Google Details Electricity Usage of Its Data Centers

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to Google, the company's data centers draw enough electricity to power up to 200,000 homes. To put that into perspective, the city of Pittsburgh has under 165,000 housing units. :eek:

The company said that its data centers continuously drew almost 260 million watts — about a quarter of the output of a nuclear power plant — to run Google searches, YouTube views, Gmail messaging and display ads on all those services around the world.
 
I wonder how much Google technology saves the world in terms of enerygy.
 
"Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library."

Really? Thats something you can compare to?
 
A quarter of one nuclear power plant provides enough power to do all that?

Why do we still have coal power plants again?
 
A quarter of one nuclear power plant provides enough power to do all that?

Why do we still have coal power plants again?

Because people fear nuclear energy due to the bomb of the same name - even though they use different types of nuclear material (in most cases).

They don't think of all the coal plant emissions slowly killing us - even the 'clean' coal ones.

I am not saying nuclear plants don't make dangerous waste, but I believe in the long term with nuclear recycling (which is on hold), it would be safer overall.
 
That and people now use Japan as a reason for not having nuclear power, overlooking that the plant was over 40 years old, had withstood every earthquake up to that point, and wasn't designed for a f*#king tsunami to roll over the entire complex.
 
Hm, I just calculated at my kwh rate that would be about $23M US/month.

Wow.
 
Nice: In part because of special arrangements the company has made to purchase electricity from wind farms, Google says that 25 percent of its energy is supplied by renewable fuels, and estimates that it will reach 30 percent in 2011.



Though no mention specifically about solar.
 
A quarter of one nuclear power plant provides enough power to do all that?

Why do we still have coal power plants again?

Because even the most modern nuclear power plants are terribly inefficient when you factor in ALL costs. (as well as the Fear factor).
 
Nice: In part because of special arrangements the company has made to purchase electricity from wind farms, Google says that 25 percent of its energy is supplied by renewable fuels, and estimates that it will reach 30 percent in 2011.



Though no mention specifically about solar.

I doubt they could get enough out of a solar array to make a dent. It would require too many panels. Also, Solar works best in places that don't get snow. Places where it doesn't snow get very warm in the summer, which increases the cost (and power consumption) of keeping the datacenters cool.
 
Solar PV is in it's infancy. Maybe in 20 more years every Google data center could be powered by the Sun. As it stands right now the ROI on installing a PV array on my house that would allow me to break even would be something like 30 years. Until this technology improves dramatically I'll just turn out the lights in the rooms I'm not using. I imagine that Google is doing the same, with motion sensors on light switches that shut the room down after 5 minutes.
 
Hey I'm in one of those housing units in Pittsburgh damnit!

lol google owned you,
In other unrelated new, Google has now started to build a nuclear power planet. :)

When it comes to power I actually like the idea of nuclear powered battery cells.
 
Not all that bad when you consider how big they are and how much money they make.
 
"Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library."

Really? Thats something you can compare to?

I guess they forgot about that >100 year old device that the Internet pretty much put into obsolescence but it did sometimes prevent unnecessary travels to certain destinations.

I forget what it's called, though I think... I think the name of the device itself meant audio over long distances. [H], help me out here.
 
Until this technology improves dramatically I'll just turn out the lights in the rooms I'm not using. I imagine that Google is doing the same, with motion sensors on light switches that shut the room down after 5 minutes.

... because that's where the bulk of their power draw comes from... :rolleyes:
 
That and people now use Japan as a reason for not having nuclear power, overlooking that the plant was over 40 years old, had withstood every earthquake up to that point, and wasn't designed for a f*#king tsunami to roll over the entire complex.

Two years from now, that area will be clean and no appreciable radiation will come from it.
 
lol google owned you,
In other unrelated new, Google has now started to build a nuclear power planet. :)

When it comes to power I actually like the idea of nuclear powered battery cells.

Me too.
 
Because even the most modern nuclear power plants are terribly inefficient when you factor in ALL costs. (as well as the Fear factor).

I don't think you know what you are talking about.




I'm surprised. I would have figured that it was more than 260MW.
 
Nice: In part because of special arrangements the company has made to purchase electricity from wind farms, Google says that 25 percent of its energy is supplied by renewable fuels, and estimates that it will reach 30 percent in 2011.



Though no mention specifically about solar.

Unfortunately Google nor does anybody else get to choose which type of power production they get when they plug into the grid. All power is up for sale on the grid and they use just as much fossil fuels as everyone else does.

Unless they have their own supplies, or are very near wind energy production where they could claim their power comes from, it really doesn't matter.
 
Unfortunately Google nor does anybody else get to choose which type of power production they get when they plug into the grid. All power is up for sale on the grid and they use just as much fossil fuels as everyone else does.

Unless they have their own supplies, or are very near wind energy production where they could claim their power comes from, it really doesn't matter.

Not sure if serious, but no. They can elect to purchase electricity from suppliers that get some or all of their generation from renewable sources in competitive markets. They can also work with local/state governments on encouraging the build of renewable generation in areas which they wish to locate data centers.
 
Not sure if serious, but no. They can elect to purchase electricity from suppliers that get some or all of their generation from renewable sources in competitive markets. They can also work with local/state governments on encouraging the build of renewable generation in areas which they wish to locate data centers.

Alright, Google sets up contracts to buy an equivalent amount of MWh's from a wind farm, however they still get it from the grid. I'd be surprised if they even get 5% from these green credits, let alone 25%.

Reading this did clear up how they do it.

http://static.googleusercontent.com...gle.com/en/us/green/pdfs/renewable-energy.pdf

It's an interesting read. I wonder how much they pay for their "green" power in long contracts.
 
A quarter of one nuclear power plant provides enough power to do all that?

Why do we still have coal power plants again?

Simply put, those who live in areas where there is heavy coal use, electric rates can be as low as 3 cents per kWh. Nuclear by comparison is much more expensive. Oh yeah, and companies don't want to build them because they're all pissy that the government won't let them simply turn tail and walk away when the useful life is over.
 
Simply put, those who live in areas where there is heavy coal use, electric rates can be as low as 3 cents per kWh. Nuclear by comparison is much more expensive. Oh yeah, and companies don't want to build them because they're all pissy that the government won't let them simply turn tail and walk away when the useful life is over.

Where exactly do you find electric rates at 3 cents per kwh? Nuclear power production is on the order of 2 cents per kwh or less and is neck and neck or cheaper than coal. Coal is cheap, but the main reason that coal is so prevalent is that 1) initial capital costs are lower than a comparable capacity nuclear plant 2) the US has massive coal reserves.

Working for a utility that has a mixed generation portfolio (not well mixed, a lot of coal), I can tell you that dirt burners will come offline by choice before nuclear plants because of $$$.
 
Hey guys im starting this thread because I was wondering if my corsair ax 1200 can power google im getting alot of conflicting information and im not sure not sure because the specs on their site say that it requires Sizewell A 260000000w or greater PSU with at least 4 x 10 ^3 combined amps on the twelve volt rails, but another guy over on the OCN forums says that he's been running a google just fine for the last year off his antec earthwatts 550w so im not sure who to believe.
 
Because people fear nuclear energy due to the bomb of the same name - even though they use different types of nuclear material (in most cases).

They don't think of all the coal plant emissions slowly killing us - even the 'clean' coal ones.

I am not saying nuclear plants don't make dangerous waste, but I believe in the long term with nuclear recycling (which is on hold), it would be safer overall.

You've conveniently left out how all it takes is one unforeseen circumstance to cause massive radiation event that will effect the site for decades if not hundreds of years. Have the same issue at a coal power planet all you make is a big mess.

Not to mention the lack of being able to safely store nuclear waste anywhere and the dangers of it being on any transportation system that goes through populated cities. If a country like Germany (world renowned for its engineering prowess and innovation) does a total 180 on its nuclear usage to complete abolish it by 2020 then perhaps its not the end all solution.
 
You've conveniently left out how all it takes is one unforeseen circumstance to cause massive radiation event that will effect the site for decades if not hundreds of years. Have the same issue at a coal power planet all you make is a big mess.

Not to mention the lack of being able to safely store nuclear waste anywhere and the dangers of it being on any transportation system that goes through populated cities. If a country like Germany (world renowned for its engineering prowess and innovation) does a total 180 on its nuclear usage to complete abolish it by 2020 then perhaps its not the end all solution.

What type of "massive radiation event" are you talking about? With modern safety features , I don't see how thats possible. The time it takes for a SCRAM is measured in microseconds. Minor leaks could occur if the plant falls into a sink hole, but thats about it. Any event that could cause a radiation leak from a nuclear plant would be 10 times worse for a coal plant.

Not safe to transport? The containers are designed to survive an impact at 50MPH with a freight train, what are you expecting, War of the Worlds?
 
You've conveniently left out how all it takes is one unforeseen circumstance to cause massive radiation event that will effect the site for decades if not hundreds of years. Have the same issue at a coal power planet all you make is a big mess.

Not to mention the lack of being able to safely store nuclear waste anywhere and the dangers of it being on any transportation system that goes through populated cities. If a country like Germany (world renowned for its engineering prowess and innovation) does a total 180 on its nuclear usage to complete abolish it by 2020 then perhaps its not the end all solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

Just a big mess huh?

Also, take Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example - people are living on the same land that was directly impacted by a nuclear event (aka a bomb) 60 years after with no effect.

There are containment buildings for such events - though putting a nuclear plant directly on the sea/ocean in a tsunami prone area just seems crazy now. I don't see that mistake being done again.

I will not argue the spent nuclear fuel point as you are correct - but that is only because the government will not allow the recycling of such waste at this juncture. All electricity generating types have waste, whether it be fly ash, spent nuclear fuel, worn out bearing in wind generators or broken/weathered solar panels. You cannot and will not get 100% efficiency, but as history has shown, it will get closer as time goes on.
 
Solar PV is in it's infancy. Maybe in 20 more years every Google data center could be powered by the Sun. As it stands right now the ROI on installing a PV array on my house that would allow me to break even would be something like 30 years. Until this technology improves dramatically I'll just turn out the lights in the rooms I'm not using. I imagine that Google is doing the same, with motion sensors on light switches that shut the room down after 5 minutes.

Just think of the massive amounts of batteries that you need to have to supply power for the hours where the sun is down.
Only way to get around using batteries or other power sources at night is to have a global solar grid that all the data centers worldwide are tapped into it.

Weren't there some talks of using satellites that will transmit energy to land based receivers?
 
Google needs either a Wind or Bouy Farm, depending on where they are.
 
Just think of the massive amounts of batteries that you need to have to supply power for the hours where the sun is down.
Only way to get around using batteries or other power sources at night is to have a global solar grid that all the data centers worldwide are tapped into it.

Weren't there some talks of using satellites that will transmit energy to land based receivers?

Batteries always have and still do suck. If we take Denmark as an example, they produce to much wind power at certain times that they are actually unable to sell it to other countries. They are now experimenting with fuel cell technology for storing the energy. It certainly isn't 100% efficient but it's a lot better than just wasting the energy. And it's a lot better than batteries. There have been some developments recently with solar cells separate the hydrogen from water for fuel cells but this hasn't made it to market yet. This technology very well may be the end of solar PV simply because batteries cost a fortune, don't have any decent capacity to speak of and just plain suck.

As for transmitting energy through the atmosphere wirelessly...... no thanks. We'd all be microwaved. There's enough cancer out there as it is. Still the world power grid envisioned by Buckminster Fuller sounds like a promising idea if it could be implemented.
 
I find it amusing to see you guys debating coal vs nuclear energy when there has been a real alternative for decades that is completely safe but will never see the light of day because of greed.
 
Google just has to find a river on google earth, buy the patch of land around it, floor hundreds of square miles of good riverbed farmland, and build their own dam!

Voila! 100% renewable energy, and enough to power 200% of their operations, no biggie really.

-

Now on to the next problem of dwindling farmers...

-
 
Hey guys im starting this thread because I was wondering if my corsair ax 1200 can power google im getting alot of conflicting information and im not sure not sure because the specs on their site say that it requires Sizewell A 260000000w or greater PSU with at least 4 x 10 ^3 combined amps on the twelve volt rails, but another guy over on the OCN forums says that he's been running a google just fine for the last year off his antec earthwatts 550w so im not sure who to believe.

LOL funny....but 21.67 x 10 ^ 6 would be the amperage requirement.
 
Back
Top