Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12821

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 05:38:13PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 4/8/22 20:35, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Sponsors: When receiving sponsored resources like electricity, we
> > should inquire about the carbon footprint of those resources, and
> > what the sponsor's approach to environmental affairs is.
> 
> Most of the time, "green energy" is just "green washing". If you buy "green
> energy" in France or Swiss (these are the only places I know for sure what's
> going on), you get a higher electricity bill, and a slot in the green energy
> consumers. But the electricity may well come from the nearby coal power
> plant, even if you bought a slot of green electricity.

Proof? References? I'm in Germany, and for the time I got
to decide, I chose a 100% renewable electricity provider.
I'm happy to know that my bill goes to someone deploying
renewable generation instead of coal plants.

I do believe them. If they get caught cheating, they can
say good-bye to their business. Whether "the electricity
comes from the nearby coal plant" -- the electrons never
leave the building, as you might know [0] :-)

It's about what investments your bill goes to, as I said
above.

> IMO, you're much better off fighting this at another level: lobbying your
> government to do what you think is right.

We gotta do both, I think.

> > Budget: We need to determine our current CO2 emissions as a project,
> > and then define a roadmap to carbon neutrality by an acceptable date,
> > I think 2035 or 2040 are commonly referenced. This is likely to be
> > exponential. We should use project funds to hire an expert consulting
> > firm to do this for us.
> 
> If I had my say, I would vote against (wasting) money for such an expert,
> and wasting contributor time on this. I'm tired of reading about CO2
> emission in the data center, when old servers are just trashed, and when
> electricity production is out of the control of the data center owner (see
> above).

You just put some assertions without backing them up in any way. And,
by the way: perhaps there are experts out there willing to do some
pro bono work for Debian.

> I pushed my company to recycle old server and re-use them as long as
> possible, and we went from a 10 years lifetime to 15. That's IMO a much
> nicer and efficient approach for protecting the environment than just the
> green-washing CO2 propaganda.

Another unwarranted slur. A computer has a lifecycle, and it makes
sense to take all into account. It does make sense to re-use for
some time, but it also does make sense to take the power consumption
into account (more modern servers tend to have better MIPS/power
ratios). This [1] source (alas, not dated -- copyright is 2022), for
example says that energy use is 34% of a computer's lifecycle.

> > Monitoring: Once we have determined our CO2 emissions and defined a
> > roadmap, we need to constantly monitor our CO2 emissions to make sure
> > we stay on target. I propose quarterly environmental impact reports.
> 
> A quarterly environmental impact that only takes CO2 into account is only
> part of the reality. Do you have any idea about the environmental impact of
> mining these rare minerals needed to produce a server? Another example:
> producing the aluminum needed for a server chassis use a huge amount of
> electricity.

Well, "huge" is not a number. There are studies out there (I tried to
provide an example) which try to get down to more concrete figures.

I think actually trying to assess "where are we" and "where do we want
to go" is a very commendable goal. I'm happy that people are trying.

Cheers

[0] If I remember correctly, electrons in copper move in the rough
   ballpark of 10^-6 m/s, so at 50 Hz they just wiggle around about
   1/50th of a micron. But my physics are pretty old, so glad to
   be corrected :-)

[1] https://sustainablecomputing.umich.edu/knowledge/life-cycle.php
-- 
t

Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 20:40 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 21:00 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 21:20 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Davide Prina <davide.prina@gmail.com> - 2022-04-08 23:00 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 19:30 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2022-04-29 09:50 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-04-29 11:30 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality micah anderson <micah@riseup.net> - 2022-04-10 17:40 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-04-20 11:40 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-09-21 08:10 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2022-09-21 09:40 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-09-21 14:30 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 11:40 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-04-13 14:40 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 17:10 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-04-13 17:40 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-04-13 18:50 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 17:50 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 17:50 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2022-04-20 21:00 +0200
          Bits&Bäume Conference about digital sustainability (Berlin, October; CfP deadline 7 June) Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2022-05-13 08:50 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2022-04-13 20:00 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2022-04-21 06:10 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-04-21 06:50 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2022-04-30 10:10 +0200
  Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-05-13 18:00 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-05-13 19:30 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2022-05-15 11:00 +0200

csiph-web