[LINK] Geo-thermal: clean, permanent electricity Now Carbon Credit balancing from ICT

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Michael Still
> Sent: Monday, 12 January 2009 4:05 PM
> To: Brendan Scott
> Cc: LINK
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Geo-thermal: clean, permanent electricity
> 
> 
> Brendan Scott wrote:
> > Eric Scheid wrote:
> >> On 12/1/09 10:15 AM, "Pilcher, Fred" <Fred.Pilcher at act.gov.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Thank you both. While it's arguably been a little off-topic, it's 
> >>> been fascinating and informative in the best traditions of LINK.
> >> To get back on topic, perhaps they could instead route their water 
> >> pipes through a different heat source.
> >> 
> >> I'm thinking google server farms...
> 
> This story appears to have originated with the Times of London:
> 
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/arti
> cle5489134.ece
> 
> My issue with the article isn't that it is factually 
> incorrect - it's that it paints Google as a malevolent force 
> shrouded in secrecy, and that every time you use it (or one 
> of the other mentioned companies like Twitter), you're adding 
> to the problem. In a word, it's alarmist. Google could 
> probably become more energy efficient, but I fear that 
> articles like this will lead people to shy away from the 
> Internet. Unlike gas guzzling SUVs, the web helps connect and 
> enrich humanity. By all means encourage web companies to 
> become as carbon neutral as possible, but don't make 
> energy-conscious consumers afraid of their browsers.
> 
> And finally, one last bit that is more concerned with the 
> journalistic practices of The Times than Google. Alex 
> Wissner-Gross co-founded a cool startup called CO2Stats that 
> we've covered a few times in the past (it was also a finalist 
> in The Crunchies). The site helps websites stay as green as 
> possible by offering carbon credits as well as badges to help 
> promote the cause. The Times article only mentions the site 
> in passing, and fails to acknowledge that CO2Stats is a 
> company that earns money, not just an informative website. I 
> sincerely doubt there is anything sinister going on, but such 
> a major potential source of bias seems worthy of more than 
> just a mention. </quote>
> 
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/11/are-we-killing-the-planet-one-googl
e-search-at-a-time/

Mikal


Wow - Thanks for the pointer Mikal, 
I never thought of that before - in quite those terms.
Which is suprising for someone that was involved with the early days of
the Akemai rollout, and is intimately aware of the myriad of switches
and router hardware that switches every Google search request.

I was just thinking back with fond memories to the early eighties of the
euphoria of getting "time" (22 minutes) on a cray for some calcs (64
processors).

Each and every Google request utilises several thousand more processors
for each and every search. (Hierarchical, sql updatable - think Oracle
4gl).

I'm surprised it works out at only 7-10 gms.  

But it does jibe with the concept of the necessity for consumer carbon
credits.

My latest Blog posting envisages a world where we can buy food with the
savings made from possibly NOT doing a Google search.
(Ok - it has nothing to do with Google - my vision is a digital world
with no CD's or DVD's, and the problem is developing the business model
to achieve that nirvana which, is a toughie.)
http://www.perceptric.com/blog/_archives/2009/1/11/4052930.html

Step 1. - Sell the result.........

Tom

Am I back on topic now ?