
Powering a Google search - peter123
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html
======
mseebach
> Dr Wissner-Gross's study claims that two Google searches _on a desktop
> computer_ produces 14g of CO2

.. it sounds a lot like NOT performing two Google searches on a desktop
computer would produce between 13-14g of CO2.

I read in another article that some other study tried to factor wether or not
you would need to start your computer up or not .. and how far around the
world the data would have to travel.

I may just be cynical, but this sounds alot like an attempt to make ordinary
people feel guilty about killing the planet, just by living -- in turn to make
them turn to the whole buying indulgences for your climate sins (including
Googling, apparently) trend.

------
bendtheblock
I think this press release is a response to the research mentioned in this
article: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm>. Whether or not
this type of statistic is relevant, it probably pales in comparison to the
increase in global GDP as a result of this powerful search tool. Besides... a
further question, would the internet be as usable without it?

------
invisible
The doctor's report accounts for a) your computer viewing the page for X
minutes, b) the overall searches per power used by google's datacenters, and
c) some other random guessing I'm assuming.

Google's figure accounts for usage of power the google search actually
utilizes.

Both of these are skewed figures, reflecting the agendas of the two. The
doctor has a site he wants to promote, google has a "green" label they want to
keep.

------
tlrobinson
_Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the
U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches._

Honest question: is that correct grammar? ("as many greenhouse gasses")

~~~
jodrellblank
It could be if it meant types of gas (CO2, methane, ...) but in this context
discussing quantity of gas, it doesn't really fit.

However, there is a meme of dodgy word endings in use at the moment,
popularized by Jeremy Clarkson on top gear talking about cars having x many
torques instead of x N/m of torque. This may be deliberately in that style.

