Radical rethink on green computing

[scdr]

Hardly seems like a radical rethink.

Staying within the topic of green computing, what would you consider a radical rethink?

Let's try to stay away from techno-fixes (process/usage-pattern related changes only).

Hope that didn't come across as over-critical. Just meant that within the
context of SPCR, the idea of compromising on speed/etc. for other factors
is fairly standard. (Of course for those touting computers it is a different story.)

Since you asked, I have given some thought to the question. Here is a suggestion:

Mandatory 10 year warranty on consumer electronics

Warranty should:
* Include parts and labor
* Include batteries.
* Be transferable without paperwork (i.e. follows the device/components)
* Service on-site (at users option) for items over x lbs (e.g. 30)
if within y miles of a population center.
* If service by mail, manufacturer covers postage both ways.
* Need not cover damage from mis-use or accident
* Should also require that supplies (batteries, cleaning supplies, media,
etc.) be available for at least that long.

Rationale:
+ Discourages disposable electronics
+ Encourages design and manufacture for longevity and repairability
+ Encourages standardization of parts (e.g. batteries)
+ Helps ensure parts availability for repair/replacement
+ Enables/encourages continued use
+ Boost market for second-hand (encourages re-use)
(Increased cost of new, can get parts, repairs, won't be stuck with
disposal costs if it can't be fixed or when no longer useful)
+ Provides employment in user nation
(i.e. not just wherever cheapest to build a factory to manufacture)
+ Allows early adopters/those who need the latest/fastest/whatever
to make that choice. (As compared to rationing.)

I was looking at televisions the other day.
90 day warranty on a $1,000 TV seems absurd.
Our 25 year old TV is starting to go on the fritz.
Are the ones nowadays built to last that long?

Our old waffle iron from '50's or '60s burned out recently.
It had a metal case, and screws so you could open it and clean it/fix it.
New ones have plastic cases with no obvious way to open them.

Similarly the typical life-span of camcorders is ridiculous.

There might be objection that a measure like this would increase the
prices - but given the bent of the country where I live (USA) towards
capitalism, economics seems an appropriate way to encourage reduction
in over-use.
* Getting increased quality (better design/MFG)
* Help curtail the glut of consumer electronics.
* Encourage more careful shopping/consideration of need.
* Consumer electronics is mostly luxury goods
(nobody needs a TV/stereo/ipod/toaster/...)
* Still get low cost items through second hand. (Trickle down
* Make it more economical to change the battery on a watch, rather than
buying a new one. (It can't possibly be less costly to the
environment to make and distribute a whole watch with battery than it
is to just make/distribute the battery.)

Something like this seems easier to implement than the limits on time
or repurchase suggested in the initial article.
* How would one implement limits on how often a user could buy/upgrade?
* How would would limits on use/day be implementable without
unduly affecting usability? (Who would want a computer that would shut
off and say you can't use it anymore today just as you were about to print
your taxes/finish that report/present your thesis/...)
* Also, if I can't use the computer - what will I do? Go play with an
electronic game machine, watch TV, ... Limiting the use of one device
may just mean more devices.

10 years because we have 10 digits. (i.e. slightly arbitrary, but should be a significant period.)

Cost of recycling should be paid up front (when initially purchased).
+ Encourages proper disposal - fee for disposal discourages
re-use, repair; encourages dumping, etc.

In last few years our local solid waste utility has started imposing fees for
proper disposal of CRTs, computers, microwaves and various other
electronics. This discourages people from disposing of things properly
(increases dumping), and discourages re-use/repair. (Where
one might have taken an old computer to recondition or salvage parts,
now it means you have to pay to get rid of it. So fewer people will
recondition old machines, and less market for second
hand machines. You can't hardly give them away.)

I realize suggestion goes beyond just green computing, but it is a
process/usage changer (not a techno-fix), and computing is subsumed by this proposal.

No claim to this idea being radical in the sense of new. If anything it
might be radical in sense of being old (recycled?), and therefore not in
with the cult of new.

[scdr]

Notes on batteries.

Seems there are far too many battery powered devices,
many of which will become garbage when the (non-replaceable) batteries wear out.

Making batteries user replaceable would help lengthen the
lifespan of devices.

There is no way to tell in advance how battery hungry a device will be,
and there is little incentive for designers to make devices less power hungry.

Shifting the cost of batteries up front helps to encourage design
and purchase of more energy-efficient devices.

Encourage use of rechargeable batteries.

[IsleVegan]

but my first thread as a new user must not contain any URLs so this will be my first post so i can post my new thread in entirety with urls

[halcyon]

Hope that didn't come across as over-critical. Just meant that within the
context of SPCR, the idea of compromising on speed/etc. for other factors
is fairly standard. (Of course for those touting computers it is a different story.)

Nah, it's good to be critical. Important topic and all.

I think youre suggestions (snipped) are good.

However, I should point out the obvious.

They are all consumer oriented demands to the manufacturers/designers.

I'm all for:

- smaller emergy (embedded energy) in devices we use
- longer life-spans
- modularity (change only one part, if you really have to, not everything)
- fixability (you can fix them, instead of throw them away)
- tightened hazardous chemicals and usage consumption limits (legislation, ratings, taxation)

However, these are mostly fixes that consumers cannot implement. We can demand them, but not implement them. That is the job of the industry and the legislative bodies.

Without getting into the argument how difficult it is to pull off the above, I will just say all of the above would be more than welcome and is probably even needed (based on the literature of LCA/factor-literature I've read).

However, what are the methods that we, the users can employ?

- minimize computer use (and as such usage energy consumption)
- radically slow the upgrade cycle (more, faster, "better")
- buy & sell 2nd hand
- share resources (less machines / person, less stuff manufactured)

Without (again) getting into how hard the above is to pull off, or whether we as consumers are willing to do those, I think those are the things we could easily in theory do ourselves.

I think both sides are needed demand for better production/design and also more responsible use.

Only by combining the two do I believe it is possible to radically reduce the combined ecological footprint of computer use.

[Bigg]

Whoa...

Thats a lot to digest...

0) I already do. My email is in Google's hydro powered data center, and my CPU is used 95% by Stanford University (F@H).

2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot. Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?

3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems. Plus, Apples are just plain a lot smaller, so they have a smaller material and shipping impact. I love Apple's eco-friendly systems. They help the electric bill too. I'm not saying they are perfect, they are not, but they are the most eco-friendly computer maker that I know of. The greenpeace study did not factor in electric useage.

4) That makes no sense. My current 500W machine would be outperformed by a Mac Mini (60 wattsish total) or Macbook (50 wattsish) that draws 1/10th the power.

How's anyone going to limit the amount of time anyone computer is on? A good approach would be for Dell (and everyone else) to put their new EnergySmart system into consumer PCs, and have them go to sleep in 15 minutes. Most people are too lazy to change the defaults, so their computers would go to sleep.

Environmentallism can be done in an American and capitalistic way. If the US creates green technologies, and uses tham internally and exports them, our economy will grow, and we will prosper.

The whole thing about OSes is interesting. The big issue is not that they require fast machines. The Mac Mini is a fast machine. It is bit rot. This is another reason that Macs are better for the average Joe. They don't really rot out like Windows. Windows gets tray goo, serivces running willy nilly, registry gunk, startup crud, and bit rot. Thus, people think they need a new computer every two years, when in fact, they do not. They really just need to reinstall Windows, but they are too stupid to know that they need to do so or to google how to do so.

I would need to buy a new computer every 9 months if this were the case. I just stick in the Windows CD, and go. It is a pain though, so I will eventually swtich to Mac. Microsoft could fix this by going away from the current registry based architecture that is such a mess.

XP is perfectly useable on a PIII-866. People need to learn how to do fresh installs.

We definitely need more capitalistic incentives. I think that we should center fuel economy on 50mpg. Then, for every MPG less than 50, there is a $1000 tax. That Hummer just went from $60K to $98K. Then, for every MPG over 50, you would get a $1000 credit. Prius just went from $25K to $15K. Then, it would be re-centered every year or two, and the MPG would go up rapidly. Eventually, it would center at 100-150mpg, the cars being EVs or plug-in hybrids. And no, it is not pollution elsewhere. Using nighttime extra capacity, it is lower emissions, even coal is 1/3rd the CO2 for an EV than a gas car, AND you can use nuclear plants to make the juice.

We also need to BAN things like incandescent light bulbs. They are just so 20th century. CFLs are short term. LEDs are the long-term.

Biofuels make sense when combined with plug-in cars that are much smaller. For an average of 200 miles for every gallon of biofuel. The rest would come from rods of uranium in nuclear reactors, with some wind and solar thrown in for good measure.

The sad irony of the climate prediction is that we are predicting the climate while putting out more CO2 by running our computer. I am also appalled at some of the DC nuts who run like 10 systems just for DC, 24/7/365.

In terms of off-grid PV its all about the batteries. Grid-tied is more practical though, as you can sell back power the utility when it makes the most difference, and then pull extra capacity off the grid at night.

I find Bill McDonough absolutely fascinating, but some of the stuff that he proposes would need to completely reshape the entire American (and world) way of living. If it could be done in a big city, with everyone there on board the plan, it would be super cool.

I see a lot of school waste too. At my high school, a lot of the computers have no power maagement at all. I am going to approac the administration about this and a bunch of other computer issues. I took things into my own hands, and got the admin password (it was LM hashed, these people are either complete idiots, or just don't care, probably both), and put 10 minute sleep on 25 machines.

Something like 65% of all power used by computer is used when they are doing NOTHING. Thats pretty bad. If most machines were 20W machines and had good sleep settings, a lot of the power comsumption issue would be gone.

Another place to look at for computer power is data centers. They require a lot of cooling, and have many machines running 24/7. They use as much power as the state of Utah. AISO.net has done some neat stuff in this area, including VMWareinizing a bnuch of their servers. The technology AND the eco-friendliness of their operation is extremely cool. Meanwhile, the idiots at 1&1 built a data center in Kansas because of its "superior energy capabilities", and aren't making any of their own power from renewables or buying RECs. They are just using coal, coal, and more coal. ugh.

The longer term answer to power worldwise is nuclear. It is clean, safe, and can provide a lot of power on a 24/7 basis. I say safe living 35 miles from two plants. The issue with expanding them, in the US at least, is NIMBY. Personally, I want one in my backyard (well, Ok, not literally, but close would be awesome!). Couple that with biodiesel plug-in hybrids, and we could go a long way towards reducing CO2 emissions. Nuclear is the only technology that can supply the energy needs of big countries like the US and China, and we need a program to expand it to 3500+ reactors worldwide.

Population growth is a huge problem. The Bush administration is stopping real sex ed, instead promoting abstinance-only sex ed which DOESN"T WORK. We need good sex ed in schools, and cheap and available contraceptives, ECPs, and abortions. In terms of family planning, it should be patriotic to only have one or two kids. It is becoming an economic reality for many to limit family size, however, as it is just too damn expensive.

[AZBrandon]

Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?

3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems. Plus, Apples are just plain a lot smaller, so they have a smaller material and shipping impact. I love Apple's eco-friendly systems. They help the electric bill too. I'm not saying they are perfect, they are not, but they are the most eco-friendly computer maker that I know of. The greenpeace study did not factor in electric useage.

4) That makes no sense. My current 500W machine would be outperformed by a Mac Mini (60 wattsish total) or Macbook (50 wattsish) that draws 1/10th the power.

You quoted 500 watts several times, but the true power draw would be nearer 120 watts, not 500 watts. Just because you have a 500 watt power supply doesn't mean the consumption is ANYWHERE near that. As for manufacturing versus power consumption, I've read that it takes 10 times as much power to produce a consumer electronic device as it will consume in it's lifetime, making the consumption rate irrelevant compared to the manufacture of the device.

[qviri]

2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot.

How old is that iBook? My laptop is six years old this month and shows no signs of disintegrating.

2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot. Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?

Even with two CRT monitors, there's no way a Dell machine breaks 400 watts at idle unless they're like 24". Did you check the wattage rating on the screens? Then add 120 watts (max) for an idling Northwood system.

3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems.

I'd be interested in finding out which Dell systems use 150 watts in idle? The XPS models maybe. Not the general purpose ones. Certainly not the new ones with C2D inside.

[Bigg]

@AZBrandon:

Yeah, I know. It has a 300 watt PSU, which at one point had three HDDs, three optical drives and 10 fans. I completely busted the "you need a 300+ watt power supply for a normal system" myth. It is a Seasonic, however, so it can REALLY deliver 300 watts, if I had that kind of hardware. It now has two HDDs, two opticals, and 8 fans. I am counting my 19" CRT and my 17" CRT in that number, so it is a very realistic guesstimate. I would guess that the tower itself is pulling 130WDC, 190WAC, assuming ~70% efficiency on the PSU.

@qviri:

The iBook is 2.5 years old. I had to replace the HORRIBLE Toshiba drive in it, and with 56 screws in it, it wasn't quite the same after. That could be part of it, but it also is just wearing out. I move it around and use it a lot.

The main problem, however, is that it is architechturally obsolete, and it is too weak to be my main machine. The 500W machine is my main rig. I love it, but it is not portable, and having two machines drives me nuts, as even with a strict organizational scheme, there is always discontinuity between them. I need to get a Macbook or Macbook Pro that is my only machine. The 500W machine is also a Windoze box, so it needs wayy too much maintenance.

The 500W machine is a custom-built with a 2.4C PIV, Corsair XMS, dual 120's RAID 0, an ATI 9600PRO, a fan controller with blue lights, the whole nine yards (in its time). The 19" CRT (Viewsonic) and the 17" CRT (Dell, recycled from an old machine) both put out a HUGE amount of heat. 500W total is a conservative number.

I also have to figure in the 5.1 speakers, printer, scanner, 2 external HDDs that normally are off, but the bricks are connected whenever the PC is on, a USB hub, and a mouse with its own brick (its wireless).

All of that, except for the mouse charger, is off at night when I shut down, and flip the switch on the strip. The mouse charger has to be on all the time so that it can, well, charge. This machine was built for performance at a reasonable cost, before I was eco-aware. This will be my last desktop machine, and my last Windows machine other than a server or media center machine well in the future.

When you count a CRT in, 150 watts is a conservative number. 100 watts is probably closer for the newest breed of LCD equipped C2D machines. I suppose 100 watts is a more realistic number for new machines, the machines I am familiar with are all CRT equipped with PIVs.