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."

Comments

Why turn it on at all?

[dlleigh]

Wouldn't leaving it off truly use as little energy as possible?

Re:Why turn it on at all?

[urusan]

Well, then how are you going to tell the Internet about how much energy they're using?

Re:Why turn it on at all?

[Mark of the North]

Yes. Optimizing one variable is always tremendously easy. But that's not what they were trying to do. The article is worth a read.

Re:Why turn it on at all?

[Penguinisto]

I'm just laughing at the fact that the folks in TFM think they are doing anything new here. I mean, seriously, they were doing low-powered websites over 18 years ago: https://slashdot.org/story/00/...

(I'd call it the longest dupe in /. history, but...)

Re:Why turn it on at all?

[darkain]

I was hoping this was a link to ye old spudserver, and I was not disappointed!

70 billion kilowatts is not an amount of energy

[FeelGood314]

It's power.

Did you mean 70 billion kilowatt hours?

Re:70 billion kilowatts is not an amount of energy

[ShanghaiBill]

Did you mean 70 billion kilowatt hours?

The US produces about 4000 billion kwhrs annually. So 70/4000 = 1.8%, which matches what TFA says. So, yes, it is fairly obvious that correct figure is 70 billion kilowatt-HOURS.

List of countries by electricity consumption

This can be very real...

[Strider-]

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).

Re:This can be very real...

[commodore64_love]

It's far more efficient to make hot water "on demand" with a tankless heater, rather than have a hot tank of water sitting somewhere (and gradually releasing its heat back into your cool home).

Energy versus Power

[necro81]

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

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:

1. They are actually talking about power, in which case "energy per year" is not logical

   Data centers in the U.S. alone eat up 70 billion kilowatts of power, according to a 2016 estimate from the Department of Energy -- that's 1.8 percent of all power use across the country

2. or, they are actually talking about energy, in which case the unit should be kilowatt-hours

   Data centers in the U.S. alone eat up 70 billion kilowatt-hours 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

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.

Re:Energy versus Power

[Waffle Iron]

You can complain all you want, but that won't change rule zero of journalism school:

Rule 0: When you discuss energy, power or electric potential, you WILL NOT use the correct physical dimensions.

Ever.

Violation of this rule will result in automatic expulsion.

Strange design, not per CEI specs

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Intermittant renewables

[Jzanu]

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.