3% of the electricity produced by the US goes into its computers. We tend to think of computers as a low energy consumption devices, and they are. But without much notice they have crept into every aspect of our life. And now the computers in the US use 3% of its electricity. I wonder how much kettles use.

And some of those computers are housed in massive data centres such as those that are running Facebook. As Facebook adds 600,000 new users every day and as their monthly electricity bill passes $1,000,000 (see here), a lot of carbon is being emitted. We don’t really see it but every time we click on a Facebook link, some computer starts processing and some hard disk starts turning (if it wasn’t already) and some network card starts sending, all contributing to the electricity usage and thus the carbon emissions. But how much is all of this really.

My suggestion to Facebook, which any reasonable person in Facebook would strongly reject, is to put a small counter somewhere on the screen that measures your contribution to Facebook’s carbon emissions. Let’s find out how much carbon we emitted just by browsing through our friend’s photos because we are bored at work.

A quick calculation to show how much electricity each user is responsible for consuming (1m dollars / 140m users) will give you about 8.5 cents worth of electricity per year. Of course you have to add your own computer’s electrcitiy usage too. It doesn’t sound like much but every litte bit adds up.

9 responses


Do you want to comment?

Comments RSS and TrackBack Identifier URI ?

That’s very interesting. Is there any tech out there that can be used to minimize usage, besides obvious things like less powerful graphics cards?

Another thought, would solid-state and/or flash memory cosume less power than spinning a hard drive?

It all makes me glad I shut down my laptop every night!

January 5, 2009 12:58 am

As far as I know green IT is starting to grow into a field of its own but I have no specific knowledge of any technologies.

I guess better electronic and thermal design could help as I am sure a lot of energy also goes into cooling the devices. A lot of energy could also be wasted due to bad behaviour, like setting the cooling temperature too low.

SSDs do consume less power (laptops with SSD stay on longer) but it is important to take into account also the energy expended during manufacturing. To methodically calculate an environmental footprint of each device, typically through a Life Cycle Assessment, could take a year or two. Given the amounts of computers out there, and that they won’t get any less in the future, such a study could be worthwhile.

January 5, 2009 1:16 am

I heard google is relocating all its servers to Iceland where they can make use of carbon free geothermal generated electricity. Maybe facebook will do the same in the future… start a facebook petition group to move their servers to locations where green electricity is available.

January 5, 2009 12:10 pm

Interesting, especially that Iceland now is cheaper than ever and I am sure they would appreciate any economic investments in their county. However, this merely replaces another application that would have used this clean electricity, unless Iceland is sitting on loads of geothermal energy that is not being used. So I guess the limiting factor here is how much clean energy is available in the world, and this is where the expansion really needs to take place.

January 5, 2009 12:17 pm

Well, I don’t appreciate that argument really? If you use a wind turbine to power x you could have used it to power y, so it’s not necessarily that great? Let’s build a ginormous photovoltaic in the Sahara and power Europe with it….oh wait, but you could power Africa with it instead…so that’s a bad idea let’s not do it at all…? Whilst there isn’t a problem with saturating Iceland and its geothermal potential, then its a great idea. It’s not like we know of brazilians of industries all desperate to set up in Iceland for said reason. Why are you studying about renewable energy technologies when you have that argument?! Ok so your reply may go along the lines of ‘but I’m pointing out cutting down on energy is sometimes a more sensible idea…etc’ yeh, but to a point, unless you want every country to just go back to the dark ages. Energy consumption/capital is correlated with GDP/capital remember?! Oh wait, we’ve hit upon a point…all those people sneeking on facebook during work are certainly not increasing GDP/capita.

January 8, 2009 9:28 am

I think you are missing the point here. The point is that changing the users of renewable energy doesn’t really make that much of a difference. So if there is already a wind turbine powering x and you use it to power y instead, then you have not improved the overall emissions of the world. Only now a different company gets the right to say that they are clean. So if you build loads of solar plants in the desert to power Europe then you have increased renewable capacity in the world, which is a good thing. Whether you decide later to switch the power to Africa instead doesn’t make a difference. So the bottom line is, we should not get excited about companies switching their electricity suppliers but rather get excited about suppliers building new capacity.

As for my reply to ‘cutting down on energy’, yes people should cut down on wasteful energy, the keyword here being wasteful. So no argument for dark ages for me.

January 8, 2009 9:43 am

you’re missing the point. Facebook won’t be replacing anyone.

January 8, 2009 10:17 am

From previous comment: ” However, this merely replaces another application that would have used this clean electricity, unless Iceland is sitting on loads of geothermal energy that is not being used

So if facebook won’t be replacing anyone then it’s a good thing. I am assuming you have looked up some data on Iceland to know that they won’t be replacing anyone, can you please show us where this data is?

January 8, 2009 10:33 am

I took the fact that Iceland has loads of spare geothermal capacity they cannot use or export as the premise for this. If it’s not the case, then I agree with Harry that there is no environmental gain here, and I doubt there would be a business case for it either. I can’t imagine Iceland would supply cheaper electricity than the US unless it was going spare. And don’t forget that it would cost companies such as Google a large amount of money to relocate their server farms to Iceland since they would probably have to lay a large number of under sea data cables to connect them to the world (very very expensive). So they’d have to be saving a significant amount on their electricity bill!

January 8, 2009 3:58 pm

Leave me a reply...
















Trackbacks