| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft vs. Google: Who's greener? | |
|
||
| Time: 07:46 EST/12:46 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Being portals and search engines, the companies are likely among the worst energy users because of the cooling and energy their data centers need to operate. When asked, company representatives did not say what, if anything, the data centers are doing to improve efficiency and reduce energy. No doubt, Google and Microsoft, two of the top Internet sites in the world, use massive amounts of electricity to power and cool their data centers. But outside of the electricity that makes the businesses run, they are among the leading adopters of so-called green policies in corporate America. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:27:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9589 (66.56.130.244) at 6/6/2006 8:53:42 PM |
|
Who knew C|Net News had comedians on their staff? GW is a joke. Everyone but the wacky lefties knows this.
Meanwhile, if a company can save a buck on energy they should do it. The sad truth is that the "payback" on solar panels is 10-12 years! So even in the near rainless deserts of our country that would maximize their use, it costs far more to buy, deploy, monitor, and manage solar power than any of the existing energy sources. And, no one in their right mind is using them on mission critical applications like server farms. But a couple of lines in this article have got to be out of the Daily KOZ or Moveon.org and are separately and/or in total useless. For example, "Installing solar power is an "excellent way" to help reduce the demand for electricity . . ." Huh? The installation of solar power does absolutely nothing to reduce demand. "Microsoft also has agreed to promote carbon-dioxide emission reduction among individual employees . . . " What are they doing? I know! Count out now and the even numbers hold their breath Monday, Wednesday and Friday; odd numbers Tuesday and Thursday. lol "In addition, Cascade Investment, a venture firm funded by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, has invested $84 million in Pacific Ethanol, which manufactures a corn-derived ethanol that can be mixed with gas to power cars." Besides Ethanol being more expensive to manufacture than gasoline and makes gasoline engines run rougher, if the US were to ramp up to 5% Ethanol of the present gasoline consumption, we would have to use half of our present corn crop. Think what that would do the price of Doritos - $10 bucks a bag is about right! Special "K" would really be special at $20 bucks a box! "Employees get a discount when buying gas-electric hybrid cars, and Microsoft uses hybrid Toyota Priuses as shuttles on the main campus." In order to get back your investment in a hybrid car you have to own it for at least 10 years given the premium price over the equivalent gasoline car and the relatively modest increase in MPG. Further, at about the five year mark you have to shell out $4500 for a replacemnet battery pack. Ever wonder what we are going to do with the approximately 800,000 battery packs that are driving around in hybrid cars right now? Yeah, I know throw them down the cave we built for billions out in Nevada, but never used to bury nuclear waste! lol "We're doing tests on potato skins. Think of all those french fries out there," Krajewski said. "We're also looking at different biodegradable materials, such as corn starch and sugar." The above need no comment! lol In the Google part of the artcicle, "For instance, employees get points for walking, biking and taking public transportation." What? Yeah, I got 2,000 "green points" Can I go home early today? lol "Google does not take its air and water quality lightly, either. For example, George Salah, director of facilities, goes by the "sniff test." " Need I say more? "the staircases are made of sustainably forested wood." Huh? If properly cared for, isn't all wood products "sustainable?" What nonsense. "Although a few toilets have heated seats and bidet-like functions . . ." I am just not living right! "If you transport food from Chile, or even Florida, that's a significant distance and greenhouse gases are emitted in the transportation of that food," Van Velsor said." Now if only Al "the Occidental Petroleum Trust Fund Baby" Gore could have figured this out, he wouldn't have wasted who knows how many millions of gallons of aviation fuel, preaching his bogus GW theories across the country. Sheesh . . . What we need is a couple dozen nuclear power generation plants and the opening up of ANWR and our costal plains to further oil exploration. Rename the artcile, Microsoft vs. Google: Who's goofier? |
| #2 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/7/2006 7:22:14 AM |
|
jd -
1) Solar panels reduce the demand for electricity gernerated by other means. 2) Many gas stations are already at 10% ethanol. Countries like Brazil use as much as 100% ethanol. If it makes money farmers will grow it. 3) Experts were saying that it would take 6 years to recoup your investment in a hybrid car when gas was $1.20 a gallon. Now that gas is nearly 3 times that its gonna take 10 years? Please. 4) 800,00 battery packs in a Nevada cave - What do you do with your car batteries now? 5) You want to build more nuclear reactors when we don't know what to do with the waste we have now. 6) There's no global warming going on! Yea Right! Polar ice caps disappearing, violent weather increasing in intensity and frequency, Polar Bears mating with Grizzly Bears. Hydrogen Fuel cells aren't happening for another 20 years thanks to George Bush. So until then, we have to do something to curb or satisfy our gluttonous ways. Or we continue to rape the environment and do nothing so that JD can drive his Hummer. Maybe if JD were more concerned about getting a hummer than driving one we would all be a lot better off. |
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 12:53:33 PM |
|
#2 "There's no global warming going on! Yea Right! "
The average global temperature has dropped .1 degrees Celsius from 1998. Global Warming (traditionally meaning increasing temperatures) ended in 1998. It has stabilized. I don't think it is a coincidence that CFC production ended in 1996 and Ozone levels are starting to return to normal. The numbers below are the average temperature above the 1960-1991 mean. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat 1998 0.58 1999 0.34 2000 0.29 2001 0.42 2002 0.47 2003 0.48 2004 0.46 2005 0.48 |
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 12:59:15 PM |
|
Remeber, Kyoto is a big con game. The core portion of Kyoto is the trading of carbon credits. In effect, rich coountires will send money to poor countires in exchange for "carbon credit" which is funny money and gives the owner the right to pollute.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36275/story.htm "Carbon trading could lever up to US$100 billion of investment into developing countries, according to the International Emissions Trading Association. Companies can count the credits towards their Kyoto targets, or exchange them for cash in the European carbon market, which the European Union introduced last year and is currently in its first phase from 2005 to 2007. " Remember the huge con known as Oil For Food (Oil For Palaces and Mercedes for UN officials in reality)? Kyoto will make that program look like a kids game. Big Con!!! |
| #5 By 28801 (68.45.209.133) at 6/7/2006 5:27:59 PM |
|
Now Parker, normally I'm in your corner, but please
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/NewsandEventsTemperatureTracker.html "According to a year-end review of climate data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global average temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces in 2005 was the second-warmest on record. Unusual warmth throughout the world during 2005 continues a trend of rapidly rising temperatures that began in the mid-1970s. The warmest year on record was 1998, a year characterized by a strong El Niño event. In contrast, according to NOAA, El Niño had little influence on the global temperature in 2005." |
| #6 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/7/2006 6:15:06 PM |
|
If 1998 was the warmest "on record" (ie since the 1800's), and 2006 was the 2nd warmest, then the temperature has declined since 1998.
Which is what my data shows. Essentially, temperature is up a miniscule .5 degrees Celsius in the last 47 years and has levelled off - stabilised - since 1998. The other interesting thing that happened in 1997 (which may have caused the records in 1998) was a massive peat fire that released 40% as much carbon as humans do in 1 year. The loss of the massive carbon sink is also a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat "In 1997, it is estimated that peat and forest fires in Indonesia released between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon; equivalent to 13-40 percent of the amount released by global fossil fuel burning, and greater than the carbon uptake of the world's biosphere. 1997 was unusually high, however. These fires likely are responsible for the boost in the increase in carbon dioxide levels since being noticed in 1997" However, one to thing to always remember: Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas. CO2 has about 2-3% the impact that water vapor does. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html "Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate." |
| #7 By 28801 (68.45.209.133) at 6/7/2006 8:46:14 PM |
|
Look at the graphs on the sites you provided. I'm no climatologist, but I can spot a trend, and all of the graphs you provided go up.
Yes, most of the gases you mentioned are of natural origin, but their current levels are anthropogenic. Now if your argument is that there is more water vapor than normal because of the increase in temp caused by the other human-enhanced greenhouse gas levels melting the polar ice caps, then I might agree. There is nothing we can do about the methane generated by the livestock we breed to survive, or the hot air Latch blows out on this site, but we can do something about automobile exhaust and smokestacks pouring garbage into the air. I can scour the internet an find sites that buttress my argument as well, but I prefer to use common sense. Anyone who has driven past a smokestack pouring God knows what into the atmosphere, or who has driven behind a diesel bus with their window down, and can say that we are not affecting this planet's climate is either a moron or a republican. And Parker, I know you are not a moron... |
| #8 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/7/2006 11:54:10 PM |
|
"and all of the graphs you provided go up"
The raw data doesn't since 1998. Have you ever wondered why the "environmentalists" stopped calling it "global warming" and started calling it "climate change"? Because the warming has stopped. Look, Kyoto was all about stealing money from the "rich" nations and transferring it to corrupt "poor"nations via the middlemen ... the UN. Thievery, plain and simple. They aren't going to let the fact that the warming has stopped keep them from the money! |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/7/2006 11:59:24 PM |
|
"Anyone who has driven past a smokestack pouring God knows what into the atmosphere, or who has driven behind a diesel bus with their window down, and can say that we are not affecting this planet's climate is either a moron or a republican."
Ahhh. Particulate matter. Not the same as CO2. As for diesels ... incredibly fuel efficent. Way better than hybrids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency "Diesel engines often achieve greater fuel efficiency than petrol (gasoline) engines: 50% of all cars sold in the EU are now diesel vehicles. This can also be attributed to the fact that diesel has 17.6% more energy per unit volume than petrol, and due to economic factors in certain areas, offers more energy for the money." I hope you aren't in favor of Kyoto and against diesel engines. If you are, Europes plan to abide by Kyoto by replacing most gas cars with diesel will be a real disappointment. |
| #10 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 12:01:16 AM |
|
"Despite lower carbon dioxide emissions, diesel cars may promote more global warming than gasoline cars .
Laws that favor the use of diesel, rather than gasoline, engines in cars may actually encourage global warming, according to a new study. Although diesel cars obtain 25 to 35 percent better mileage and emit less carbon dioxide than similar gasoline cars, they can emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer [mile]. The warming due to soot may more than offset the cooling due to reduced carbon dioxide emissions over several decades, according to Mark Z. Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, Jacobson describes computer simulations leading to the conclusion that control of fossil-fuel black carbon and organic matter may be the most effective method of slowing global warming, in terms of the speed and magnitude of its effect on climate. Not only does soot warm the air to a much greater extent than does carbon dioxide per unit mass, but the lifetime of soot in the air (weeks to months) is much less than is that of carbon dioxide (50 to 200 years). As such, removing soot emissions may have a faster effect on slowing global warming than removing carbon dioxide emissions. " http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html "The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 does not even consider black carbon as a pollutant to control with respect to global warming." The reason the issue of diesel versus gasoline is important, says Jacobson, is that, in Europe, one of the major strategies for satisfying the Kyoto Protocol is to promote further the use of diesel vehicles and specifically to provide a greater tax advantage for diesel. Tax laws in all European Union countries, except the United Kingdom, currently favor diesel, thereby inadvertently promoting global warming," What a con Kyoto is! This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 00:03. |
| #11 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/8/2006 9:06:08 AM |
|
I'm not following - in Your #9 post you say that diesels are way better than Hybrids but in #10 you say diesels promote Global Warming.
I have an idea! I'll stand in a closed garage with a hybrid running on battery and you stand in a garage with a diesel engine idling and see which of us drops dead sooner. Seriously, I never mentioned Kyoto. I do know that we are the leading polluter and natural resource consumer in the world. We have got to change soon or we won't have to close the garage to drop dead. |
| #12 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 10:13:05 AM |
|
Diesels use less fuel, but generate way more particulate matter into the atmosphere.
"I have an idea! I'll stand in a closed garage with a hybrid running on battery and you stand in a garage with a diesel engine idling and see which of us drops dead sooner." Hybrids generate the electricity stored in the battery by burning fuel. |
| #13 By 28801 (68.45.209.133) at 6/8/2006 2:43:15 PM |
|
"Hybrids generate the electricity stored in the battery by burning fuel."
Well Duh! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:27:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
