Re: Shut down or leave on?
ndemou@gmail.com on 29/08/07 16:24, wrote:
On 8/28/07, Richard Carter <carter.r.a.l@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
3) I thought it was a waste of electricity, and money, to have a machine
running that wasn't being used.
it is but if you find a lot of other reasons to keep it alive then you
probably want to check ways to minimize power consumption. Automatic
adjustment of CPU frequency, automaticaly powering off HDs and
monitor when not in use, funs wich adjust RPM according to temperature
etc
My previous server used 100 Watts on average.
If left on 24/7, that's 61,320 hours a year, or 6,132,000 Watt-hours or 6,132 kWh.
According to the stats, every kWh produced in the UK causes 0.5 kg of carbon
dioxide emissions. So with that machine I caused 3,070 kg of CO2 emissions, or 3
metric tonnes per year.
To put it in context, the UK produces 7 to 15 metric tonnes of CO2 per person
per year. In the USA, it's over 15 tonnes.
So with that one PC I produced maybe a third of my carbon footprint.
My new server (uptime 28 days) apparently only consumes 35W - I haven't put the
meter on it yet. So it's down to a tonne of CO2 a year.
If I divide that between my household of 4 who all use it, then it's probably
acceptable. Plus of course I should switch to a power supplier that provides
energy from renewable sources.
Also, if powering down and booting up causes hardware damage, the environmental
cost of the replacement is a factor - avoiding pollution with the old and energy
to manufacture the new - although so far on the thread the main opinion seems to
be that new harddrives don't suffer too much this way and I don't think it was
conclusive argued that it causes damage to chips and boards.
Regards
Adam
Reply to: