Google Estimated to Have 900,000 Servers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
guess they need that much power to consistently serve up search results filled with SEO crap and spam trying to sell me stuff for higher than retail prices which I don't want. Well done.
 
[citation][nom]dogman_1234[/nom]I sense a meme joke.Anyways.I would hate to pay the power bill there.[/citation]

power is i blieve on average 11 cents a kwatt.
so what is (((11x220x1000)/100)x24)x365

its 211,992,000$
 
If the direct usage is "0.01% of total worldwide electricity use and less than 1% of global data center electricity use in 2010" I wonder what the indirect consumption is for all those people running their PCs to access Google and their SEO and Spam crap being served?
 
too bad not on Z-platform-VM/Linux's...could server up even more spam with even less power..
 
While we're on the topic of electricity, I find it amazing that we have this insane, free energy source, known as the Sun, that we never take advantage of.


Yeah, that giant fusion reaction burning ball gives us 100% free and clean energy. You pay a lot upfront for the infrastructure, but in the very near future you recoup those costs.


And for some reason, I doubt mining coal, paying workers and running plants somehow is more cost effective. Maybe short term, but definitely not long term.


P.s. I live in Vegas. We have like what, 330 days out of the year of pure sunshine. Load up Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of California, Texas and etc....and well....you could seriously just have grids of panels that could power the whole country.


Believe it or not, I'm really not a hippie - I just think it's crazy we haven't immediately jumped on the Suns energy by now. From a business prospective, it looks very promising and lucrative.
 
How are you going to capture the suns energy? Panels need to be made, so you basically make a factory for panels with the same workers that would do coal mining. The materials for solar panels also have to come from somewhere.

Then there are the inefficiencies of solar only capturing a small amount of light and converting that into electricity. The electricity cant just be piped from the sunny places either as there are inefficiencies in that. Not to mention how unreliable the power source can be(while coal can be controlled).

Not to mention the chemicals that need to be disposed of after a panel has been fully used.

There could be many problems with solar that would make it a bad energy source. Much like many renewable energy sources, it's unreliable.
 
@whysobluepandabear

It would be extremely inefficient to rely only on solar power since it is very expensive and require a lot of maintenance. Additionally, each solar panel cost around 1.5$ / per watt which is extremely expensive compared to nuclear or coal power which cost only around 0.7 CENTS / Watt.

If the United states were to change to solar power completely, it would cost roughly 180 TRILLION Dollars to build the plant which is very unreasonable considering nuclear power is cheaper, more reliable, and way more effiecient.

Here are the calcuation that I made to estimate the cost: The united state uses roughly 120 million kilowatts / hour and each solar panel cost 1.5$/ watt. (120000000000000 watts x 1.5 = 180000000000000 Dollars)
 
Using the sun for power is a brilliant idea, but with today's technology it isn't viable primary source of power for a large company. The solar panels are extremely expensive for the tiny amount of energy they produce, so the up front costs will be immense as they'll need to deploy large fields to support the consumption. Then theres the issue of location and distance. Not everywhere can support solar panels efficiently and it'll be a huge problem for facilities far away. Considering the sun isn't shining 24/7, they need to be able to store excess power in batteries that will last them at the very minimum through the night. Solar panels and batteries do not last forever even with proper maintenance (especially batteries) and so they'll need to be replaced, adding to more costs. Last, solar panels and batteries are made with chemicals so it is not 100% clean energy. On that note, its like electric/hybrid cars. Seems more environmentally friendly but the amount of batteries required makes them not friendly. Charging the batteries/electric motor with petrol doesn't make sense in terms of the environment. 100% electric cars gets their electricity from the power grid which could be coal based energy, and again, not environmentally friendly.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]power is i blieve on average 11 cents a kwatt. so what is (((11x220x1000)/100)x24)x365its 211,992,000$[/citation]

but we all know GOOGLE doesnt pay that... they recieve massive incentives in every city/town the go to...
 
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Dude, that's the most uneducated thing that somebody will write under this article. Everything, every single thing you see around you is moved by the energy of the Sun. The electricity, the wind, the movement of the oceans, even the fossil and bio fuels are a result of the activity of the Sun. All you see on the surface of this planet is created by the power of the Sun. Yeah! You want to cover the whole planet with sun panels I guess? Good luck! Let's destroy all the environment and turn the whole planet into one huge sun power plant!!!Maybe someday people will find a way to utilize the power of the Sun directly but no such technology is available now. And maybe there are much better ways to produce electricity. After all if you go beyond Jupiter. You won't find much sun light there.[/citation]
Yeah, I want to cover the desert's on planet Earth with solar panels, instead of mining and burning coal that deteriorates our O-zone.


How the fuck is that uneducated? When I live in a state with over 300 sunny days per year, it sounds pretty logical (They actually do have a large panel farm a little off into the desert outside of Vegas).


Oh, and dip shit, you wouldn't be destroying the environment - should I take a picture of what the desert looks like outside my house? There's NOTHING but dirt and small, dried up dead brush.

http://dvice.com/assets_c/2010/12/Copper-Mountain-Solar-Facility-opens-thumb-550xauto-53025.jpg


That's what they look like outside Vegas. Looks like some major environment destruction to me....lol.
 
People are really going to argue costs?


It's expensive because people who lobby for the oil and gas companies make DAMN sure it remains that way.


If the whole country (and world) got into solar and started pushing development, it would drive down costs dramatically.


It's the same reason logic as how LCD monitors used to cost HUNDREDS more than their CRT counterparts. They also used to look worse image quality wise. Now they're cheap as dirt and can match quality, while taking up much less space and consuming less energy.


If we never pushed LCD monitors, then of course we'd still be at a point where they'd still be expensive - instead we pushed for development and mass production, and look - they're pretty cheap now. I also don't see ANYONE buying CRT; Even the people obsessed about image quality buy LCD now.
 
It's expensive because China controls most of the important raw materials needed to manufacture quality solar panels. Recently China has been slapped on the wrist for curbing the export of these materials on purpose to increase price/demand.

Winning.
 
>>There is a new server count estimate that put the numbef of Google's servers not TO far under 1 million.

The author is trying to save energy by cutting the number of uses of the letter 'o' - if everyone does his or her part, it all adds up to pretty serious savings. 'Too' - the word is 'too'.

 
[citation][nom]Anon E Muss[/nom]>>There is a new server count estimate that put the numbef of Google's servers not TO far under 1 million.The author is trying to save energy by cutting the number of uses of the letter 'o' - if everyone does his or her part, it all adds up to pretty serious savings. 'Too' - the word is 'too'.[/citation]
Your a gramma nah-zee


Who actually uses proper English and grammar these days?
 
[citation][nom]whysobluepandabear[/nom]While we're on the topic of electricity, I find it amazing that we have this insane, free energy source, known as the Sun, that we never take advantage of.Yeah, that giant fusion reaction burning ball gives us 100% free and clean energy. You pay a lot upfront for the infrastructure, but in the very near future you recoup those costs. And for some reason, I doubt mining coal, paying workers and running plants somehow is more cost effective. Maybe short term, but definitely not long term. P.s. I live in Vegas. We have like what, 330 days out of the year of pure sunshine. Load up Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of California, Texas and etc....and well....you could seriously just have grids of panels that could power the whole country. Believe it or not, I'm really not a hippie - I just think it's crazy we haven't immediately jumped on the Suns energy by now. From a business prospective, it looks very promising and lucrative.[/citation]

power companies are a legal monopoly. they cant charge to much, and they cant expand the same way other businesses are allowed to.

solar power is also highly inefficient, extremely costly, and counter productive to say the least, at least, at this time.

to realy take advantage of solar you need pannels that will last a long time, but the problem is, right now, you will never recup the costs of the pannels, and they are mostly a feel good power source.

acutual power plants with solar, are giant facilities and cant produce much power, but in desert areas, it would be a fairly good solution, but they are expenisve.

what we need are nuclear power plants. we have methods to store the spent rods forever, but it wont be online till 2015, we have FAR more efficiat reactors, but sadly, anti nuclear power people won... and no new reactors. what we do have is coal power plants which kill more each year than any nuclear disaster to date (non weaponized)
 
""what we need are nuclear power plants. we have methods to store the spent rods forever, but it wont be online till 2015, we have FAR more efficiat reactors, but sadly, anti nuclear power people won... and no new reactors. what we do have is coal power plants which kill more each year than any nuclear disaster to date (non weaponized)"

Good point. Just like Flash vs. Optical Media, there won't be a "complete replacement" for a while, at least in "our time". For many reasons (just like Flash) like cost vs. value. It's just not gonna happen anytime soon. Why don't just enjoy what we have until Goog--- erh, Skynet arrives!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom