Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Expanding the World Wide Web Isn't So Good for the ... World

By Stan Cox, Prairie Writers Circle. Posted March 20, 2009.


The feds are spending $18 billion to stimulate the Internet -- and that means a huge increase in energy consumption.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: Almost All U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison For Non-Homicide Crimes Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Stan Cox

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The recently passed federal stimulus package contains $18 billion to stimulate the Internet. Technology fans are looking to that planet-wide digital organism to help revive our economy.

But it's an organism nourished by electricity, and lots of it. The Internet's escalating power consumption stands as a warning that the engines of economic growth can't run without depleting resources and cranking out wastes.

The servers and large data computing centers that run the Internet and other computer networks doubled their energy use between 2000 and 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Add in the power used by computers and peripheral equipment in homes and commerce, along with a projected 75 percent further growth in data centers by 2011, and the system's electricity needs will exceed the total current consumption of 18 million average American households. The EPA says that by 2011 the peak load placed on the power grid by servers and data centers alone will require the output of 25 typical coal-fired power plants.

The national digital network doesn't rank among America's largest energy hogs, but it's no cute little piglet either. Demand projected for 2011 would sop up Mexico's entire current production of almost 200 million kilowatt hours, or by 2014, Australia's. That it's a small slice of the national electricity pie reflects more than anything just how big that pie is.

The harder and faster computers "think," the more power they require. Each generation of technology, from the vacuum tube to today's advanced processors, has handled more information per watt, but that efficiency has always been harnessed to push speed and output higher, not to save energy.

The industry produces tinier chips and bigger, hotter arrays of chips every year. A large share of the wattage going into a data center ends up as waste heat, so 40 percent or more of a center's energy use typically is for air conditioning. Running and cooling a single 6-foot-high rack of servers occupying 7 square feet of floor space can consume as much power as 30 typical California homes. Thousands of these racks in rooms or buildings ranging into the hundreds of thousands of square feet can have city-sized power demands.

Internet exponents claim that this vast expenditure of energy is more than canceled out by the many resource-efficiency gains that computers make possible. But such gains, where they have occurred, appear to be getting blotted out by our general resource use.

For example, electronic communications were expected to cut paper use, but savings have been slow in coming. Paper consumption for all uses in the United States hit a peak of more than 700 pounds per person annually in the 1990s, a 25 percent increase over the 1970s, before e-mail. A 3 percent drop in paper use in the 2000s may mean that computerization is finally having an effect.

Online marketing was supposed to help limit the size of the brick-and-mortar retail world and keep shoppers out of their cars. But retail floor space per American grew 12 percent from 1995 to 2003. Mall space grew by 34 percent per capita. Now a recession rather than digital shopping has finally slowed that growth.

It's widely anticipated that videoconferencing and telecommuting will substitute increasingly for business travel. But industry data show that, aside from a short post-9/11 slump, U.S. business travel marched upward at a steady rate of 5 percent per year from 1990 through early 2008.

Thanks to the economy's plunge, business travel fell off sharply in the last half of 2008 and is sure to fall further. In light of that and similar downtrends, the time may have come to enlist the Internet in the cause of saving energy.

Hard times might present electronic communication and virtual travel with their best opportunities yet to substitute for the costly hauling of live human beings and bulky goods or the paving of more big-box parking lots.

But conservation won't happen automatically. Today, a big share of the energy going into data centers -- and the waste heat coming out -- is aimed at persuading Internet users to consume more of everything, to convert more matter and energy into waste somewhere else. If the digital infrastructure is to help curb resource consumption rather than push it higher, all that power will have to be aimed in a different direction.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, internet, google, yahoo, servers, data centers

Stan Cox is lead scientist for the Land Institute in Salina, Kan., and author of "Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine." He wrote this comment for the institute's Prairie Writers Circle

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bitch, Bitch, Bitch
Posted by: gellero1 on Mar 20, 2009 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Luddites of this site seem to forget we have enough uranium to power everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bitch, Bitch, Bitch Posted by: Harris20
» RE: Bitch, Bitch, Bitch Posted by: tony_opmoc
Bridging the Digital Divide Again (YAWN!!)
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Mar 20, 2009 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So here we go again! The "Digital Divide" needs to be bridged again. People in the so-called "Developing World" need us to realize our White Man's Burden and develop them into clones of ourselves. After all we are the superior ones.

Don't people figure that when the Internet comes to "developing" nations, advertising follows and markets open? More opportunities to sell sneakers to African natives or McBurgers to the rainforest dwellers so they can destroy their environment to buy the products the Chinese are destroying their environment to produce.

Why does nobody see the term "Developing World" as racist? Newsflash: these countries were developed before Whitey ever set foot there. Sure, human rights weren't exactly "Christian" (like we've really improved that) but there was no pollution, no famines, no overpopulation and plenty to go round before Whitey interfered.

So yeah, let's expand the Internet. The environmental cost of those servers will be more than offset by the extra sneakers Nike will sell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the one hand, this author complains about gas guzzling, on the other he encourages it.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 20, 2009 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps this author could have asked himself this simple question:

"Do I really appreciate it that I have to travel a long way's just to attend a 1-2 hour conference when in fact video conferencing would actually save far more in fossil fuel consumption?"

I have also noticed that in big cities such as in the Washington DC area I have to go to every now and then for a business meeting 4 hours away when video conferencing would suffice, more people are in traffic jams because their local areas won't set up the infrastructure. 50% of those employed in Fredericksburg, VA travel to Washington to work and 50-80% of those employed in Loudoun and Fauqier counties travel all the way to Washington to work. If these people had been given the opportunities to work at remote offices, not necessarily home per se, traffic jams and fossil fuel usage would decline significantly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

>95% of The Power In Most PC's is unused and unnecessary
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Mar 20, 2009 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The power issue is not really a Data Centre one - but a personal one.

Most PC's run Microsoft. Microsoft makes it's Operating Systems bigger and bigger and slower and slower. 99% of the features provided by Microsoft are never used by the vast majority of users. Because Microsoft is so slow and incredibly inefficient with poorly written code, PC manufacturers have to provide more and more powerful processors which use a great deal of power and generate heat which needs to be cooled using more power.

However most users could have a far more secure web experience using dramatically less power if a Linux OS was used instead of Microsoft in a PC specifically designed for low power consumption. There are some very cheap Notebooks that already do this - and a company in India is planning to produce such Notebooks with a target sale price of $10.

Whilst Data Centres use a great deal of power - they support literally Millions of Users. Linux is used in the vast majority of servers which are becoming increasingly more power efficient. The improvements in Server Power efficiency are such that hardware that is more than a few years old is not cost effective because dramatically less power is used in the latest Servers.

Well over 10 years ago I had a liberal boss, who was perfectly happy for me to work from home most of the time. There were multiple methods of communicating with me - and provided I responded immediately it didn't matter where I was physically located. This saved a great deal in energy costs, travel time - and was actually a great deal more productive - than commuting to work and pretending to look busy once there.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some savings
Posted by: chaoslegs on Mar 20, 2009 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work for a non-profit with a national information clearinghouse. The amount of information packets we mail has greatly diminished because we post everything on line that we would send out in packets. Yes we do have callers who are not connected, and we quickly send them paper copies to respect the digital divide.

As an added bonus that information is available to the clients instantly via our web site.
-------------------
Now thinking broadly about that waste heat, a smart plan thing that folks could do is capture that waste heat for something, maybe heating water to drive a turbine to generate electricity. Or how about to heat water to heat buildings in cold climates, like the St Paul Heating District.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why doesn't alternet lead by example..
Posted by: daniel1982 on Mar 20, 2009 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and shut-down your site so as not to waste electricity.

...
...
...

stil waiting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Listen to the 1%s argue...
Posted by: Elmowilcox on Mar 20, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, I made this argument on Alternet sometime last year. For all the wonder and utility of the interweb, what cost are we paying to have it? I believe I made the comparison to an RPM guage or something like that. How much power is wasted to prop up blogs, porn, and pointless videos, and will it all be worth it when the lights go out?(assuming we don't switch to uranium, as one person already pointed out)
Now, obviously it has its benefits, education, networking, dissemination of info, and some features that offset other energy consuming functions(see:video conferencing guy that posted above). But I'd reckon that this represents 5-10% of actual internet usage, even at 30-40%, we're still using massive amounts of energy to serve its needs, and that's not to mention the amount of toxic wastes that are produced in its upkeep...just ask the Pacific Islanders that live in villages built on heaps of computer waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A RETIRED AMERICAN CITIZEN
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 20, 2009 7:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'M WONDERING WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES'NT USE $3 BILLION TO RETURN THE ECONOMY TO NORMAL, WHAT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF THROWING OUR MONEY AWAY OR CONTROLLING WHAT OR WHO GETS THEIR EMAIL. WHAT WERE TO HAPPEN IF SOME OF THAT SPACE JUNK OR SOME SMALL METEORITES HIT THE SATELITE ABOVE EARTH. WELL YOU CAN KISS THE $18 BILLION, INTERNET, TELEVISION, ETC. GOODBYE AND IT FLATLY WONT HELP ANYONE'S ECONOMY. I'D SAY WE'D HAVE THE TELEPHONE AND JUST MAYBE THE CELL PHONE LEFT. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement