This is fascinating stuff. I do have one question, though. They say: Doesn't that just cause the components to wear faster? And isn't replacing components using more energy than what they save by...
This is fascinating stuff. I do have one question, though. They say:
Google also sets the temperature of its data centers to 80°F, versus the usual 68-70°F, saving a lot of power for cooling.
Doesn't that just cause the components to wear faster? And isn't replacing components using more energy than what they save by running their temperature higher? (Though I bet it gets "charged" to the manufacturer and not them, so maybe it doesn't matter to them?) I'm sure someone smarter than me has done the math, but I'd like to understand that better.
This is a classic and rather hilarious trend in 'green strategies' globally. Countries like Denmark will happily spruik all the things they are doing to achieve 0% emissions, without acknowledging...
Though I bet it gets "charged" to the manufacturer and not them, so maybe it doesn't matter to them
This is a classic and rather hilarious trend in 'green strategies' globally. Countries like Denmark will happily spruik all the things they are doing to achieve 0% emissions, without acknowledging that they live in a service and knowledge economy, and have pushed all their dirty manufacturing to other countries yet still reap the benefits. It is the worst sort of 2-faced lying bullshit imaginable but everyone lets them off on it.
What holds capitalism back from the true utopia it should supposedly lead us all to is capturing externalities.
Apparently the standards used to be less than 80, but some people now say 80 won't increase degradation by any meaningful amount. I'm curious to see their stats, unfortunately I doubt we will.
Apparently the standards used to be less than 80, but some people now say 80 won't increase degradation by any meaningful amount. I'm curious to see their stats, unfortunately I doubt we will.
Interesting. If experts say it's all the same, then I'll believe them, as I'm certainly no expert in this area. It just sounded a little odd to me. Years ago I overclocked a computer. I can't...
Interesting. If experts say it's all the same, then I'll believe them, as I'm certainly no expert in this area. It just sounded a little odd to me.
Years ago I overclocked a computer. I can't remember if there was extra cooling involved or not. (I think it was going from like 40MHz to 48 or something like that.) Oddly, the CPU was just fine, but it did end up damaging a video input on the computer after a few months. But I don't really know how much it raised the temperature vs. before I did the overclocking. Maybe it was a lot more than 12° F?
I'd like to see some actual numbers. The components are still going to be generating heat just as quickly so how much energy does it really save if you're still cooling them? Surely less if...
I'd like to see some actual numbers. The components are still going to be generating heat just as quickly so how much energy does it really save if you're still cooling them? Surely less if they're open to the environment, but by how much?
Maybe not damage, but I'm wondering if it makes them wear out faster. Like running a motor at a higher speed might cause it to fail sooner than running it at a lower speed would?
Maybe not damage, but I'm wondering if it makes them wear out faster. Like running a motor at a higher speed might cause it to fail sooner than running it at a lower speed would?
This is fascinating stuff. I do have one question, though. They say:
Doesn't that just cause the components to wear faster? And isn't replacing components using more energy than what they save by running their temperature higher? (Though I bet it gets "charged" to the manufacturer and not them, so maybe it doesn't matter to them?) I'm sure someone smarter than me has done the math, but I'd like to understand that better.
This is a classic and rather hilarious trend in 'green strategies' globally. Countries like Denmark will happily spruik all the things they are doing to achieve 0% emissions, without acknowledging that they live in a service and knowledge economy, and have pushed all their dirty manufacturing to other countries yet still reap the benefits. It is the worst sort of 2-faced lying bullshit imaginable but everyone lets them off on it.
What holds capitalism back from the true utopia it should supposedly lead us all to is capturing externalities.
Apparently the standards used to be less than 80, but some people now say 80 won't increase degradation by any meaningful amount. I'm curious to see their stats, unfortunately I doubt we will.
Interesting. If experts say it's all the same, then I'll believe them, as I'm certainly no expert in this area. It just sounded a little odd to me.
Years ago I overclocked a computer. I can't remember if there was extra cooling involved or not. (I think it was going from like 40MHz to 48 or something like that.) Oddly, the CPU was just fine, but it did end up damaging a video input on the computer after a few months. But I don't really know how much it raised the temperature vs. before I did the overclocking. Maybe it was a lot more than 12° F?
I agree. I just want to see that data :P
I'd like to see some actual numbers. The components are still going to be generating heat just as quickly so how much energy does it really save if you're still cooling them? Surely less if they're open to the environment, but by how much?
I don't think an ambient temperature of 80°F is high enough to damage any components... just makes it slightly uncomfortable for workers.
Maybe not damage, but I'm wondering if it makes them wear out faster. Like running a motor at a higher speed might cause it to fail sooner than running it at a lower speed would?