3 ms·

Powering a Google search

20 points by peter123 18y ago

bendtheblock 18y ago
I think this press release is a response to the research mentioned in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm. Whether or not this type of statistic is relevant, it probably pales in comparison to the increase in global GDP as a result of this powerful search tool. Besides... a further question, would the internet be as usable without it?
mseebach 18y ago
> Dr Wissner-Gross's study claims that two Google searches on a desktop computer produces 14g of CO2 .. it sounds a lot like NOT performing two Google searches on a desktop computer would produce between 13-14g of CO2. I read in another article that some other study tried to factor wether or not you would need to start your computer up or not .. and how far around the world the data would have to travel. I may just be cynical, but this sounds alot like an attempt to make ordinary people feel guilty about killing the planet, just by living -- in turn to make them turn to the whole buying indulgences for your climate sins (including Googling, apparently) trend.
invisible 18y ago
The doctor's report accounts for a) your computer viewing the page for X minutes, b) the overall searches per power used by google's datacenters, and c) some other random guessing I'm assuming. Google's figure accounts for usage of power the google search actually utilizes. Both of these are skewed figures, reflecting the agendas of the two. The doctor has a site he wants to promote, google has a "green" label they want to keep.
tlrobinson 18y ago
Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches. Honest question: is that correct grammar? ("as many greenhouse gasses")
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  It could be if it meant types of gas (CO2, methane, ...) but in this context discussing quantity of gas, it doesn't really fit. However, there is a meme of dodgy word endings in use at the moment, popularized by Jeremy Clarkson on top gear talking about cars having x many torques instead of x N/m of torque. This may be deliberately in that style.

20 points by peter123 18y ago

I think this press release is a response to the research mentioned in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm. Whether or not this type of statistic is relevant, it probably pales in comparison to the increase in global GDP as a result of this powerful search tool. Besides... a further question, would the internet be as usable without it?

mseebach 18y ago

> Dr Wissner-Gross's study claims that two Google searches on a desktop computer produces 14g of CO2 .. it sounds a lot like NOT performing two Google searches on a desktop computer would produce between 13-14g of CO2. I read in another article that some other study tried to factor wether or not you would need to start your computer up or not .. and how far around the world the data would have to travel. I may just be cynical, but this sounds alot like an attempt to make ordinary people feel guilty about killing the planet, just by living -- in turn to make them turn to the whole buying indulgences for your climate sins (including Googling, apparently) trend.

invisible 18y ago

The doctor's report accounts for a) your computer viewing the page for X minutes, b) the overall searches per power used by google's datacenters, and c) some other random guessing I'm assuming. Google's figure accounts for usage of power the google search actually utilizes. Both of these are skewed figures, reflecting the agendas of the two. The doctor has a site he wants to promote, google has a "green" label they want to keep.

tlrobinson 18y ago

Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches. Honest question: is that correct grammar? ("as many greenhouse gasses")

jodrellblank 18y ago
It could be if it meant types of gas (CO2, methane, ...) but in this context discussing quantity of gas, it doesn't really fit. However, there is a meme of dodgy word endings in use at the moment, popularized by Jeremy Clarkson on top gear talking about cars having x many torques instead of x N/m of torque. This may be deliberately in that style.