3 ms·

Instead of micromanaging performance and energy usage; use data centers that use clean energy. It's dirty energy that we need to stop using. Clean energy, we sh

Instead of micromanaging performance and energy usage; use data centers that use clean energy. It's dirty energy that we need to stop using. Clean energy, we should feel less constrained about (without wasting it obviously). Long term when we have a surplus, it shouldn't matter how much we use. Short term, increased demand actually grows the renewable supply mostly because that is the cheapest way to meet that demand. The more renewables, the less economical non renewable becomes. So, not all energy usage is bad. Most of the big cloud providers already are implementing agendas to become sustainable: - https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/the-cloud?energyType=true https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/the-cloud... AWS is planning to be carbon neutral by 2025 - https://cloud.google.com/sustainability https://cloud.google.com/sustainability, Google claims to be carbon neutral now but are also planning to switch to 100% renewable energy by 2030. I guess they are planting trees or something. - https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global-infrastructure/sustainability/#overview https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global-infrastructure/sust... Azure is planning to using 100% renewable energy by 2025 Otherwise, maybe optimize your cost with cloud usage and indirectly save some energy. If you don't need it and it's running, it's costing you and the planet something. So, win win if you fix that. Also, as MS helpfully suggests, on premise is way more inefficient than their solution. While that is somewhat self serving, it's also probably true. If you us on premise, maybe consider picking your energy supplier more carefully. I guess, in the future, having strong guarantees from suppliers about sustainability could potentially mean advertising your own sustainability. Few companies do this right now. But it's potentially a big deal when your customers start appreciating, or better, demanding that you run your business sustainably. Right now, few companies care about this. It's a mindset change that needs to happen.

lwouis 5y ago
There is no such thing as "clean energy". Energy always entails environmental impact. As an example, a wind turbine has large environment impact: * During its production: mining to get the metals, heavy metal work like making steel, cement, resins, etc. Digging large mines, driving trucks all around with heavy materials * During its operations: noise, visual pollution, often destroying wildlife sites as people don't want them close to their living areas * After its operations: mostly unrecyclable, composite materials like resins, cement; often burried/landfilled > Google claims to be carbon neutral now but are also planning to switch to 100% renewable energy by 2030. I guess they are planting trees or something. I think this is a good representation of what the common person think. "They must be dealing with the pollution issues, right? Trees, hydrogen, electric cars, it's all going to be ok, right?". Start looking up data on this topic, and prepare for a deep dive into how no-one is actually doing anything significant about it, while calling everything green. No-one is "carbon neutral". It's complete marketing / green-washing. Google footprint on our ecosystem is large.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  I was similarly surprised when I read about a few ecological downsides of solar power. What is the best material you found on "full comprehensive costs (including downsides and externalities) of energy sources"?
  - snoopx31 5y ago
    You can try talks from this guy, he's a french energy and climate expert. I found that he explained very well the root of the issue between growth, energy and climate impact. Here is a talk he did for the MIT media lab in english: https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  > During its operations: noise, visual pollution, often destroying wildlife sites as people don't want them close to their living areas The UK's mostly solved this by putting turbines a couple miles off the coast. And the benefit of having that renewable energy vastly outweighs the environmental impact of "noise".

lwouis 5y ago

There is no such thing as "clean energy". Energy always entails environmental impact. As an example, a wind turbine has large environment impact: * During its production: mining to get the metals, heavy metal work like making steel, cement, resins, etc. Digging large mines, driving trucks all around with heavy materials * During its operations: noise, visual pollution, often destroying wildlife sites as people don't want them close to their living areas * After its operations: mostly unrecyclable, composite materials like resins, cement; often burried/landfilled > Google claims to be carbon neutral now but are also planning to switch to 100% renewable energy by 2030. I guess they are planting trees or something. I think this is a good representation of what the common person think. "They must be dealing with the pollution issues, right? Trees, hydrogen, electric cars, it's all going to be ok, right?". Start looking up data on this topic, and prepare for a deep dive into how no-one is actually doing anything significant about it, while calling everything green. No-one is "carbon neutral". It's complete marketing / green-washing. Google footprint on our ecosystem is large.

mdp2021 5y ago
I was similarly surprised when I read about a few ecological downsides of solar power. What is the best material you found on "full comprehensive costs (including downsides and externalities) of energy sources"?
- snoopx31 5y ago
  You can try talks from this guy, he's a french energy and climate expert. I found that he explained very well the root of the issue between growth, energy and climate impact. Here is a talk he did for the MIT media lab in english: https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA
iamstupidsimple 5y ago
> During its operations: noise, visual pollution, often destroying wildlife sites as people don't want them close to their living areas The UK's mostly solved this by putting turbines a couple miles off the coast. And the benefit of having that renewable energy vastly outweighs the environmental impact of "noise".