Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[W.D.Clinger]

Now that I think of it, we have a very rapid proliferation of data (blog posts for example), which must be stored somewhere, necessitating the building of many new data centers. One of the primary considerations in siting a data center is where power is available. Since a single data center gobbles power by the megawatt, this problem is only going to get worse, and it is considerably aggravated by the advent of cloud computing. NSA is building a new data center out in Utah because there is no more power available near their headquarters. From what I can see, the internet doesn't have a small energy cost at all.

I don't see how the NSA example supports your argument. Had NSA built their data center on-site, and not used the Internet at all, wouldn't its energy consumption have been approximately the same?

More generally, you are now talking about the energy required to power new data centers, not the Internet. Without the Internet, the equivalent effect could be obtained only by duplicating each data center at every local network of user sites, which would consume far more energy than sharing just one copy of each data center over the Internet.

 

[TFian]

I don't see how the NSA example supports your argument. Had NSA built their data center on-site, and not used the Internet at all, wouldn't its energy consumption have been approximately the same?

More generally, you are now talking about the energy required to power new data centers, not the Internet. Without the Internet, the equivalent effect could be obtained only by duplicating each data center at every local network of user sites, which would consume far more energy than sharing just one copy of each data center over the Internet.

Well, aren't data centers are cornerstone to how the internet works? Or am I wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

If there areas that consume energy in larger proportion and more inefficiently, why would energy contraction effect the internet disproportionably? Something like architectural lighting would be more likely to be targeted first.

 

[Almo]

I'm not the author of the blogpost.

You're quoting an excerpt.

Hint:

put quotes in quote tags

Like this

Then people will really be sure what you said and what you are quoting.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Well, aren't data centers are cornerstone to how the internet works? Or am I wrong.

Some data centers implement the Internet backbone^WP, but most do not.

I'd be more than surprised if an NSA data center^WP were an important component of Internet infrastructure. Under the Patriot Act, NSA doesn't need a warrant to monitor the Internet communications of anyone believed to be outside the USA, but the effectiveness of that monitoring requires some secrecy; the NSA's Internet connections aren't likely to take the form of a dedicated data center whose location is known to John Q Public. Warrantless monitoring of domestic US communications by the NSA is usually illegal and always controversial; if an NSA data center were visibly involved with the Internet backbone, it would become a magnet for protests and lawsuits.

 

[TFian]

If there areas that consume energy in larger proportion and more inefficiently, why would energy contraction effect the internet disproportionably? Something like architectural lighting would be more likely to be targeted first.

Why wouldn't the internet eventually be targeted though? If we get to a stage where we have little disposable energy to use, why would we prioritize the scarce amounts for the energy intensive internet?

Some data centers implement the Internet backboneWP, but most do not.

But those data centers that do are probably critical to the internet to exist yes? And if we don't have the energy to support them, then how will the internet survive?

 

[Dancing David]

Why wouldn't the internet eventually be targeted though? If we get to a stage where we have little disposable energy to use, why would we prioritize the scarce amounts for the energy intensive internet?

It could be economized to some extent, but I think your vision of energy contaction is different than mine, you seem to view a greater shortage.

 

[TFian]

It could be economized to some extent, but I think your vision of energy contaction is different than mine, you seem to view a greater shortage.

Well, how do you view energy contraction then? And what do you mean by economized?

 

[Dancing David]

I do not understand TFian, I have answered you questions and you just seem to be arguing. I know that english may not be your first language but I grow tired of this.

You tell me, how much will energy supplies contract and why the internet would be subject to them.

And don't quote that one source you already quoted.

 

[Mark6]

Why wouldn't the internet eventually be targeted though? If we get to a stage where we have little disposable energy to use, why would we prioritize the scarce amounts for the energy intensive internet?

Because you cannot replace its function with anything LESS energy-intensive. That's what the post #13 (about horse carriages and parentally arranged marriages) was about. The value per joule delivered by the Internet is so high that given scarce amount of energy available it is hard to prioritise anything above Internet. And your point about embedded costs are really a function of planned obsolescence. No law of nature says you must throw away a computer after 3 years. I still use computers over 10 years old, and they can last rather longer. An energy-hungry world won't be able to afford NEW servers (or not many), but existing ones will keep going -- at a fraction of energy cost of any conceivable replacement.

[Edited] Upon re-reading OP -- the line about re-adjusting to postage stamps and public libraries is asinine. Amount of energy necessary to do everything Internet does today with physical mail and physical books is orders of magnitude greater than world's total energy consumption today. And if you are willing to drastically cut down on information flow, then a scaled down Internet (turn off 9 out of every 10 servers) will still handle it at a fraction of energy cost of physical mail and books.

 

[TFian]

I do not understand TFian, I have answered you questions and you just seem to be arguing. I know that english may not be your first language but I grow tired of this.

You tell me, how much will energy supplies contract and why the internet would be subject to them.

And don't quote that one source you already quoted.

Sorry, I did not mean to seem like I was arguing. Onto your question though, I don't have an exact figure, but from I'm reading, it seems we're going to struggle to just have enough power to keep our refrigerators going. At least, that's what some are saying.

Upon re-reading OP -- the line about re-adjusting to postage stamps and public libraries is asinine. Amount of energy necessary to do everything Internet does today with physical mail and physical books is orders of magnitude greater than world's total energy consumption today. And if you are willing to drastically cut down on information flow, then a scaled down Internet (turn off 9 out of every 10 servers) will still handle it at a fraction of energy cost of physical mail and books.

I don't think he was saying libraries would adjust to the current information flow guaranteed by the Internet, but that if during an massive energy contraction the "common folk" can't afford the internet anymore, we'd be relying on public libraries, until the contraction "shut off the internet for good" (in his words). I'm not so sure what's so asinine about that?

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I did not mean to seem like I was arguing. Onto your question though, I don't have an exact figure, but from I'm reading, it seems we're going to struggle to just have enough power to keep our refrigerators going. At least, that's what some are saying.

'Some' is not a citation or a reference.

 

[Mark6]

I don't think he was saying libraries would adjust to the current information flow guaranteed by the Internet, but that if during an massive energy contraction the "common folk" can't afford the internet anymore, we'd be relying on public libraries, until the contraction "shut off the internet for good" (in his words). I'm not so sure what's so asinine about that?

Asinine is this: no matter what level of information flow you settle on, it can ALWAYS be delivered electronically at less energy cost than on paper. Keep in mind that internet is very elastic: shutting off 99% of servers will reduce data flow by 99%, which still leaves an incredibly useful public asset. And if we ever get to the point there is no energy for internet at all, there won't be any for lighting or heating libraries, let alone for making paper.

 

[Mark6]

Sorry, I did not mean to seem like I was arguing. Onto your question though, I don't have an exact figure, but from I'm reading, it seems we're going to struggle to just have enough power to keep our refrigerators going. At least, that's what some are saying.

What Dancing David said. Also refrigerators use much more power than internet -- especially if you give up intensive services like video.

You seem to have some mental block against the fact just how little power internet actually uses, and how much value it delivers for that power. When people point it out to you, you go on about embedded costs -- that is, energy cost of chip manufacturing. Which, even if true, blows out the OP claim of "contraction within weeks or months" -- stopping admittedly energy hungry chip factories will not stop internet. Certainly not right away.

When I told you that there is no reason to replace computers or servers every year -- internet can go on for decades with very little replacement, -- you ignored me.

 

[Mark6]

Also, oil is used mostly for transport. Only about 1/3 of US electricity comes from oil. We have enough coal and uranium to run the other 2/3 for centuries. I repeat -- OP is based on asinine premises.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Sorry, I did not mean to seem like I was arguing. Onto your question though, I don't have an exact figure, but from I'm reading, it seems we're going to struggle to just have enough power to keep our refrigerators going. At least, that's what some are saying.

Some are part of a doom cult.

 

[TFian]

'Some' is not a citation or a reference.

Why can't I use Archdruid John Michael Greer as a source?

We have enough coal and uranium to run the other 2/3 for centuries. I repeat -- OP is based on asinine premise

I don't know about uranium, but we're peaking on coal as early as 2011 http://www.utexas.edu/news/2010/07/26/engineering_patzek_coal/

Which, even if true, blows out the OP claim of "contraction within weeks or months" -- stopping admittedly energy hungry chip factories will not stop internet. Certainly not right away.

Yes, I know the internet will not be shut down *right away*, the question is will contraction eventually shut the internet off. "Certainly not right away" would indicate it would shut down eventually.

When I told you that there is no reason to replace computers or servers every year -- internet can go on for decades with very little replacement, -- you ignored me.

No, I know what you're saying. But that doesn't stop it from being shut down in the future, because of energy contraction.

Also refrigerators use much more power than internet -- especially if you give up intensive services like video.

Since when?

Asinine is this: no matter what level of information flow you settle on, it can ALWAYS be delivered electronically at less energy cost than on paper. Keep in mind that internet is very elastic: shutting off 99% of servers will reduce data flow by 99%, which still leaves an incredibly useful public asset. And if we ever get to the point there is no energy for internet at all, there won't be any for lighting or heating libraries, let alone for making paper.

Well, he said people would be going to the libraries to USE the internet, because they couldn't afford it themselves anymore, not as a replacement for the internet (at least not right away). Are you sure there'd be no energy for making paper? We made paper for far longer than we had electricity...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I dunno about uranium, but I do know that we have enough spent uranium to run our society longer than civilization will last.

 

[Dancing David]

Why can't I use Archdruid John Michael Greer as a source?

The analysis is suspect and not very good.

And you mentioned peak coal, that has to be some mind bending twisting you are doing there, you have no idea how much coal there is in the US do you?

That article does not support your statement. And in fact you need to read what he says more carefully. You should learn to cite the original sources, I assume he is not looking at high sulpher soft coal deposits.

 

[TFian]

The analysis is suspect and not very good.

And you mentioned peak coal, that has to be some mind bending twisting you are doing there, you have no idea how much coal there is in the US do you?

That article does not support your statement. And in fact you need to read what he says more carefully. You should learn to cite the original sources, I assume he is not looking at high sulpher soft coal deposits.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/will-coal-supplies-peak-in-2011.html

Yes, according to a recent study that predicts:

After 2011, the production rates of coal and CO2 decline, reaching 1990 levels by the year 2037, and reaching 50% of the peak value in the year 2047.

Summarizing the study, Scitizen writes:

actual historical coal production is a better indicator of the future trend of worldwide coal output than stated reserves which are notoriously unreliable. They note, for example, that the state of Illinois, despite its rank as second in reserves in the United States, has seen its production decline by half over the last 20 years.

Here's their source http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=0558e0cee1ce64f16b79f0e644e00f9b