Notgreen
1
E-mails not all that 'green' \ D uring Deepavali time, these days, we are inun- dated with electronic greet- ing cards, and we too send several such e-cards our-. selves. We believe that by switching from paper to elec- tronic mode of communica- tions, we are "green", and that in doing so we have saved pa- per and thus done a bit to save the environment and gener- ate less C02. Well, perhaps just a bit but it appears not as much as we are led to believe. "E-mails are not so green" reports a I news item in a recent issue of the journal Science. The often-quoted estimate by Mr. Matthew Yeager of Computacentre (Europe's largest IT infrastructure company) claims that send- ing an e-rnail attachment of 4.7 megabytes (MB) creates as much greenhouse gas as boiling a tea-kettle 17.5times. His study claims that an e- mail of 1 MB would be the equivalent to the emission of 19 grams of C02.And if that mail is copied (cc'd, as we type) to 10 people, its impact is 73 grams of C02. Well, I was astonished to read this, since I too believed that I was saving the planet a bit byusing my PC to commu- nicate with people, instead of "snail mail". Keira Butler explains the matter in an issue of the mag- azine The Atlantic (Augustl2, 2010). She says "Sayyou send a picture to 20 people by email. Each one has to download it. That means the use of equipment such as personal computers, servers, storage centres (not to mention printers for hard copy, if used)". All these cost energy and hence more C02 emission. It is a matter of scale. Mat- thew Yeager points out that the current amount of data storage across the globe is 1.2 zettabytes (ZB) of stored da- ta. This requires equipment with a mass equivalent of 20 per cent of the island of Man- • hattan, New York City! Put another way, this level of I stored data is the equivalent of all of the US' academic li- braries multiplied by half a million! And the data storage is expected, by the year 2020, to grow to 35 ZB (incidental- ly, zetta is a sextillion, or 10 raised to the power 21 (or 1 followed by 21zeros). The scale increases thou- sand-fold each time from mil- lion or rnega, to billion (giga), trillion (tera), quadrillion (peta), quintillion (exa), sex- tillion (zetta), septillion (yot- ta) and so forth). E-mail is thus not all that green. And e-mails with at- tachments are worse. Yeager COSTLY INFRASTRUCTURE: The use of personal computers, servers, storage centres cost energy and hence more C02 emission. - PHOTO: AFP SPEAKING OF SCIENCE estimates that in a 100-peo- plus application - all lead to ple company where each em- wastage in efficiency. Com- ployee sends on average 33 bine this with what Keira e-mails a day and receives 58, Butter points out in The At- the greenhouse gas emission lantic, you get an idea of how linked to emails would be much energy is lost in elec- around 13.6,tons of C02 per tronic communications. Yes, year. e-communication does save And a study by the French trees, is more efficient and government's Environment produces less C02 than pa- and Energy Management per-based communication. Agency (Ademe) suggests But the scale of it is what that if each of these 100 em- needs to be kept in mind. ployees sent 10 per cent less Take Facebook usage. It is emails for a year, they would estimated that its users alone save C02 emissions equiva- are uploading over 1000 pho- lent to one round-trip flight tos per second, or 3 billion between Paris and New York. photos per month. Recall the Talking of C02 emissions tea kettle boiling equivalent by airline traffic, I was re- of sending a 4.7 MB attach- minded of what Dr. Jeremy ment, and you get the idea. Nathans of Johns Hopkins What should we do? wrote to me (bye-mail, not So what should we do? snail-mail) when we invited There are several ways of sav- him to come to Hyderabad for ing energy and cutting down delivering the Champali- greenhouse gas from our end. maud Lecture in 2009. First, free up the memory He declined coming in per- space in the computer. Clean son, stating that he is doing up the e-mail box (in and out his bit to the environment by mails) periodically. Not doing not flying all the way from these means greater demand Baltimore and back. We had for storage and energy used him lecture electronically by that storage. (video talk real time; I should Second, limit the number now estimate how much C02 of recipients for each e-mail he would. have saved by not (cut down the number of cc's flyingbut video-Iecturing).· . to). To get an estimate of how Third, cut down tlie size of -much power is consumed by the attachments (boil less electronic communication, tea- water). go to the website < http://Fourth:enterthe URL ad- whatsthisgottodowithstora- dress directly rather than use gefiles.wordpress.com/2010/ a search engine. Cut down the 08/wired-uk-july-2009-in- times you "Google", "Yahoo" ternet-electricity.pdf >. etc. They point out that 30 per Fifth: don't leave your cent of the input power in computer and accessories on each computer is used in overnight (as many offices powering the chips, 30 per do), not even on ' sleep mode' cent of the energy entering a (even if that eats up only 1-10 microprocessor is turned into watts). heat, and that 123billion kilo- Sixth: laptops use 15-60 watt hour (kwh) per year is watts while desktops use how much electricity it takes 250W. Cut down the power just to keep the Internet's by doing more 'offline' work servers running. than online. Finally, remem- And traditional IT environ- ber Facebooking and Twitter- ments, says Yeager, tend not ing burn carbon and make to be overly efficient in scale. C02. Talk more and twitter Traditional infrastructure - less! server plus storage plus net- D. BALASUBRAMANIAN work plus operating system [email protected]
-
Upload
pradeep-peter -
Category
Technology
-
view
136 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Notgreen
E-mails not all that 'green'\During Deepavali time,
these days, we are inun-dated with electronic greet-ing cards, and we too sendseveral such e-cards our-.selves. We believe that byswitching from paper to elec-tronic mode of communica-tions, we are "green", and thatin doing so we have saved pa-per and thus done abit to savethe environment and gener-ate less C02.
Well, perhaps just a bit butit appears not as much as weare led to believe. "E-mailsare not so green" reports a
Inews item in a recent issue ofthe journal Science.
The often-quoted estimateby Mr. Matthew Yeager ofComputacentre (Europe'slargest IT infrastructurecompany) claims that send-ing an e-rnail attachment of4.7 megabytes (MB) createsas much greenhouse gas asboiling a tea-kettle 17.5times.
His study claims that an e-mail of 1 MB would be theequivalent to the emission of19 grams of C02.And if thatmail is copied (cc'd, as wetype) to 10 people, its impactis 73 grams of C02.
Well, I was astonished toread this, since I too believedthat I was saving the planet abit byusing myPC to commu-nicate with people, instead of"snail mail".
Keira Butler explains thematter in an issue of the mag-azine The Atlantic (Augustl2,2010). She says "Sayyou senda picture to 20 people byemail.
Each one has to downloadit. That means the use ofequipment such as personalcomputers, servers, storagecentres (not to mentionprinters for hard copy, ifused)". All these cost energyand hence more C02emission.
It is a matter of scale. Mat-thew Yeager points out thatthe current amount of datastorage across the globe is 1.2zettabytes (ZB) of stored da-ta. This requires equipmentwith a mass equivalent of 20per cent of the island of Man-
• hattan, New York City! Putanother way, this level of
I stored data is the equivalentof all of the US' academic li-braries multiplied by half amillion! And the data storageis expected, by the year 2020,to grow to 35 ZB (incidental-ly, zetta is a sextillion, or 10raised to the power 21 (or 1followedby 21zeros).
The scale increases thou-sand-fold each time from mil-lion or rnega, to billion (giga),trillion (tera), quadrillion(peta), quintillion (exa), sex-tillion (zetta), septillion (yot-ta) and so forth).
E-mail is thus not all thatgreen. And e-mails with at-tachments are worse. Yeager
COSTLY INFRASTRUCTURE: The use of personalcomputers, servers, storage centres cost energy andhence more C02 emission. - PHOTO: AFP
SPEAKING OF SCIENCEestimates that in a 100-peo- plus application - all lead tople company where each em- wastage in efficiency. Com-ployee sends on average 33 bine this with what Keirae-mails a day and receives 58, Butter points out in The At-the greenhouse gas emission lantic, you get an idea of howlinked to emails would be much energy is lost in elec-around 13.6,tons of C02 per tronic communications. Yes,year. e-communication does save
And a study by the French trees, is more efficient andgovernment's Environment produces less C02 than pa-and Energy Management per-based communication.Agency (Ademe) suggests But the scale of it is whatthat if each of these 100 em- needs to be kept in mind.ployees sent 10 per cent less Take Facebook usage. It isemails for a year, they would estimated that its users alonesave C02 emissions equiva- are uploading over 1000 pho-lent to one round-trip flight tos per second, or 3 billionbetween Paris and New York. photos per month. Recall the
Talking of C02 emissions tea kettle boiling equivalentby airline traffic, I was re- of sending a 4.7 MB attach-minded of what Dr. Jeremy ment, and you get the idea.Nathans of Johns Hopkins What should we do?wrote to me (bye-mail, not So what should we do?snail-mail) when we invited There are several ways of sav-him to come to Hyderabad for ing energy and cutting downdelivering the Champali- greenhouse gas from our end.maud Lecture in 2009. First, free up the memory
He declined coming in per- space in the computer. Cleanson, stating that he is doing up the e-mail box (in and outhis bit to the environment by mails) periodically. Not doingnot flying all the way from these means greater demandBaltimore and back. We had for storage and energy usedhim lecture electronically by that storage.(video talk real time; I should Second, limit the numbernow estimate how much C02 of recipients for each e-mailhe would. have saved by not (cut down the number of cc'sflyingbut video-Iecturing).· . to).
To get an estimate of how Third, cut down tlie size of-much power is consumed by the attachments (boil lesselectronic communication, tea- water).go to the website < http://Fourth:enterthe URL ad-whatsthisgottodowithstora- dress directly rather than usegefiles.wordpress.com/2010/ a search engine. Cut down the08/wired-uk-july-2009-in- times you "Google", "Yahoo"ternet-electricity.pdf >. etc.
They point out that 30 per Fifth: don't leave yourcent of the input power in computer and accessories oneach computer is used in overnight (as many officespowering the chips, 30 per do), not even on ' sleep mode'cent of the energy entering a (even if that eats up only 1-10microprocessor is turned into watts).heat, and that 123billion kilo- Sixth: laptops use 15-60watt hour (kwh) per year is watts while desktops usehow much electricity it takes 250W. Cut down the powerjust to keep the Internet's by doing more 'offline' workservers running. than online. Finally, remem-
And traditional IT environ- ber Facebooking and Twitter-ments, says Yeager, tend not ing burn carbon and maketo be overly efficient in scale. C02. Talk more and twitterTraditional infrastructure - less!server plus storage plus net- D. BALASUBRAMANIANwork plus operating system [email protected]
