 3...2...1... ^ ~#m ` [NO CARRIER]
Table-ized A.I.
If more websites went offline once in a while.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Seriously, a low impact solar web design would use SD storage with a more efficient router and a decent 2018 blade server that together would use about 1/20th the energy, backed with zinc air batteries, and modern solar panels that can handle clouds. It would also be a heck of a lot cheaper. Guy probably doesn't even have fail over circuitry on his solar electricity, which is like all we ever talk about since 2012. I can hook him up with a friend in Trail BC who can do it for him if he doesn't know how to.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
higher production cost from fixed capacity and minimum output thermal generators (all fossil fuels and nuclear depend on steam)
Not ALL fossil fuel plants are "minimum output thermal generators": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... You have to have something to turn on when the sun isn't shining, wind isn't blowing, or you don't have enough grid capacity to get renewable energy from somewhere else.
lead-acid is good if you don't care about the weight of your batteries and may want them to perform well in cold conditions. It's storage I'm intending to use for my power system project for a small remote out building.
A lithium iron phosphate battery can handle around 2000 charge cycles, which is significantly more than a typical usage for a lead-acid. But the price of LiFePO is much higher than lead-acid per amp-hour. A lithium-ion polymer battery on the other hand doesn't have the same longevity of a LiFePO but it is significantly cheaper per amp-hour than a sealed lead-acid.
Right now lead-acid has a very good infrastructure for disposal and recycle. Theoretically we could get some of the lithium based technologies up to a similar level of environmental conformance and convenience, but it's currently not there yet.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It makes it really easy to pick out the people who have no clue what they're talking about, and have based their conclusions on idealized beliefs rather than solid engineering data. I concentrate on educating listeners about the difference between power and energy, so they can pick these people out and ignore them like I do. Don't correct the shills and snake oil salesmen - let them continue to make the error.
"reliability" - I do not think that word means what you think it means. Jokes aside, I call bullshit, please explain how renewables are more reliable? Other than hydro, which is a great source of energy but typically destroys a massive amount of usable land and increases toxins in downstream water.
But if they really want low-tech, why aren't they using VAWT? If you have the tech to build a bycycle and generator, you have VAWT, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say fr solar....
I don't know if you read German but this report, on page 2 has the graph comparing total costs per kWh by energy source. Solar PV and wind turbines achieved lower cost than all of the non-renewable resources. Even cheaper than lignite brown coal. On the issue of reliability, assuming you know power engineering, this document provides a good summary, again on page 2.
These guys are so so stupid.
~800Mhz dual core Android, 512Mb RAM, Busybox. Apache, PHP, MySQL, FTP).
~£150 waterproof outdoor solar charger + £70 residual backup battery, will last you days if the panels get broke or it rains.
A few USB charging cables. Need never go down unless the infrastucture does (and if it's powered when the infrastructure dies, mute point - mains wouldn't help at that point.
Throw a Samsung Galaxy Tab S in there as a development workstation and bookshelf, and you'll be 200 years ahead of everyone else after the collapse.
Optional bonus points for figuring out how to make replacement batteries after civilisation ends. They could be bigger, uglier and bulkier than they are now, that wouldn't matter, but they have to work.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen