×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Energy Use From Wireless Networks Will Dwarf Data Center Use By 2015

Unknown Lamer posted 1 year,6 days | from the iphone-using-hippie-not-concerned dept.

Power 42

angry tapir writes "New research (PDF) from an Australian university argues that increased carbon emissions from powering data centers aren't the biggest environmental threat from the growth of cloud computing. Instead, the problem is the Wi-Fi and cellular networks increasingly used to access cloud services. By 2015, the energy used to run data centers will be a 'drop in the ocean' compared to the energy used to power wireless access to services. By 2015 the energy consumption associated with 'wireless cloud' will reach 43 terawatt-hours, compared to 9.2 terawatt-hours in 2012 (an increase in carbon footprint from 6 megatons of CO_2 in 2012, up to 30 megatons of CO_2 in 2015). Data centers will comprise only 9 per cent on this increased energy consumption, compared to up to 90 per cent for wireless access."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

42 comments

TFA (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,6 days | (#43399745)

The amazing article doesn't say exactly what the "wireless cloud" is. Wifi, perhaps, or do they just mean ramping up mobile phone networks adding capacity and transmitters?

Naturally they didn't bother to compare the power consumption of wireless to having multiple wired connections to everything. Wireless devices themselves tend to use less power than desktop PCs so probably more than offset the energy required for transmission of data.

It also uses the often heard but stupid reasoning that A is bad, but B is far worse so A isn't so bad any more.

Re:TFA (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | 1 year,6 days | (#43399781)

The amazing article doesn't say exactly what the "wireless cloud" is. Wifi, perhaps, or do they just mean ramping up mobile phone networks adding capacity and transmitters?

If only the article had said something like "...from the rising use of cellular and Wi-Fi networks to access cloud services..." somewhere near the beginning we'd know that they're referring to both WiFi and cellular. ;^>

Re:TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400111)

TFA is garbage. Who green-lit this crap? wireless clouds seemlessly synergizing our real time consumption of contextual relationships as a service are causing global climate change.

Give me a break. If it's not immediately obvious to a middle schooler what you are referring to, you need to show more data than using buzzwords and projecting fads and unstable trends. What are they referring to as the cloud. Is it the towers, hand held devices, the desktop base stations, the wall chargers vampiricly sucking juice out of the wall into thin air? I don't know. I also highly doubt that we will see a nearly 200% annualized growth in wireless networks over the next 2 years. They are just too big at this point to do that, twice. Sure, it's happened before, but growing from 1000 users to 1million is a whole lot easier than growing from 1 billion to 1.1 billion, just ask facebook.

Yes, there is a lot that can be done, but with what resources. At this point the subscriber base is close to saturated. Depending on who you consult, there are about 7B people on the planet, and roughly 6B mobile phone users. The Americas are already at >100% penetration due to work/personal phones. You aren't going to have the incredible growth explosion that you saw in the past decade again. Yes, they still are and need to invest in their networks, but they just can't do it at the kind of rates that they are talking about. This is just fluf garbage. http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#subscribers

Re:TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400077)

You're wrong actually. The motivation is that we should be looking to improve wireless technology in such a way as to limit the 'cost' in wireless.

We have no choice but to... (1)

wanfuse123 (2860713) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400085)

That's it we have no choice but to develop quantum entaggled particle chips that violate the causality principle that way we can have remote connections to a central server that is un-hackable and can also use energy at very high efficiency, and at speed of light speeds. http://rawcell.com [rawcell.com]

Re:We have no choice but to... (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | 1 year,6 days | (#43403249)

Try sending a stream of inverse tachyon particles to the deflector dish. That oughtta do it.

Re:We have no choice but to... (1)

davester666 (731373) | 1 year,6 days | (#43403505)

This is precisely why Fox is threatening to stop transmitting free OTA signals. Every new antennae puts an extra load on the transmitter, and they are close to their limit now. With Aereo putting thousands and thousands of new antennae in major markets, this will either overload their existing transmitters or force them to build new ones!

Or something like that.

Re:TFA (1)

afidel (530433) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400629)

If they're talking about cellular networks I'm calling complete BS. Sprints new "Network Vision" equipment is a fraction of the size and uses a fraction of the power of the equipment it's replacing which was already WAY more efficient than the older analog network (200mW max transmit versus 5W). If they're talking WiFi do they really expect there to be 500% more WiFi installations?

Re:TFA (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | 1 year,6 days | (#43403305)

The trouble is that we're basically at the Nyquist limit in terms of transmission efficiency. That means any increase in wireless network capacity is going to require increased power consumption, either directly through higher power output, or from having a higher quantity of more directional equipment. As more users begin taking advantage of high bandwidth online services, the network capacity will have to grow, and thus power consumption will grow to match.

Re:TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43401745)

It also uses the often heard but stupid reasoning that A is bad, but B is far worse so A isn't so bad any more.

Careful, you're attacking one of the fundamental tenets of American conservative philosophy.

Global emissions 30Gt (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43399755)

So less than 0.1% of global emissions. And electricity powered, so one of the easier targets for renewables.

Datacenters will return in power consumption (2)

eksith (2776419) | 1 year,6 days | (#43399757)

...as they will be used more and more to provide a near-instant (Twitter-like) service that turns PDFs to HTML as soon as one is linked somewhere on the web

Scarce details (3, Interesting)

ThomasBHardy (827616) | 1 year,6 days | (#43399789)

The article has very little detail in it.

It really sounded like they took the curve of data center power reduction and forecast it out, then took the amount of energy used by every corporate and home wireless device in the country(world?) and every cellular network (and it's devices) and projected them out.

Apples and oranges.

It also sounds like they felt a dire need to stick "Cloud" into the article for no other point than to raise the headline value. The article did nothing at all to convince me that their predictions really relate to cloud computing any more than anything else.

Re:Scarce details (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400233)

It really sounded like they took the curve of data center power reduction and forecast it out, then took the amount of energy used by every corporate and home wireless device in the country(world?) and every cellular network (and it's devices) and projected them out.

Yep, every wireless device in the world, and then they assumed a carbon footprint equivalent of a device powered from the U.S. grid.

So? What Does That Really Mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43399877)

I know that they cited scary numbers and all, but these numbers are actually rather insignificant when considered at a global level.

Is this increase an indicator of a real problem or is this more 'sky is falling' hyperbole from the anti-carbon fanatics?

Re:So? What Does That Really Mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400063)

So you expected the wifi and cellular usage be comparable to the power used buy say light bulbs to consider it significant?

These are mostly on mobile devices. We will use (and waste) power when we charge batteries, we use chemicals and batteries (and throw them away), and we spend the hardly stored battery power to perform wireless communication.

A pimple (3, Insightful)

jamesl (106902) | 1 year,6 days | (#43399909)

(an increase in carbon footprint from 6 megatons of CO_2 in 2012, up to 30 megatons of CO_2 in 2015).

World CO2 emissions for 2011 was estimated to be over 33 thousand million tons. I will not be losing any sleep over this tiny bit of manufactured melodrama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2011_emissions_estimates [wikipedia.org]

Re:A pimple (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400397)

You know we have a word for a thousand million, right?

Re:A pimple (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43401799)

You know that there is no universal agreement on what the word 'billion' means, right? And if you said 'milliard' instead a lot of people would have no idea what you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales [wikipedia.org]

Re:A pimple (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,6 days | (#43403553)

know that there is no universal agreement on what the word 'billion' means, right?

But there is universal agreement on what a gigaton is. The meaning of 'billion' has pretty much settled as well, with the old-school-British use being archaic now.

Re:A pimple (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43405857)

Yeah, and this is exactly the source of huge confusion in the EU. Billion Euros invested. Well... with all those bailouts, is it Giga- or Tera- ?

Barack can't do it alone! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43399917)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-has-sunday-fun-gwen-stefanis-home_649867.html

"Ms. Stefani's children--Kingston, 6 years old; and Zuma, 3 years old (both boys)--are in attendance. Her husband, singer Gavin Rossdale, is on tour in Europe, according to a campaign official.

Many of the No Doubt bandmates have their children on their laps.

The crowd is gathered on the lawn next to the pool, which is blocked off with temporary white fencing. Among the guests your pool reporter can spot are Nicole Richie and husband Joel Madden, actor Jeffrey Tambor and actress Alyson Hannigan.

During Mrs. Obama's remarks, many children are sitting on their parents' shoulders, and balloon animals can be seen waving in the crowd. Ms. Richie and Mr. Madden each are holding one of their two children.

Mrs. Obama's remarks are geared toward a crowd that included many children and young parents.

"Barack can't do it alone. He's not Spider-Man. He's not a superhero. He's a human, so we need your help,"

-----

Ohh listen to all you apologizers and drones, Obama's one of us! He's for the little guy! So transparent and hopey-changey aren't we!

Now turn in your guns like good little drones and get back to work.

4X in THREE YEARS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43399943)

I'd like to see the basis for this. It sounds like utter bullshit to predict that at THIS stage of wireless deployment, we'll see a 4X increase in 3 years.

9% = "Drop in the Ocean"? (2)

octothorpe99 (34654) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400009)

Is a drop 9% of the ocean.. Stupid "hyperbolists"

Re:9% = "Drop in the Ocean"? (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400243)

Exactly. If that's a drop in the oceans, then it's a 130 million cubic kilometer drop that weighs 130 trillion tons.

Re:9% = "Drop in the Ocean"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43402231)

Exactly. If that's a drop in the oceans, then it's a 130 million cubic kilometer drop that weighs 130 trillion tons.

That's a big Twinkie....

Metaphor Hyperbole (3, Insightful)

BlueMonk (101716) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400023)

A factor of 5 does not justify the use of the metaphor "drop in the ocean". I wish people would reserve the use of metaphors for where they belong. "Metaphor inflation" just makes it harder to express yourself when using metaphors appropriately because nobody can trust that you mean what you say. The metaphor I would use for a factor of 5 is "dwarfs" or "pales in comparison". Drop in the ocean should be used when one is infinitesimally insignificant next to the other, which is not the case here.

Re:Metaphor Hyperbole (1)

Jawnn (445279) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400525)

A factor of 5 does not justify the use of the metaphor "drop in the ocean". I wish people would reserve the use of metaphors for where they belong.

I wish most people weren't functionally illiterate. Then they might understand a big word like "metaphor" and have at least a remote chance of understanding your objection to their misuse. But then deliberately stupid people who dismiss the importance of reducing, wherever possible, carbon emissions, tend to blend in with the the noise for me, so it's easy to overlook their lack of language skills.

Re:Metaphor Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43403995)

Shoot the marketing people. They're the worst crowd on this planet after spammers. If you can separate them.

Horrible article (2)

gravis777 (123605) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400033)

Are they talking about power going to WiFi access points and routers and cell networks, or are they throwing in powering every single cell phone, tablett, and laptop used to access these networks as well. The article just doesn't specify, but I highly doubt that the energy to run a couple of dozen WiFi access points (or hundreds if you are a REALLLY large business) is ever going to be anywhere near what it costs to power servers, disc arrays, tape backup systems, routers, switches, and PBX systems.

With this being from Austrailia, for all we know, they are refering to covering the outback with cell towers and how much power that will take versus the power needed to locate a data center out there. The article is very vague.

The executive summery in the PDF pretty much states the same.

If you start digging down into the article PDF, I did find this:

This white paper presents a detailed model that
estimates the energy consumption of cloud services
delivered via wireless access networks in 2015 taking
into account the broad range of components required to
support those services, including data centres and the
telecommunications networks. The model is based on the
expected up-take of wireless cloud services and forecasts
of the telecommunications technologies that will underpin
wireless cloud services in 2015. This estimate uses an
incremental energy calculation that is based on a scenario
where wireless cloud traffi c is part of many other traffi c
fl ows through the network and data centres. Wireless cloud
traffi c is carried through a network that is already carrying
a large amount of traffi c, with wireless cloud traffi c being
about 20% of mobile traffi c and approximately 35% of data
centre traffi c [2,4].

So this makes more sense, but is seemingly talking in circles. The power required to power cell towers, wireless networks, and the datacenters to support them is going to be greater than the power needed to support data centers. Um, thanks.

What is worse is that the white paper reads like a lazy college student's attempt to present facts without really understanding the facts. I used to throw papers like that together in college. You have facts that you know you need to present in your paper, but you have no clue what they really mean, and almost get to the point where you are copying and pasting tidbits into your paper (and just citate the hell out of it).

Do your bit (1)

spectrokid (660550) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400251)

Most Wifi access points can easily be configured to shut down during night time hours, with a simple on/off button on the front for those nights were you need data access late.

Re:Do your bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43402489)

Most Wifi access points can easily be configured to shut down during night time hours, with a simple on/off button on the front for those nights were you need data access late.

Sorry, that would require things like effort and responsibility, neither of which are present within today's "what do you mean charge for internet access?!?" generation, who are quickly proving that IDGAF isn't just an attitude, it's a lifestyle.

Oh, the irony when discussing the entitlement generation... (captcha = expect)

Re:Do your bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43404511)

Entitlement generation? Did someone show the baby boomers how to use wireless devices?

Units for power (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400317)

What is with this trend of measuring power in watt-hours per year? What's wrong with the standard unit of power, the watt? For example, 43 TWh/year is roughly 4.9GW. That is presumably much more than just the power for wifi transmissions, unless every wifi device on the planet is using about 1W at all times.

mod Up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43400607)

open platform, a relatively WHATEVER PATH IS get how people can And mortifying Be a lot slower documents like a Series of exploding Progress. Any BSD addicts, flame United States of CONFLICTS THAT faster chip not going to play empire in decline, By simple fucking For election, I surveys show that channel #GNAA on of OpenBSD versus Problem stems OpenBSD. How many fastest-growing GAY fly...don't fear DO, AND WITH ANY Kreskin approximately 90% see. The number you dowLn. It was You are a screaming Luck I'll find your own beer continues toChew into a sling unless

In another measurement (2)

Guspaz (556486) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400631)

I like to measure things in HydroQuebec's. That is, measuring usage relative to the installed capacity of my province's power company.

Hydro Quebec installed capacity: 36,971 MW
Hydro Quebec max generation per year: 324 TWh/year
TFA's power usage: 43 TWh/year

So TFA says in 2015, GLOBAL wireless transmission energy usage will be about 13% of HydroQuebec's capacity... Suddenly doesn't seem so much.

Developed world cell service expanding that fast? (1)

swb (14022) | 1 year,6 days | (#43400691)

I get that there's probably a lot of wireless expansion happening in the less developed world, but is wireless -- in terms of cell sites -- expanding that rapidly in the developed world, where there's already a fair amount of cell coverage density?

And is LTE more energy intensive for cell towers? I would have assumed that over time the energy consumption of a cell site would stay about flat over time as transmission technologies got more efficient (ie, superior signaling, better low-power modes for fewer handset status updates) and the equipment itself increased its processing power relative to its actual power consumption (faster CPUs, better integration at the IC level, etc).

Somehow I don't see a major expansion in terms of number of cell sites in the US. I'm sure there is growth, but I'd also expect that most of the capital is going to technology upgrades for LTE, improved backhaul, etc.

That's a huge fucking drop (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43402877)

or a mighty tiny ocean.

Akin (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | 1 year,6 days | (#43403421)

This is akin to saying that the waterways will go dry because of the increased cooling needed for power plants, because, you know, those power plants are certainly going to grow without trying to save cost by subsidizing or using other energy sources as time goes on.

How in the hell can you take a growth model that's occurring now and use that model to predict the future as compared to other data source, NEITHER of which are guaranteed to follow a positive curve?

More "OH NO THE SKY IS GONNA FALL" crap.

vs Total CO2 imprint of running cable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#43404081)

Any have any states on the total energy needed to produce and distribute and install the cat 6?

I would've thaought it was going down overall (1)

aklinux (1318095) | 1 year,6 days | (#43406459)

Yes, we are using more & more wireless access. I am under the impression that the number of desktop computers being used is going down at a similar rate to the increase in wireless. It seems like people are, more and more, talking to those wireless access points with less power hungry devices such a cellphones, tablets, and netbooks as opposed to desktop computers w/ CRTs. It seems like all those 300 to 500 watt desktops shutting down, not to mention all the CRT displays that have recently gone away, should more than offset the access points. Maybe not...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...