Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[feeutfo]

Some bloke on sky claimed, a single google search consumes enough power to boil a kettle.

 

I guess this is an average worked out over all searches, and some searches would be less or more power hungry than others.

Or is he talking rubbish. ?

[STMO123]

Sounds like rubbish, but isn't that what the world thrives on these days? Misinformation and bullshit.
No doubt he means the power used by your device, the devices server, googles server etc., etc.
Who cares?

[Kevin Wood]

That's rich! Sky moaning about other people's energy consumption.

<Looks over at Sky box that takes about 30 Watts, day and night, standby or on> 

[Abiton]

What it probably should have said is that while the search is happening, an amount of power similar to a kettle's is being used; but as you may have noticed, the search usually only takes a small fraction of a second, so the total energy used is very low.

[feeutfo]

It was a discussion about Eco shite. How much power us humans consume.

He was trying to add some perspective on recent electric car story's. priorities all wrong we should be doing this that and the other. Etc.

( not a sky employee iirc)

[Kevin Wood]

What it probably should have said is that while the search is happening, an amount of power similar to a kettle's is being used; but as you may have noticed, the search usually only takes a small fraction of a second, so the total energy used is very low.

I think it's more likely that they've taken the power all of Google's data centres take crawling the web day and night and divided it by the number of searches. Not really relevant because 99% of that energy will be consumed pretty much regardless of whether you do your search or not, I reckon.

Still, if this sort of hysteria gets the yogurt knitters off the internet it's more bandwidth for me.

[feeutfo]

Yes an average. Amount of power divided by the number of searches. ...?

[Abiton]

What it probably should have said is that while the search is happening, an amount of power similar to a kettle's is being used; but as you may have noticed, the search usually only takes a small fraction of a second, so the total energy used is very low.

I think it's more likely that they've taken the power all of Google's data centres take crawling the web day and night and divided it by the number of searches. Not really relevant because 99% of that energy will be consumed pretty much regardless of whether you do your search or not, I reckon.

Still, if this sort of hysteria gets the yogurt knitters off the internet it's more bandwidth for me.

Maybe; I really can't be bothered to try to search for the truth, got a yogurt half-knitted here.   

[TheBoy]

As many know, I work at one of the datacentres in Bletchley.  When we used to do Internet Hosting from there, our standby generators had the capability to power all of Bletchley - a fairly large town.  We've since added more standby capacity .

Now, in MK, I know of a large Spanish bank's datacentre, tunnie's dad's company's datacentre, one for a large UK ISP, as well as the one I'm at.

All this Internet shit is an expensive business.


Google are quite coy about their stuff, but are believed to have over 200,000 servers dedicated to search alone. The newest are probably pulling about 150-300w, ones more than 3yrs, probably double that. Its believed that Google do not use blades for search. You generally need the same amount of power to cool them.  Then the routers. From memory, the Cisco 12000 series will have 4 (or is it 6) 16A feeds each. Then all those switches and firewalls.


I think the stat quoted could be made to look accurate, but is misleading IMHO.

[feeutfo]

Yes it was a very dumbed down conversation. So dumbed down, in order to make it understandable, that it was utterly pointless in its entirety.

Politics and the environment, completely diluted miss informed blah...



But an interesting insight. No matter which way its cut up, is it fair to say, it's a hell of a lot more power than we think it is....?

[symes]

I've come to the conclusion some people harm the environment just by breathing

[TheBoy]

Yes it was a very dumbed down conversation. So dumbed down, in order to make it understandable, that it was utterly pointless in its entirety.

Politics and the environment, completely diluted miss informed blah...

Yet some will take it as gospel, and tell others its true.

Note, its impossible to get real figures from Google, so whatever tard came up with this is full of shite.  But, I wouldn't suspect even Google's business model would be profitable if every search was using that amount.

//edit - typo, changed would to wouldn't on last sentence

[TheBoy]

I've come to the conclusion some people harm the environment just by breathing

I know of several who are a waste of air

I frequently wonder, 100m sperm, and that was the quickest?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Yes it was a very dumbed down conversation. So dumbed down, in order to make it understandable, that it was utterly pointless in its entirety.

Politics and the environment, completely diluted miss informed blah...

Yet some will take it as gospel, and tell others its true.

Note, its impossible to get real figures from Google, so whatever tard came up with this is full of shite.  But, I would suspect even Google's business model would be profitable if every search was using that amount.

Indeed, but I doubt their business model would be profitable when they handle hundreds of millions of searches per day ..............so @ "enough power to boil a kettle"..............= impossible consumption of electric and no profit!!

[Abiton]

Yes it was a very dumbed down conversation. So dumbed down, in order to make it understandable, that it was utterly pointless in its entirety.

Politics and the environment, completely diluted miss informed blah...

Yet some will take it as gospel, and tell others its true.

Note, its impossible to get real figures from Google, so whatever tard came up with this is full of shite.  But, I would suspect even Google's business model would be profitable if every search was using that amount.

Wouldn't?