LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.New research claims two Google searches generate as much CO2 at boiling a kettle. Google doesn?t agree.
Read more.New research claims two Google searches generate as much CO2 at boiling a kettle. Google doesn?t agree.
They probably used google to find their results.
□ΞVΞ□
Lmao, anyway according to the survey, 2 google searches = 1 cup of tea.Originally Posted by Jay
according to google 1 google search is less then having your pc on while searching so in theory
having your pc on for around 2 seconds could boil a kettle
I want that a kettle like that lol
these results show that old people are worse for the environment than google.... old people drink about 50 cups of tea a day each!
□ΞVΞ□
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=
Added for the irony
oh and this was the kettle they used
□ΞVΞ□
I guess the issue is howdo we measure the amouint of energy required to serve a google query? Is it just the proportion of the server farm power-draw that each query is responsible for, or do we have to include the power draw of the client PC making the request, and a proportion of the power draw for each routing device. And then there's the power draw of the lights in your house which you wouldn't have on if you weren't sitting up searching google trying to work out how many servers they have and how many queries they serve each day!
Next time I do a google search I'm going to make a cup of coffee...
Also, thread in GD
I think this whole "experiment" is largely exaggerated. For instance, running a query on Google takes a few lousy seconds; if you count the whole boot process and a dual graphical card/monitor system on RAID, surely you might reach a conclusion of high power consumption. But it's hardly Google's fault that its users want to run powerful rigs.
Nor do I believe that the server-side energy costs are as high as claimed in this article, as Google probably wouldn't survive with these numbers, let alone make profit.
And to suggest that there's somehow a way around providing a modern, fast service with multiple data centres in today's world is pretty absurd. If anybody, it's the hardware manufacturers that should get the blame for the power consumption of desktops and servers – but then again, they also need to stay alive economically and are limited by our technical and scientific knowledge. What's the alternative anyway – getting rid of all technology?
I'm personally quite commited to preserving electricity and the environment in general, but this article sounds like it's either a cheap publicity stunt or a lousy stab at Google.
I agree. The servers and routers are running anyway, surely searching for something can't increase power consumption by the few kilowatts needed to boil a cup of water in seconds...
But the (extremely flawed) argument is that if the number of searched was cut down, the number of servers would be reduced and the power usage would also go down.
It is a completely flawed piece of "research". By the same reasoning, we should shut down the TV stations because for every minute of TV we watch, a polar bear dies.
Apparently the research paper never mentions Google. A journalist somewhere has used editorial license irresponsibly yet again!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote