Talk:Green computing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale |
[edit] Early discussions
I have been reading lately that ICs are no longer as sensitive to temperature variations and that the comment:
- "Additionally, it is somewhat less stress on integrated circuits (especially the CPU) to be always warm, rather than fluctuating between cold and warm, because temperature changes are generally more damaging than being at a reasonably warm temperature all the time.
is no longer recommended. --220.233.33.170 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Its not significant IRL. Tabby 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
For the foreseeable future, there is likely to be some tradeoff in general between the stress of elevated operating temperatures, and the stress of temperature change -- for all electronics in general.-69.87.202.60 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Laptops vs Desktops
This article needs a lot of work!
It needs a section on energy/electricity. Give the basic facts: A traditional desktop consumes about 100W. A traditional CRT monitor another 100W. This is esp important on computers that are on 24/7: 100W equals about $100/yr in electricity! So, the first step in saving energy is, turn off the monitor when you are not using the computer!
Another very important basic fact is that typical current laptop computers are much more energy efficient than desktop computers. A laptop might only use about 50W, and that includes the display!
There is a whole wave of new low-power computers this article should discuss and link to. VIA cpu chips are low power. There are low-power mainboards, ITX and smaller. Carputers. And new low-power laptops, particularly the OLPC XO. -69.87.202.60 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Greenness of Laptop vs Desktop is an interesting question - I have seen several places touting laptops for being greener. But they typically mention superficial points only (e.g. energy use). Analysis should cover the whole life cycle environmental impact.
- Laptops are typically less repairable, less upgradeable and less durable than desktops - shorter lifetime means more impact in manufacture/recycling.
- Laptop cases are typically made of less-recyclable materials (plastic).
- With desktops you can keep the same monitor, keyboard, etc.
- You can design desktops with many of the power saving features of a laptop.
[edit] Total system power consumption
This article has very good data on typical total power consumption of modern computer system subsystems under varying conditions:
- Saving Power on idle PCs Idle represents 69 to 97% of total annual energy use, even if power management is enabled. Recommendations for Tier I ENERGY STAR Computer Specification, Natural Resources Defense Council. David Mathog and Caltech 2005, 2006, 2007
-69.87.199.53 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] will become 95 percent of all federal agency purchases
"HP Green PC EPEAT Gold
HP rp5700 PC achieves gold status for the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT-registered electronic products will become 95 percent of all federal agency purchases... The Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) is used to rank computer desktops, laptops and monitors based on their environmental attributes. The three-tiered EPEAT rating system includes 23 required criteria and 28 optional criteria, such as the reduction or elimination of environmentally sensitive materials and energy conservation... HP lab tests have found that the rp5700 desktop PC, in its maximum energy-efficient configuration and paired with an HP flat panel monitor, may help customers save as much as 80 percent in power consumption over previous generation systems using CRT monitors.
Posted by Green Tech June 2007"[1] -69.87.200.80 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some questions
A few questions the article left me with:
- "Support for S3 Standby and G2 Soft-off ACPI states have been difficult to achieve or undesirable for free operating systems" — Why?
- Why isn't there any mention of the notorious lack of efficiency within PC power manufacturers and Energy Star's 80 Plus initiative?
- Why does the section on "Alternatives to low-power states" mention the reduction of noise? What's noise got to do with lowering the power consumption and recyclability of parts, etc.?
- Security risks and how to avoid them are in my opinion irrelevant to the section. I don't see how it's even remotely pertinent to the discussion. Samuel Grant 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The noise bit I would imagine is because Noise Pollution is considered a type of pollution - but in this case I have to agree it's pretty irrelevant, considering the negligable amount of noise most computers make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.116.121 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I just rewrote the "Alternatives" section. I think that it was originally written from a free-software perspective; rather than discuss the aspects of ACPI that are pertinent to green computing, it simply dismisses them as "difficult" or "undesirable". I hope the new section is clearer on this subject. I also added info on power supplies and the 80 Plus initiative, and I took out the fluff on noise reduction. — EagleOne\Talk 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your improvements! Samuel Grant 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello All,
I have posted a detailed study of computer monitor energy consumption on my blog at http://savingenergy.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/saving-energy-one-monitor-at-a-time/
This link has been referenced by a lot of other blogs etc. and appears in top google searches.
I would like to know if 1. I can add link to that study on green computing page? 2. If answer to Question 1 is no, then can the blog post as an article here? I care about spreading the information more than I care about hits on my blog. Thanks, Kgskgs (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, because it's self-published original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to include the material in Wikipedia, have it published by a reliable third-party source, and then you may include it here with proper citation. -- Schapel (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hibernate
The Hibernate article links here, but this article doesn't say anything about hibernation.
When I came to this article I wanted to know if hibernation was more or less energy efficient than shutting down completely, anyone know? Is hibernation a complete shut down only with the current state saved? (th reason I ask is that on my desktop comp, when I press hibernate, the num lock light stays on and I can't work out why). I found both articles didn't really answer the questions I had about hibernation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.208.99 (talk)
- According to this source, "Hibernate saves an image of your desktop with all open files and documents, and then it powers down your computer." Feel free to include this information in the article and cite this source. -- Schapel 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture Suggestion
This page could use a picture at the lead. I would suggest something like a circular recycling symbol that is labeled to describe Green IT. Image:Recycle001.svg might be a good starting place. Mrshaba 03:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links and Blogs
It is policy not to include references to blogs in Wikipedia entries; my preference would be to get rid of all of them but the two mentioned do have paid staff and editors. The commercial links don't have any place; news is ok but its better to work them into the article since there is so much.MyTigers (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Energy efficient computing
The article does not seem to clearly differentiate energy efficient systems from low power systems. I have noticed similar confusion in discussions of ecology and computing elsewher
e.g. people proposing folding@home (a compute intensive job) on something like a Via C3 or Intel D201GLY2 (slow, low power computers), when a higher efficiency computer (e.g. Mac Mini Core2Duo) would do a lot more work for the energy input.
I think it would be worth pointing out that there is more to high efficiency than low power. (Of course, if a system doesn't have much to do and is high efficiency, then it will be low power.)
The Green500 might be a useful reference for this.
http://www.green500.org/ The Green500 ranks the fastest (Top500) supercomputers by energy efficiency
Zodon (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental technology template
I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup needed
Much of the info is this article is out of date, and seems to be a large advert for particular vendors. The text needs to be solidified and concentrate on the widely supported initiatives. some items that require immediate attention:
CA electronic waste recycling act - there are currently 26 states that have some type of program, CA doesnt need to be singled out.
IBM big green - every vendor has a program e.g. sun ecoResponsibility http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/environment/products/intro.jsp Dell http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/environment/en/energy?c=us&l=en&s=gen&dgc=AF&cid=29370&lid=661332 Google http://gigaom.com/2007/06/12/google-backs-green-computing-too/. IBM doesnt need to be singled out.
Power generation- should be removed, too broad and not applicable. Video Cards - way down the list in any green computing program, item is general is greenwashy. Display - general greenwash, needs to be removed or beefed up. See Also - needs to be worked into each section. Blogs - probably should be killed, although the two listed have editors.
[edit] Significant Review Required
There is significant dispute in the industry and between users what comprises "green computing" and what not. This page seems to reflect this conflict and presents a somewhat immature look at the topic. In simple terms computing is not "green" and with current technology can not be, so the term itself is somewhat misleading. The point here is that the manufacture, use and disposal of IT equipment has a very real and significant impact on the earth's resources and the environment. A "green" computer would have neither of these.
It would seem to be a better approach to include the manufacture, use and disposal of computing equipment under the "eco-efficiency" page, or at least as a sub-component of this. (M Banks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.231.1 (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the page needs significant cleanup, and should focus on green computing principles which are well established and supported by large initiatives and standards. These standards and such have been formalized and agreed to by essentially every large vendor. In these cases, there is no dispute about what needs to happen, the impacts, etc.
The paragraph above suggests the term 'green' is used primarily as a noun, when in fact it is used primarily as a verb. Green computing is a constantly moving process, and all players recognize it as such; meaningful comparisons are made on how far a component/company/ machine has made it to the goal which is summarized above, not on reaching the goal itself. In fact, by definiton, manufacturing any technology with zero impact is not possible. Appropriate use is the key here.MyTigers (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
