If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Half a milliliter of water needed per Google search. Won't somebody think of the droplets   (independent.co.uk) divider line 45
    More: Interesting, waste water, Google, cubic centimeters, droplets, Google searches, oil consumption, international organizations, electric powers  
•       •       •

6111 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Jul 2010 at 7:32 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-07-04 12:38:52 PM  
There's plenty of water in the polar ice caps. Maybe we should do something with those.
 
2010-07-04 01:21:42 PM  
Why does Algore hate the planet so much?
 
2010-07-04 01:44:56 PM  
*shakes fist* Damn you, Internet!!
 
2010-07-04 07:09:53 PM  
That's 5-10 drops, depending on your definition of a drop.
 
2010-07-04 07:35:36 PM  
How much is needed to stream a 15 minute porn?
 
2010-07-04 07:40:01 PM  
aspAddict: How much is needed to stream a 15 3 minute porn?

/sobs
 
2010-07-04 07:41:15 PM  
What happens to it? Does it disappear forever? Just evaporate? Get electrolyzed?

So some water gets processed. It all goes back into circulation eventually.
 
2010-07-04 07:51:44 PM  
This number must have been generated at The Institute of Rectal Plucks.
 
2010-07-04 08:00:38 PM  
Just as well we don't use water for other stuff, huh?
 
2010-07-04 08:11:32 PM  
daveb0rg: aspAddict: How much is needed to stream a 15 3 minute porn?

/sobs


You'll build endurance the more you watch.
 
2010-07-04 08:23:13 PM  
Uakronkid: What happens to it? Does it disappear forever? Just evaporate? Get electrolyzed?


Google turns water into CO2.

Link (new window)
A Harvard University physicist says a typical search on a desktop computer generates about 7 grams of carbon dioxide.
 
2010-07-04 08:25:26 PM  
That's 5 myrioliters, I believe.
 
2010-07-04 08:28:17 PM  
uh... seems like the water is only used as measurement of energy, it's not like the water is actually used or conserved in anyway to power the search, so how is this relevant to water shortage problems? all it concludes is regions with high energy use are probably not in real danger of water shortage, big whoop. why don't they do a research on how each google search required half a grain of rice of energy or some other nonsense and make a graph with energy use and region with food shortage so we can be more aware of world hunger problem, because each google search avoided is half grain of rice saved some where right?
 
2010-07-04 08:29:43 PM  
It reminds me of my mom guilting me into finish all the food on my plate with tales of Ethopians starving on the other side of the world. It's not like Google directly steals water from people in Bumfarkistan. They don't have water because their nation has shiatty infrastructure, and half the time this is due to some despot stealing money from his nation in order to pay for a new palace or to ethnically cleanse some tribe that farked over his ancestors a thousand years ago.

Also, a big chunk of Google's datacenters are in a parts of Washington and Oregon where NO ONE is dying of thirst, which makes this article even stupider. You waste a whole lot more water by insisting that your food is organically grown without using genetically modified crops.
 
2010-07-04 08:30:33 PM  
I doubt the accuracy of this statistic. It costs essentially the same for Google's servers to sit idle as it does for them to run at maximum. If you wanted some kind of rough "per search" statistic, you'd need to figure out what the maximum number of "searches" their service is capable of over a fixed period of time, and then determine how much water was used in that amount of time. The longer time period, the better, to smooth over changes in capacity and availability of water, etc.

It's essentially this same reasoning that proves that bandwidth doesn't "cost" anything. The Internet access providers are conducting an embargo to create a false "shortage" whereby they can jack the prices up and slipstream anti-consumer laws onto the books, while at the same time pocketing the money they should be spending on upgrades to higher capacity switches. Equipment which incidentally is also much cheaper to run. Not to be confused with the *prices* of bandwidth set by two major peers who essentially trade even amounts of data to break even.
 
2010-07-04 08:34:14 PM  
traylor: Uakronkid: What happens to it? Does it disappear forever? Just evaporate? Get electrolyzed?


Google turns water into CO2.

Link (new window)
A Harvard University physicist says a typical search on a desktop computer generates about 7 grams of carbon dioxide.


Doesn't this ignore the fact that Google has actually taken into account the ecological impact of its business and is moving to using hydroelectic-powered datacenters that don't generate CO2? (new window)
 
2010-07-04 08:37:30 PM  
But how many Rhode islands is that? I only understand these comparisons when they're in the form of states.
 
2010-07-04 08:39:25 PM  
OMG, they even confiscated the holy water. That's really gonna come around and bite them in the ass once the vampires and demons start their uprising.

img687.imageshack.us
 
2010-07-04 08:40:09 PM  
oops, wrong thread
 
2010-07-04 08:43:30 PM  
traylor: Uakronkid: What happens to it? Does it disappear forever? Just evaporate? Get electrolyzed?

Google turns water into CO2.


Damn them and their dihydrogen monoxide processing equipment! They turn it into carbon, and carbon is bad, from what I read in the papers!
 
2010-07-04 08:44:32 PM  
Came here to say article is full of FAIL, but What's a Internet Nubian and Mad_Radhu beat me to it.

Water used for hydropower comes from rivers (mostly in North America?), and does not equate to lost drinking water in the 3rd world.

The linked Harvard CO2 article is similarly full of fail, unless you can demonstrate that Google servers are pulling energy from a hydrocarbon power plant.

"Scientists" putting out "studies" like this are what gives science a bad name. Its because of this kind of thing that the public perception of science is so f*cked up
 
2010-07-04 08:58:59 PM  
If they wanted people to understand what they're talking about, why did they use metric?

Why not use a measurement system most the world uses?
 
2010-07-04 10:16:04 PM  
How about buttons that CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE that ACTUALLY ENLARGE THE IMAGE?
 
2010-07-04 10:19:05 PM  
Link (new window) (new window)

Link to the map, because the worthless "The Independent" website cannot apparently link to it properly.
 
2010-07-04 10:20:52 PM  
 
2010-07-04 10:29:01 PM  
Gridlock: How about buttons that CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE that ACTUALLY ENLARGE THE IMAGE?

What, and waste 0.5mm of water?
 
2010-07-04 10:36:27 PM  
thewayofit.com

What my porn habit may look like.
 
2010-07-04 11:10:07 PM  
Busy servers do take more power than idle ones.
 
2010-07-04 11:10:22 PM  
150,000 liters a day for something as powerful as The Google doesn't seem like a lot to me.
 
2010-07-04 11:16:49 PM  
AR55: You'll build endurance the more you watch.

Well played - you got me.
 
2010-07-05 12:45:59 AM  
alaskan gold digger: Came here to say article is full of FAIL, but What's a Internet Nubian and Mad_Radhu beat me to it.

Water used for hydropower comes from rivers (mostly in North America?), and does not equate to lost drinking water in the 3rd world.

The linked Harvard CO2 article is similarly full of fail, unless you can demonstrate that Google servers are pulling energy from a hydrocarbon power plant.

"Scientists" putting out "studies" like this are what gives science a bad name. Its because of this kind of thing that the public perception of science is so f*cked up


Electricity is fungible unless they specifically pay more for renewables. Which may be exactly what they are doing and you are implying.
 
2010-07-05 12:48:22 AM  
fark it- its raining. I'm a go crazy.
 
2010-07-05 04:00:17 AM  
Many of Google's server farms sit in Eastern Oregon and Washington State. Why? Because the ultra reliable electricity (from hydro power) costs them about $0.02 a kWh. Now I can believe if they were counting the amount of water that flows through the river, through the turbines, but other than that, no, they don't take any water "per search."
 
2010-07-05 05:11:29 AM  
Uakronkid: What happens to it? Does it disappear forever? Just evaporate? Get electrolyzed?

So some water gets processed. It all goes back into circulation eventually.


Farking this.

Headline makes it sound like there's an evil water-desintegrating machine hidden under the T-rex in Googleplex.
 
2010-07-05 07:13:11 AM  
Sounds like I should just recycle my dishwater by pouring it on my laptop.
 
2010-07-05 07:47:58 AM  
They recorded the Internet on water? brutal.
 
2010-07-05 08:15:51 AM  
Somehow, Steve Jobs is going to use this when trying to steer people to iPhone 4 instead of the HTC EVO or Droid X.
 
2010-07-05 09:33:02 AM  
OMG GOOGLE IS USING UP THE WORLDS WATER SUPPLY BECAUSE AS SOON AS TEH WATER FLOWS THROUGH THE TURBINES OF THE POWER PLANT IT IS VAPORIZED NEVER TO RETURN!!!!EAU THE HUMANITY!!!
 
2010-07-05 10:23:22 AM  
fluffy2097: But how many Rhode islands is that? I only understand these comparisons when they're in the form of states.

I'm about to pee 2,000 searches.
 
2010-07-05 10:58:20 AM  
alaskan gold digger:
The linked Harvard CO2 article is similarly full of fail, unless you can demonstrate that Google servers are pulling energy from a hydrocarbon power plant.


Well, you see, all electrical power is in a grid, so the power comes from everywhere, which is how Google can run exclusively on soft coal and electric cars can run exclusively on solar panels and wind turbines.
 
2010-07-05 11:04:41 AM  
BTW - I am assuming that today Google is evil and EVs are good, and that soft coal power plants are evil and solar panels/wind turbines are good.

I didn't get my weekly newsletter to tell me what's good and what's bad, so I'm making assumptions. I could be entirely wrong and solar panels are bad this week because they pollute a lot to make, and wind turbines are bad this week because, I don't know, that's the way the coin god flipped.

But you get the idea.

/still have to pee
 
2010-07-05 01:41:57 PM  
Mad_Radhu: It reminds me of my mom guilting me into finish all the food on my plate with tales of Ethopians starving on the other side of the world. It's not like Google directly steals water from people in Bumfarkistan. They don't have water because their nation has shiatty infrastructure, and half the time this is due to some despot stealing money from his nation in order to pay for a new palace or to ethnically cleanse some tribe that farked over his ancestors a thousand years ago.

Seriously. These oppressed people need to get together and form an alliance and become one people so they can break the shackles of the oppressors like my country did to those British assholes a couple centuries ago. (No offense intended to British assholes of today.)
 
2010-07-05 01:44:16 PM  
Mad_Radhu: It reminds me of my mom guilting me into finish all the food on my plate with tales of Ethopians starving on the other side of the world. It's not like Google directly steals water from people in Bumfarkistan. They don't have water because their nation has shiatty infrastructure, and half the time this is due to some despot stealing money from his nation in order to pay for a new palace or to ethnically cleanse some tribe that farked over his ancestors a thousand years ago.

Also, a big chunk of Google's datacenters are in a parts of Washington and Oregon where NO ONE is dying of thirst, which makes this article even stupider. You waste a whole lot more water by insisting that your food is organically grown without using genetically modified crops.


Yeah, those damn hippies. The only way to live with a clear conscience is to base your food decisions on how much your own eating kills other people's babies.
 
2010-07-05 01:50:22 PM  
alaskan gold digger: Came here to say article is full of FAIL, but What's a Internet Nubian and Mad_Radhu beat me to it.

Water used for hydropower comes from rivers (mostly in North America?), and does not equate to lost drinking water in the 3rd world.

The linked Harvard CO2 article is similarly full of fail, unless you can demonstrate that Google servers are pulling energy from a hydrocarbon power plant.

"Scientists" putting out "studies" like this are what gives science a bad name. Its because of this kind of thing that the public perception of science is so f*cked up


And why we all hate Harvard, too.

www.tdbimg.com

/Harvard Men
 
2010-07-05 01:56:39 PM  
Okay, I'm done.

/Wangiss has left the building
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report