Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Garrison0fMars]

Others have. But it is nice to have yours as well.

Yeah, most people in the thread have already ripped the ArchFruitcake a new one on this issue, but I thought I might as well expand the argument by including the possibilities of other lower powered "Internets", to further expand the point it isn't going anywhere. Even though she(He?) will not listen I know...

 

[Garrison0fMars]

So? What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Also, do you find something wrong he said in the quote you mined?

No quote mine, since I quoted the entire bit within context. If you feel otherwise, you can follow the link and show me how I put it out of context.

But do I find something wrong with it? Well, I'm not familiar with the case he brings up, but the fact he clearly states a belief in magic frankly makes his ability to understand science probably tenuous at best. Do you not find something a bit wrong with the belief in magic? Do you yourself believe in "magic"?

 

[GreyArea]

... the kind of thinking ... John Michael Greer criticized in this post. ... For a village to devote the electrical output of a waterwheel to a repeater could mean that the electricity won't be there to power a couple of refrigerators, so that children don't die of diarrhea from spoiled food, the way they used to do, every summer, in the pre-refrigeration US....

I hate to break it to you, TFian:

February 06, 2008:

As it happens, I think electricity is a keeper; I expect some form of radio to remain in use for the indefinite future; I expect to see refrigeration stay around, too. All of them involve technologies that can be made by hand from relatively accessible materials, on a local scale, if it comes to that. It's the technologies that require a huge infrastructure to operate that will be most at risk of loss.

Electricity? Radio? Refrigeration? TFian, not even the Archdruid is as pessimistic as you are.

About the packet radio internet. Why would anyone bother doing this?

Well, JMG "bothered" to get a ham radio license a couple of years ago, and he says that you could have global radio communication using very little energy. "100 watts will get you contacts on the far side of the world."

Strangely enough, John Michael Greer likes packet radio and has written about it several times. I used to read his blog a few years ago, and he was writing about it then. He's still at it. And some of his commenters go into a lot of detail about various communication systems that would use little electricity.

For those interested, skip to the relevant bits by searching for "radio" and "packet radio" here, here, here, and here, mostly in the discussion sections of each post.

Some of those commenters give lists of books about radio and electronics. Would you consider taking this up as a hobby, TFian? It would be a good way to prove to yourself just how little energy it would take. And learning how to take old parts to build working equipment would be a useful skill in a post-collapse society.

And even if things don't collapse, I think that having some skills like this would make you feel better.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Well, JMG "bothered" to get a ham radio license a couple of years ago, and he says that you could have global radio communication using very little energy. "100 watts will get you contacts on the far side of the world."

So TFian, given we can power a packet radio network on only 100 watts, why wouldn't we use those very same networks to transmit computer data, which is being worked on by the Noisebridge Hackerspace? The fact you can do this, really breaks the ArchNewAgeFruitcake's argument. If he believes packet radio will survive indefinitely, then we'll be able to transmit computer data over vast networks, indefinitely.

 

[TFian]

No quote mine, since I quoted the entire bit within context. If you feel otherwise, you can follow the link and show me how I put it out of context.

But do I find something wrong with it? Well, I'm not familiar with the case he brings up, but the fact he clearly states a belief in magic frankly makes his ability to understand science probably tenuous at best. Do you not find something a bit wrong with the belief in magic? Do you yourself believe in "magic"?

Ok my apologies sir, it was in context.

But why is it impossible that magic exists? Rupert Sheldrake does seem to make some strong points on this matter.

 

[TFian]

No, actually, I haven't. And I've been in several places where there's so little wealth that people would have to be turned away each morning from a job working 12 hours a day, doing heavy lifting, at a wage of $5 (for the entire day's work)...food not provided.

What places would these be? These countries can't afford the server farms that require the energy of mid size cities to power the Internet. Are you saying they too, have ready access to the Internet?

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok my apologies sir, it was in context.

But why is it impossible that magic exists?

Rupert Sheldrake does seem to make some strong points on this matter.

The only point that Sheldrake has ever been able to make is his own bias and incompetence.

What places would these be? These countries can't afford the server farms that require the energy of mid size cities to power the Internet.

There's no such thing.

Are you saying they too, have ready access to the Internet?

Of course. Because they do.

 

[TFian]

What? I don't get why magic is impossible.

The only point that Sheldrake has ever been able to make is his own bias and incompetence.

Ah well, he may be a bad researcher then. I don't know. I'm concerned though why science is never put up to the same test it tests with everything else. I doubt science is the only way to explain how the world works. Empiricism can't prove itself, because that'd be circular logic.

There's no such thing.

How much energy do they take then?

Of course. Because they do.

Depends on the country. The Congo doesn't have much Internet access.

 

[excaza]

How much energy do they take then?

You mean you didn't look something up before you posted it? I'm shocked!

 

[TFian]

You mean you didn't look something up before you posted it? I'm shocked!

I do, they take the same as a mid sized city.

 

[Roboramma]

Ah well, he may be a bad researcher then. I don't know. I'm concerned though why science is never put up to the same test it tests with everything else. I doubt science is the only way to explain how the world works. Empiricism can't prove itself, because that'd be circular logic.

This is your "Yes, by my definition Astrology would be considered a science" moment. If you have to throw out the scientific method in order to accept your ideas, chances are that your ideas and the ones with a problem.

 

[TFian]

This is your "Yes, by my definition Astrology would be considered a science" moment. If you have to throw out the scientific method in order to accept your ideas, chances are that your ideas and the ones with a problem.

But neither Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer or I have said you have to throw out the scientific method. It can explain some things, but I don't believe it can explain everything by virtue.

 

[PixyMisa]

What? I don't get why magic is impossible.

Well, you can start with the fact that it doesn't work.

Ah well, he may be a bad researcher then. I don't know. I'm concerned though why science is never put up to the same test it tests with everything else.

It is.

I doubt science is the only way to explain how the world works.

Then propose an alternative.

Empiricism can't prove itself, because that'd be circular logic.

Empiricism works. Nothing else does. That's all there is to it.

How much energy do they take then?

How much energy does what take to do what?

A nice mid-range server like the one I run uses ~250W at full load and about 80W idle. My server averages about 10% busy, so it's closer to the lower end of that scale.

Just looking at Apache on the main VPS, it's getting 100 million hits per month.

So around a million hits per month per watt. (Actually rather better than that; Apache on VPS #2 is doing another 15 million hits per month, and there are 5 active web-server VPSes on this machine.)

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Ok my apologies sir, it was in context.

But why is it impossible that magic exists? Rupert Sheldrake does seem to make some strong points on this matter.

Sir haha, well at least you're polite..

But really, you believe in magic? I hope you don't tell your professors this, or they may think you're completely mad.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I do, they take the same as a mid sized city.

Which ones do?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Strangely enough, John Michael Greer likes packet radio and has written about it several times. I used to read his blog a few years ago, and he was writing about it then. He's still at it. And some of his commenters go into a lot of detail about various communication systems that would use little electricity.

For those interested, skip to the relevant bits by searching for "radio" and "packet radio" here, here, here, and here, mostly in the discussion sections of each post.

Interesting enough, here's what The GrandArchwhacko thinks of an Packet Radio Internet

Farfetched, UUCP is definitely an option, though I'd look to packet radio as a much more resilient basis for such a future internet. Much more on this later.

Dan, things like mesh networking are very much a step in the right direction: redundant, flexible, and independent. If the ability to make and repair the hardware stays in place through the difficult phases of the decline, it could help a lot. I'd look into packet radio as a possible technology for bringing in the rural areas.

Scott, a packet radio system for text communication and file sharing is an excellent step, and I hope to see some projects along these lines taking shape in the not too distant future.

North Coast, thanks for the clarification. You're certainly right that the net ought to be higher priority than new expressways, though if you want to talk about rebuilding America's rail network, that's another matter. Still, this is one of the reasons I keep talking about packet radio; there are ways to maintain something very like today's internet with much lower infrastructure costs, and getting those in process sooner rather than later is likely to be a very good move.

Well there you go TFian, even the ArchFootfungus thinks we'll have something very much like today's Internet with a packet radio network. And given his calls are already being put into action by the Noisebridge hackerspace, it seems he thinks we'll have "The Internet" after all. Mind you, that kind of invalidates his whole article on energy contraction cutting off "The Internet". If he was mindful, he would address that article and replace "The Internet", with the "World Wide Web", as they are two different concepts. Even so, I still think he's wrong about the inviability of the WWW after end of cheap petroleum. Another thought also occurred to me, his argument he had with Mash (whist censoring him as well) seems to be invalidated by some of his other postings completely. Either the ArchDuke is disingenuously inconsistent, or he's lying.

Still, here's something he said that frankly is rather revealing of him.

Anyone who wants to pursue rural self-sufficiency needs to check their desire for a modern American lifestyle at the door, and embrace a standard of living fairly close to that of a Third World peasant. Given competent training, rigorous practice, and a high tolerance for hard physical labor day in and day out, a group of healthy adults can keep themselves and their dependents adequately fed, clothed, housed, and equipped with necessary tools, with a little left over for barter or sale; for thousands of years this has been the standard human lifestyle over most of the world, and once the brief era of fossil-fueled extravagance we call modern industrial civilization is over, it will likely be the standard human lifestyle once again. Compared to the relative ease, comfort, opportunity and abundance of a modern middle-class lifestyle, though, the lot of a subsistence farmer is fairly hard going.

Not only is he hopelessly doomerish right there, but it proves he's unable to include elastically in his world view. Why would we simply revert to an feudalistic system? Why would this be desirable? He seriously underestimates the power that informational access and speed of travel can have at rebuilding and lifting quality of life.

Some of those commenters give lists of books about radio and electronics. Would you consider taking this up as a hobby, TFian? It would be a good way to prove to yourself just how little energy it would take. And learning how to take old parts to build working equipment would be a useful skill in a post-collapse society.

And even if things don't collapse, I think that having some skills like this would make you feel better.

I'd second that TFian, you should look into taking it. If nothing less, they'd be valuable skills if we're headed towards a Mad Max world as predicted by the Patron Saint of Fruitcakery Greer. Tho during the testing for licensing, you might be oggled by the old guys rendering the test if you're a woman ...

 

[drkitten]

Interesting enough, here's what The GrandArchwhacko thinks of an Packet Radio Internet

Farfetched, UUCP is definitely an option, though I'd look to packet radio as a much more resilient basis for such a future internet. Much more on this later.

Interesting, and if you read that carefully, it damns the 16th Level ArchRanger even further.

Packet radio is a physical layer (level 1) protocol. It describes how the signal gets around.

UUCP is a datalink layer (level 2) protocol. The two have nothing to do with each other, and in fact one could run UUCP using packet radio if one saw fit. Or one could run any other level 2 protocol.

The Internet Protocol (IP) is a network layer (level 3) protocol. TCP is a level 4 protocol, and of course the World Wide Web (more formally, HyperText Transfer Protocol) is a level 7 protocol.

So what this means, as any network engineer will tell you, is that if you have packet radio, you have the World Wide Web if you want it. Just run the right software atop your packet radio.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Interesting, and if you read that carefully, it damns the 16th Level ArchRanger even further.

Packet radio is a physical layer (level 1) protocol. It describes how the signal gets around.

UUCP is a datalink layer (level 2) protocol. The two have nothing to do with each other, and in fact one could run UUCP using packet radio if one saw fit. Or one could run any other level 2 protocol.

The Internet Protocol (IP) is a network layer (level 3) protocol. TCP is a level 4 protocol, and of course the World Wide Web (more formally, HyperText Transfer Protocol) is a level 7 protocol.

So what this means, as any network engineer will tell you, is that if you have packet radio, you have the World Wide Web if you want it. Just run the right software atop your packet radio.

Exactly. If one thing has been demonstrated by this thread, is the ArchFortuneCookie frankly doesn't understand science or technology. TFian, you really are picking a bad source to read on this topic. If you caught some of the earlier links I posted from Stuart Stanford, you'd see the ArchWhiteMage doesn't even use the term "Exergy" correctly, and makes all kinds of physics errors in his energy analysis. Not only that, he outright rejects the scientific method when it conflicts with his belief in "magic", and other new age nonsense. Essentially, the guy's just like an creationist, cherry-picking (albeit really badly) science when it suits his worldview, and disregarding it when it doesn't jive with it.

Something else I noticed from him

All of which is to say that you're quite right; packet radio (internet over the air) may well be a useful transitional tool, at least while used computers are available, but moving toward simpler means for information transfer, summertime cooling, etc. is the winning bet.

What? Does this guy really believe computers will just go *poof* and magically vanish? I wonder if he knows just how much electronic waste we dump on a regular basis, that can be recycled to build computers. "Simpler" means? As in the more energy expensive pony express?

 

[PixyMisa]

Which ones do?

The imaginary ones.

This diagram provides a good overview of the world's large commercial server farms. (My servers are hosted at SoftLayer, which is one of the smallest of the largest farms.)

Google has ~1 million servers and has the largest aggregate server count of any company. However, they run low-cost low-power hardware with somewhat customised designs. The aggregate power consumption for all of Google's datacenters is probably around 70MW, depending on just how much power is used for cooling - for obvious reasons, they pay a lot of attention to cost-effective cooling as well.

Google has 15-20 such datacenters, so each one uses something in the range of 3-5MW. An average US home uses something like 1kW of electricty on average (and yes, I meant to say it that way), so a Google datacenter uses as much power as the private residences of a small town (say 10-15k people, for 3-5k residences) - ignoring entirely the business, industrial, and public energy requirements, which are generally much larger (around 10x) than the residential use.

Facebook have ~30k servers, but I believe they use fewer but larger servers as compared to Google. If we assume they average 200W (which is what the high-end of low-end servers uses), then again, that's 6MW, about equal to one of Google's datacenters or a small town's residential use.

To take Facebook as an example: Assuming that only 10% of energy goes to residential use, Facebook uses as much power as a town of 1800 people. However, Facebook has 350 million users. So Facebook's server farm accounts for 0.0005% of its users' gross electricity consumption.

Google has even more users but uses disproportionately more power, so they might account for 0.001% of their users' gross electricity consumption.

Of course, TFian or the Grand Archdruid could have looked up the figures and done the calculations. But they didn't.

 

[PixyMisa]

What? Does this guy really believe computers will just go *poof* and magically vanish? I wonder if he knows just how much electronic waste we dump on a regular basis, that can be recycled to build computers. "Simpler" means? As in the more energy expensive pony express?

Microcontrollers are churned out in the billions every year, and even the low-end ones today are much more powerful than the chips that kicked off the microcomputer revolution.

Take something like the Kinetis K60 - a nice mid-range MCU, 150MHz, 32-bit, floating point, 1MB flash + 128KB RAM on-chip, built-in networking and sundry analog & digital I/O, supports a wide range of temperatures and voltages, and easily interfaces to standard DDR RAM and LCD panels. Runs on something like 100mW. We would have killed for something that powerful back in the day, and now they're so commonplace that you don't even notice that they're there.