Our data centers now work harder when the sun shines and wind blows
blog.google
blog.google
Imagine when your fridge can do this: freeze extra cold when the sun is shining (or wind is blowing), don't run the compressor when it's not, only run the blower after you open the door to move that extra cold from the freezer, allow a slightly larger temperature range, and of course run as necessary to avoid spoilage. It's not a simple algorithm, it has to handle various timeframes, such as solar being a daily cycle except there's less in winter and can go for a week or more with very little (storm/overcast). Maybe it could also use a bit of "learning" like the Nest thermostats to also optimize predicted usage.
I know of one commercial product that sort of does this: the Zappi electric car charger. If you have grid-tied solar, it measures the current being fed back to the grid and adjusts the charging current to match. So if a cloud goes over your house, or you turn on a big appliance, the charger reduces the power to the car by the same amount. This maximizes the use of your own solar energy and minimizes the use of grid energy.
I've been posting for years that an effective grid "battery" is internet connected refrigerators, water heaters, A/C, car chargers, etc., that only run when power is cheap, i.e. when solar/wind is providing excess power.
A great deal of our demand for electricity is elastic and shiftable, which will eliminate a huge chunk of the need for grid batteries.
Glad to see this finally gaining some traction!
Does this exist anywhere in the world?
Still, the conclusion is like you said. There's basically no real-world scenario where it makes sense for a residential customer to go it alone, because they can make at most a couple hundred bucks a year. So makes sense for their device companies or someone else to figure it out with utility and pay thousands of homeowners to agree to participate. Ohmconnect has a cool service in California.
The real big thing is aggregating the aggregations. Distributed Energy Management Systems (DERMS) / Virtual Power Plant Management Systems are an active research topic.
It's really cool. Sometimes the price goes below zero - "plunge pricing" - if there is too much production and too little use. They give you the pricing info for today and tomorrow ahead of time, not sure how they predict future pricing - probably based on weather forecasts, since they only use solar and wind?
I have WiFi smart sockets on things like electric heaters to turn them on when electricity price is below my threshold level. It's a nice feeling being paid for using electricity. If you have an electric car you could also programmatically only charge it when electricity price is below a certain level. Octopus also have an EV leasing company, thinking of selling my current car and leasing one from them after covid19 is gone to a degree that I still need a car again.
Here are their dev docs:
https://developer.octopus.energy/docs/api/
They even have an open graphQL API and a storybook - how many utility companies you know who do this? Looks like Octopus hired the right people!
https://api.octopus.energy/v1/graphql/
https://octopus.energy/static/common/storybook/account-manag...
Though yes, it would have been better if I could have adjusted.
Also freezing it more in day doesn’t allow me to freeze less at night. If I don’t open the door at all, then the insulation is already taking care of this. What am I missing?
First we need to address the basic premise that could allow this to make sense at all in some house or environment -- that one can afford to freeze less during the day if they freeze it more at night (or vice versa).
For a fridge this is hard because you're usually targeting a narrow temperature band (don't want to accidentally freeze your veggies), but for a freezer it usually doesn't matter if you get it 10-20 degrees too hot or too cold as long as everything remains frozen. In that case, your losses (whether they're through the insulation or an open lid) will be higher with a colder freezer, so even if you could get your freezer down to e.g. -200 it might not be cost advantageous to do so, but colder temperatures definitely buy you some extra time. E.g. if normally your freezer is at -5 and you instead cool it down to -10, there will be a nonzero amount of time before it heats back up to -5 again (and the amount of time can be large if your freezer is well insulated and has a high thermal mass).
The "closed system" aspect of this is also interesting.
The cheap answer is that not all houses are heated or cooled (mine isn't), so you can sometimes ignore that part of the equation.
A better answer is that everything mostly works out the same even for closed systems. Suppose you have A/C that cools your home to a target temperature. When your freezer is running it moves heat into the living space, which then needs to be moved outside. As a system, you can pretend those two units are working together to move that same quantity of heat outside, and when the freezer is off you're just not operating that entire heat pumping system (assuming linear power demands and a host of other things to make the example tractable in a comment). While the freezer is off it will also assist in cooling the room down, further alleviating A/C power demands during peak hours (not alleviating them much, but helping nonetheless).
If you're instead heating the room to a target temperature, everything works a bit in reverse. The freezer alleviates heating costs while it's running and exacerbates them while it's off (and critically, it exacerbates them more than if you assumed a constant, low power draw because we're intentionally decreasing it's temperature below a typical freezer level and thus increasing the rate at which heat will enter it from the apartment by some small amount). Assuming you were trying to run the freezer during low cost hours, that effect might be large enough to offset any gains. I doubt it, but that's just a hunch, and I haven't run any hard numbers yet.
I think people have a strong bias for thinking the things they see and touch during the day are environmentally important. But most "pollution"/energy use happen out of sight from our everyday lives.
Or so I think. Happy to be disproven!
But even commercial and industrial could be optimized in the same manner. I've been thinking: If electricity is much cheaper during certain periods, would factories be built to only run during those times?
Better than nothing, sure, but the danger is that you only deal with the small things because you're not even aware of the big ones.
We can just add usb port to regular wall sockets and make a new power plug with that.
Of course the socket should be backward compatible, but any new devices would require the full plug and responding to the protocol.
Over 10 years we could have an effective grid-wide gigawatthour battery. And everybody would only pay for it like 5 USD every time they buy a new device :)
The cost of a cheap microcontroller, power regulator and an usb plug is like <5 USD. And the possibilities of energy savings are huge. There are also big usability improvements (want to have lights learning your habits and pretending you're home when you're on vacations - someone will make that product).
Want to make sure you switched off that iron when you went to a party? No problem - connect with a smarpthone and check (and switch it off if needed).
There could be several categories of devices with different priorities and default power settings that you could change if you want to:
- background, critical
- background, optional
- background, opportunistic
- interactive, critical
- interactive, optional
- interactive, dangerous if left alone
- bidirectional (like Tesla wall, or a car charger if you want to power your house from your car battery when there is a blackout)
And the house could detect if you're home, and disable the iron if you're not and throttle the freezer and all heaters to optimize the power usage.
Automated vacuum cleaners nad chargers could start by themselves when the energy is effectively free and stop for a moment when there's a shortage.
This will get especially important when electric cars are more common - you don't want everybody to start charging them when they get back home.
A grid supply status, could empower next gen energy saving home appliances. This could be implemented as simple as pricing, the ultimate incentive. Price would fluctuate on the wire, just like it does for energy market.
Why? I lived through one such change in last 30 years (switching from 2-pole europlugs to CEE 7/7). They are backward-compatible, but so would be the usb+power plugs.
We also switched from 60 Hz 240V to 50Hz 230V some time in 00s (don't remember exacty, it was a non-event).
As for incentives new electronic devices should simply be reqired to have these plugs and microcontrollers, like now we require them to have fuses and certain wire gauge, etc.
Why depend on a hack when you can do it right?
And USB isn't meant to operate over those long distances. So you'd either need some active component in each socket or devise a new standard.
Rewiring might be a problem (but it was the same with adding a ground wire).
If we have to we can do the data-over-power between the sockets, and use data lines from sockets to devices.
This would ensure devices don't have to adapt to that hack and eventually we'll have a clean solution.
Basically they've plugged into the ISO as a "generation" resource, and when the price of power goes high enough, they say "okay we can produce that much power", and they have all their users reduce that much power, which has the same effect. They get paid for the power, and pass some of it along to their users.
There’s huge lie (by omission) about renewables: nobody explained how to convert the world to 100% renewable energy without coal backup.
Given nuclear’s inflexibility, doing untimely work when less electricity is needed for more timely needs is also a win.
This is not true about neither nuclear nor coal.
Nuclear reaction can be slowed down, coal furnace can be used with lower amount of coal at lower temperature.
Nuclear does not need to be turned on or off spontaneously. Nuclear power plant can increase or decrease power smoothly, and that’s practically enough because consumption patterns are easily predicted.
The inflexibility you are describing is nonissue.
High capital cost is. But the largest issue is irrational fears of voters.
Edit: nuclear or coal are not on or off
But that takes minutes or hours to do. And on anything but 100% power, the fuel innefficiency is bad. That latter is mostly a problem with coal, but even nuclear is burning fuel and costing wear.
Plants can be optimized to react really fast, or run efficient on lower capacity, or run efficient on max capacity. Choose one.
For example desalination, hydrogen production, indoor growing with the light cycle at night or whenever the low demand period is, etc...
For the near future I’d only expect small modular reactors to see much use in areas with unreliable sunlight for chunks of the year. Especially since they could use the waste heat for heating/growing.
Waste heat isn’t really recyclable, or it wouldn’t be waste heat :).
The huge towers on power plants are for cooling the warm (waste) output. If you can get someone to cool your warm waste water even further than the cooling towers would, it would both increase efficiency of electricity generation, and use the boatloads of low grade heat for something useful.
You still need independent cooling capability either way.
And I didn’t get about hydrogen. Who can produce hydrogen?
I live in Scotland. We now get around 90% of our electricity from renewables. We closed our last coal power station in 2016.
Perhaps you should consider checking your theories against reality before accusing others of lying?
> There’s huge lie (by omission) about renewables: nobody explained how to convert the world to 100% renewable energy without coal backup.
Because not everywhere in the world has access to hydroelectric power. The point remains: there is no plan to power the world with renewables without a fossil fuel backup. At least not any feasible plan - batteries don't scale, and the Sabatier processes has well below 50% round trip efficiency.
You managed to get the gist.
You don't need a plan to power the world. Try a plan to power your own state and let the rest of the world sort itself out. When you're at 80% renewables and then get stuck, then I'll believe it's an issue. Not when you're at 20% and handwaving theoretical excuses.
The article says they are “shifting the timing of our compute tasks”, so if they think that there will be cheap electricity later in the day (because it’s going to be especially windy or something) it would make sense for them to schedule some of their heavy compute tasks at that time, rather than right now.
If you have the space, you can put thermal mass (e.g. water) between the cooler and produce, acting as a cheap thermal battery dampening temperature oscillations. It's often done in off-grid situations.
One way to do it would be assign various jobs a value, (which could be dynamic e.g. it might get more important as information becomes stale) and have them bid on compute power. You could make the value virtual.
Or you could use real money. This is the premise behind EC2's spot instances. So when power is abundant, your prices drop and the relevant jobs kick off.
Using real market prices makes sense especially if you're renting out computing power, most customers will be happy to adjust workloads to save money.
Even if it's entirely internal, it's good to have a facility to "optimize for cost" and then report the savings. That's helpful to get the engineering resources devoted towards it, because "I saved $X" is a great bullet point to put in anyone's promotion packet or to base a bonus on.
The future doesn't always need to be as "webscale" as Google; sometimes, scaling down is the smart thing to do. The minimal approach of LTM is the technology equivalent of riding a bicycle (or electric velomobile [1]) to work instead of driving.
[0]: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com
[1]: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobil...
This way you can have 24/7 fully green content delivery to consumers.
Although that being said we could just try to cover the earth with as many generators everywhere and then fully connect the grids.
This is the easier route: you do this by having as many businesses as possible purchase renewables PPAs, where they're specifically contracting for renewable energy.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/as-corporate-renewable-buyi...
But CPUs have an incredibly high embodied energy, we should aim for full utilization of servers, regardless of the source of that energy.
If it's three CPUs with carbon-neutral electricity, or one CPU with electricity from coal, the latter is the responsible choice.
If no, then why. I can explain my confusion if needed.
To be fair, these are artificial choices, and that's not even what lowtech was doing (they have a battery). I was responding to the post about the CDNs that stop working at night.
Their DCs are globally distributed, so their timings on when they'd actually be doing the heavy lifting is shuffled around.
LTM's approach required producing, assembling and shipping a full 2GHz/1GB computer, plus PV, PV-controller and router, all to serve a single site. And it's even turned off some of the time!
Google, on the other hand, is more like a fleet of trains; sure, each one is a honkin' beast, but it also transports thousands of passengers/sites at once, possibly millions in its lifetime.
The bicycle analogy doesn't really work, because a bicycle is just a performance attachment to the real vehicle: the human.
I guess it's okay as long as the people making the rules have good monitoring and are watching out for weird exploits and fixing them. The flexibility to change the rules tends to be more common internally than externally where customers want more guarantees.
As we've seen, there also needs to be a balance between cost-optimization and preparedness. If the wind patterns don't match the prediction then you need to be ready for that.
Also, as we've seen with cryptocurrency, real money attracts theft. A human-adjusted credit system is better. In the real world, this looks like support having the discretion to forgive big bills. But to do that they need to know their customers. It's hard to automate.
I've wanted to have realtime pricing like that for a while, it seems to be becoming available again.
I honestly thought that was what the advanced electricity meter roll-out was going to do; but it seems not.
More direct energy cost to service price charged seems like a good thing in general.
It's goofy, but another one is situations where you have a lot of stored heat energy, thinking like pools, hot tubs, hot water heaters, etc— all those things could be activated in response to spot pricing with pretty simple policies (I want a shower of at least X degrees at 7am, I want the hot tub at at least Y degrees by 9pm, etc).
With renewables the incentives for load management become even higher (per this article). The real next step after second-by-second billing would be setting up chargers with backfeeding capabilities/policies, so that you have an arrangement with your employer to charge your car at work on cheap daytime solar power, sell it back into the grid during the evening rush, then charge up again on overnight base load. Most EV batteries are way overspecced for what people need in daily use, so as long as you have a special "charge me to full and stay there" mode you can switch into, there'd be no reason (other than a bit of wear and tear) not to cycle your battery like this.
But for me as a customer, the price was as high as allways.
But if customers could react to that (automatically), you could have all sorts of jobs waiting for it. Bitcoin mining, dryer, charging batteries, freezer full power ... would be good for the grid, too, to balance it.
Texas energy markets are where all the fun on this front is really happening.
It would also be pretty neat to integrate processing power markets with the wholesale energy markets. Energy prices are quite volatile and making load responsive to that would actually be quite helpful to stabilize them.
It's not the value of the outcome for that job that you're interested, but rather its sensitivity to a delayed latency in executing it.
For example, preemptively converting Youtube videos to a lower resolution with optimum compression to avoid having to do it in real-time (when video is played) at a crappy compression (to be fast), is valuable for sure. It's just that it can be postponed for 24 hours without real impact. Executing a search for a single user is less valuable in terms of overall impact but much more latency-sensitive.
(you can think of value and latency-sensitive in terms of two dimensions that are independent between them.)
This idea helps save the planet for sure, but it requires cloud-providers to build APIs that enable devs to switch from the "here's the SSH to the server, do what you want with it" to a model where it's the devs that say instead "here's a lambda function and its desired latency execution, please schedule to run it for me and let me know when the result is ready" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_of_control )
Google was able to do that because it owns a large part of the jobs executed in their datacenters. Hence they could build this adaptive scheduling for their own jobs quickly without necessarily passing through a cloud-based API that inverts the control of job scheduling.
As a customer I think you could configure somethings like you said using spot instances on AWS but that’s it, you’re going to save some small amount of dollars in a year but if you account for the engineering hours needed to set this up maybe is not really worth it.
As a cloud provider you could juggle your client between datacenters depending on the load and price of energy over there. A flat rate for a cloud region means that there’s an opportunity for arbitration between datacenters that could be an increase of thousands in profits on their side.
If the cloud provider becomes aware of the remaining latency you have at your disposal for the job's execution, they can do a much better job. They would be able to look across the entire job execution queue in that datacenter, each job having a specific remaining duration for its execution, they would know the predicted pattern of carbon/solar/wind split for the next hours, and the implementation of the system would sit just on the cloud provider side (making the life of the customers easier and simple).
Of course, in the end, the benefit is towards our planet, but this is much more likely to succeed if the proper cloud API exists and the implementation initiatives are properly aligned to avoid redundant implementations on the customer side.
So in that case, optimizing for a single customer makes perfect sense if it's the right customer.
Our hypothesis is that market signals combined with the right tools (friendly app and home automation) can help households shift demand into less carbon intensive periods.
So far it's working pretty well.
Best thing. Then you incentivize a cleaner grid overall and you don’t even have to worry eventually about this kind of thing.
If there is also a dynamic price for using the grid, that usage will also spread.
This Dell paper[0] suggests that 16% of the carbon over a typical server lifecycle is from the manufacture, so you probably don't want a server sitting there unused for 23 hours per day, since the overall carbon/compute ratio would be worse overall.
The post doesn't mention this metric, but it would be really nice to see something more detailed in time - especially with this overall efficiency of the server/datacentre lifecycle in mind, rather than just energy consumed from use.
[0]: https://i.dell.com/sites/csdocuments/CorpComm_Docs/en/carbon...
Assuming the server is "sitting unused for 23 hours a day" is the wrong model for what this work changed. You're assuming the server could be running at 50% duty cycle vs. 100% duty cyle. It isn't; since we're talking the batch load, there's a roughly fixed amount of low-priority work to be done and doubling the amount of CPU active-duty time alotted to doing the work doesn't get the work done faster (the details on that are complicated, but that's the right model for what Google's describing here). One should model the duty cycle as fixed relative to the processor (i.e. "This global datacenter architecture, over the course of its life, will do a fixed N units of computronium work on these batch tasks") and then ask whether that work should be done using coal to power the electrons or wind.
Google builds datacenters to N-year-long plans that are expensive to modify. Whether they're running their batch jobs on solar energy or coal energy, the carbon footprint of the datacenter build plan is not going to change. They want those datacenters anyway (mostly for the non-batch work and whatever the next big thing is that hasn't been invented yet but can only be done by putting a beach's worth of thinking sand on the problem).
If Y = 2 and only 16% of the carbon in a typical coal-powered computer's lifetime is from the manufacture, then solar makes sense - solar is 2*16% = 32% of the carbon of coal. But if Y = 10 - so it's running 10% of the time, meaning there need to be 10x as many computers built - and 16% of the carbon is from the manufacture, then solar power is actually worse for the environment than coal power: solar takes 60% more carbon than coal power.
Of course, this is a vastly simplified situation, but it points to the idea that we need to at least consider the carbon cost of manufacturing.
... so why does Google build more computers than they need? Keep in mind that at Google scale, they're always and forever building "As many computers as we can possibly afford to" under the assumption that there will always be work for those machines to do. You and I may need to consider cost of manufacturing; Google doesn't. They always have the "Build datacenter infrastructure" cranked to an 11 (more accurately, they are following an N-year plan of construction that is extremely expensive to modify).
That's the breakdown between Google's way of thinking and the way of thinking that you've presented: Google's cost of manufacture is fixed. Those computers will be built, whether or not they're going to also then run green-streamlined batch jobs. The limiting factor on the batch work is only so much work is generated in a day, and the rate the work is completed is already good enough that completing it in half the time yields no marginal value. So may as well complete it using sun instead of coal.
What people are trying to tell you is you can’t make having a glut of equipment work out for any reason, let alone environmental. It costs you a dozen times over to have most of you hardware not doing anything at all most of the day. You are overprovisioned.
You are so overprovisioned in fact that someone will steal your promotion by pointing this out to your boss, which is also a pretty big cost.
Google has a glut of equipment for two reasons: variable loads and experimental.
The batch loads are predictable and constrained by input rate. What the coal ends up used for is spikes in demand for compute power (i.e. "Michael Jackson died and now everyone needs to watch Thriller right now") and ceiling to develop and experiment with new projects.
This optimization means that while, yes, the fossil fuel resources would be feeding those use cases, it's a net gain because those use cases are less common than the predictable batch-job work.
> You are so overprovisioned in fact that someone will steal your promotion by pointing this out to your boss, which is also a pretty big cost.
Remember the context. Nobody ever got fired at Google for adding more compute power to the behemoth, because it's all fungible and will all be used eventually. if you're trying to argue "Google is a net polluter because they continue to build machines in a fashion only bounded by land and hardware costs under the assumption more compute power is always better than less" it's an argument you could make but (a) you should factor in the carbon offsets they buy and (b) you're tipping close to arguing "All human activity is pollution; kill the species."
That may well be the way you (and most likely Google) currently look at it, but the argument presented seems to be that everything other than where you run some batch tasks is all fixed.
Assuming everything else is fixed does make the optimisation easier, though surely nearly everything is up for debate if we're actually talking about minimising the overall footprint of a compute task?
Using fossil fuels rather than allowing these fixed costs you mention to sit idle - there is a point where your carbon/CPU cycle would actually go up by not using fossil fuels some of the time (though I am assuming less carbon emitted for a unit of power than manufacture cost).
I appreciate they are ever-expanding and predicting where non-movable workloads are going to need to be run etc etc, and I'm not suggesting there are easy answers.
For the latter question, we have insufficient data. Google's datacenter infrastructure is huge and complicated, and if one factors in all the interdependencies and purchased carbon offsets, one needs way more data than this announcement blurb gives out to answer that question. Maybe they have an additional process to determine whether their most carbon-negative datacenters can be switched off during peak coal-use and this work unblocked them from enabling that feature? We don't know.
For the former question, yes.
- Spawn nightly regressions when wind power starts to pick up, instead of at some arbitrary wall clock time
- Dispatch compute-heavy jobs during low energy cost times; dispatch IO-heavy or memory-limited jobs during high cost times.
Part of that calculation should be the amount of compute capacity headroom you'd choose to have anyway even if you didn't care about carbon.
Compute demands can vary from one day to the next. Maybe tomorrow people uploaded 3 times as many YouTube videos as they did today. Maybe load varies based on day of the week or day of the month. To some extent, you can smooth that out by delaying jobs, but there are practical limits.
You also want some spare capacity just for safety. Efficient utilization is important, but things like performance regressions or spikes in demand can happen.
Am I crazy or is this website capturing down-button clicks and ignoring them? I typically use down and up to slowly scroll as I read an article. This page is driving me nuts.
There's one other keyboard event listener, but it doesn't appear to do that.
Surprised to see that get through QA. (Up arrow works just fine.)
Regardless of this change, I wonder if they share their forecasted non-renewable energy needs with their energy supplier so that the energy supplier can prepare for changes to the expected base load.
Do any factories or other energy intensive operations do this?
Aluminum Foundries in particular are extremely power intensive and have been run during off-peak times (or are built in areas with cheap plentiful electricity like nearby hydro-electric dams).
Still, i'd love to see this concept made a lot easier for the average consumer. Many people already have smart thermostats, why can't that talk to my power generation company and allow me to over heat/cool when the impact is lowest? Why can't my dish washer run automatically when it would impact the world the least? Why can't my EV automatically charge when power is most available?
I know most of those things are possible, but they sure as hell aren't easy, and IMO they won't truly have an impact until they're on by default and don't require the user to do much of anything.
These things seem like they are easily doable, but we just need the different industries to work together to come up with ways to have all of this stuff interoperate.
That's the great thing about standards -- there are so many to choose from!
Fun fact: this is a big reason why aerospace congregated in the pacific northwest during WWII (eg Boeing in Seattle).
Aluminum is key to aircraft because it's lightweight, and at the turn of the century the US went on a dam-building spree with a lot of hydro (ie large consistent baseload) being located in the pacific northwest.
Geothermal energy is mostly for district heating and hot water
If the load responding to increased renewable generation exceeded the generation then the excess load should have just run whenever it was convenient since it isn’t using renewable power anyway.
I’ve omitted nuclear and large hydro from my discussion even though their fuel doesn’t emit carbon.
Seems like getting rid of the middleman at a basic, physical level. Power is available for very low cost at certain times. So let's time-shift computation that doesn't have to be done at a specific time! Really, it's just the same trick as time-shifting your EV charging and other power draws. It costs money to run battery banks and inverters. Let's just take them out of the process, where we can.
"The best part is no part." -- Elon Musk
If you're a large consumer of energy and can turn that consumption on or off at short notice (on the order of seconds) then the grid operator will pay you to allow them to scale your consumption up or down.
The classic example of this is cold storage. If you have a warehouse full of freezers which need to be kept within a certain temperature threshold then it doesn't really matter when you run the freezers and you could switch off at several points during the day.
Given how much electricity a datacenter consumes. Google surely must have a direct support contact within the electricity provider and they better start working both ways, if they don't already.
Quick math. A datacenter is 60 000 servers, so 6 MW consumption at 100 W per server (moderate load). That is 1% of the peak output of a nuclear reactor. You bet the electric company wants to know when they need to adjust their reactors.
Would you mind commenting on what your tech stack is like? Looking at your github repo it seems like you're combining a lot of data sources. Can you comment on your approach? Also, considering this collaboration, are you running on GCP?
Also, feel free to join our Slack at https://slack.tmrow.com to ask your questions!
Somewhat related, the presentation has a lot of math, which illustrates some of the points made in the recent HN discussion of the impact and effects of math instruction in Russia (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22941144). Some comments pointed out how French schools rely on math for entrance exams, and this video a clear demonstration of a software startup having a math background. In fact, the startup probably wouldn't exist or even be conceived without the math and modeling of the data they provide.
I wish there would be more countries covered (in particular Switzerland), but I guess you depend on the live data being provided in these countries.
Unfortunately, the crux is data availability and reliability from system/transmission operators. For example, there is no online data available for the Northern Territory of Australia, so you can't build a parser for it. Some data providers have frequent data outages for different regions (ENTSOE), as there is no SLA or contractual obligation for providing data reliably.
If you're aware of a region that has live data available and is not yet live on electricitymap.org, please consider contributing a parser [1]! If you live in a region without live data, please consider politely requesting such data be made available through utility and system operator contacts, or explore requiring such data be made available by law (if public policy is your thing).
[1] https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib#adding-a-n...
Given that the 28th Mar 2019 has long passed, I am not very optimistic that the feed will be restored anytime soon... and unfortunately I don't know of any other (e.g. primary) public source, either.
It sounds like this project is for their own operations. Have you guys thought about how to offer this closer to a turnkey cloudops SASS / API? What kinds of abstractions would you present to developers building non-time-critical compute loads?
Could be a great differentiator for GCP vs. AWS (I have heard of some companies choosing GCP over AWS due to Google's green energy cloud). And for you guys, the only thing better than Google being a customer is all of Google's customers being your customers.
If a data center has (roughly, to a first-order approximation) fixed compute capacity at any point in time, and we assume that any capacity not being used by Google themselves is made available to GCP, then wouldn't Google reserving the "green" hours for themselves drive the remaining "dirty" hours onto the GCP spot markets?
Is there a cloud market design that addresses this tension between maximizing utilization and having desirable or 'premium' compute hours?
I personally think the documentary doesn't go far enough about the cultural aspect. I'm speaking specifically of the social norms of conformity, sociopathy and narcissism in the decision making classes. We have fucked future generations for short term gains and the only hope the tech community can come up with is to pretend that we will build rockets to go to Mars. When the kids of the billionaires pushing this horseshit get preventable cancers or tangled up in a class war - maybe then things will change (albeit I doubt it). Until then, it's all bean bags, idiocy, shiny tech toys and fluff. Enjoy it while it last. The magic bullet of nuclear fusion doesn't seem to be likely and the social organization to leverage what we have in a responsible manner doesn't either. We will keep doing what we are doing until nature bitch slaps us and we have to change. Hopefully I'm wrong. I want to be.
Solar and wind on the grid increase supply, which should drive down price per KwH (of course, the equation isn't quite that simple, since demand in most of the world near human population centers is also highest during the day).
Big users such as Google with its datacenters will of course negociate their own electricity contracts. I think renewables are the cheapest to buy right now, so by moving load around to be able to maximize use of cheap renewable electricity, they will definitely save money.
What I mean by this is that instead of deciding "I want to drive 200 miles to the beach" and buying a tank of petrol, you would instead wait for favourable wind/solar conditions in order to "save up" the energy you need such that you can afford to drive to the beach. If you are unfortunate one year you might only end up with half of what you need, but you'll still be able to do something.
This goes for things like food too. Stop demanding the same food year round. Instead work with the seasons and eat what is available locally at that time of year.
This would be such a huge boost to happiness. You can't see light if it's light all the time. We just don't know how great our lives are because we simply expect it to all be available at all the time. Expectations are simply assimilated and become invisible very quickly. Not only that but it turns out that meeting these expectations comes at a huge price. Let's instead take what nature gives us, but no more.
Seems some people at Google still hasn't got the memo yet that the "not evil" days are now a thing of the past. This looks amazing and more like something I would expect from old Google.
A more interesting measure would be the actual reduction in CO2 emissions.
This is beyond depressing. All cope and hope peddling.
Yes, there are valid criticisms. Wind turbines are made of unrecyclable fiberglass. It takes energy to build them (truck rolls to the site, concrete for the foundations), and it's important to make sure the energy return on energy invested is net positive. We use fossil fuels to produce these renewables technologies. That's all true, but not insurmountable.
They say battery storage makes up only a tiny percent of the needed capacity to overcome renewable intermittency. Sure, but it also omits how solar has dropped two orders of magnitude in price over the last few decades as we've built more of it and gotten better at making them (the "learning curve").
It follows a group of Vermont hikers hiking to a wind turbine site and then being NIMBY about it, but none of them talk about where their energy SHOULD come from.
Look, it raises a lot of critical questions. But it also seems to expect a single magic pill that just doesn't exist. 2/3's of the way through they talk about the misrepresentations in biomass and point out how many organizations seem to be both for it and against it. "Which side are they really on?" says the classic accusatory documentary voiceover with scary music. Well, it's complicated! Clearly you don't want to burn all the forests all at once. And yeah, if you burn pressure-treated wood, those chemicals go into the local community. At the same time, wood does grow back. The nuance that's missing in this documentary is questions like "how many acres of rotationally-harvested woodlands are required to power a 1MW biomass plant sustainably in perpetuity? And can such projects exist in practice?"
Biomass isn't a panacea solution, and the HN startup mindset of "can I scale up a technology to dominate everything" doesn't apply because biomass has limits to it's scalability. It's just one of many tools, and the problem about this documentary is it can't envision a future where many tools are used together. When a Sierra Club exec is questioned about biomass, they kept the part where she says their "position is nuanced", but then they cut to something else without explaining that nuance. That's lazy documentary filming.
The complicated thing about energy is there is no silver bullet. This documentary finds the bad in each technology without considering how all the pieces could fit together. It presents the bad sides of each technology as if that should disqualify the tech instead of asking how can we improve each over time. There aren't easy answers to these questions, but this documentary just wallows in how bad everything is without asking the hard questions about how things can be made to work or what the alternative of doing nothing is.
These turbine blades can be broken down into pellet insulation or used as feedstock for cement kilns. It's a supply chain and economic incentive issue, not an unsolved technology issue.
I can't speak to Moore's beliefs, but his documentaries (IMHO) are designed to inflame, not to have an intelligent discussion about complex problems that require complex solutions. They are "clickbait" disguised as objective information.
"Here's a barge full of coal. Maybe you can fix it with that."
"Google: Data centers now perform LESS when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing"
My point is that by tying performance to environmental factors, you get a boost when things are great but then can have troubles when things are not great. Anyone familiar with solar panels already knows this, but if the correlation is obscured, it could be surprising. The article didn't mention a specific performance gain, but if we say you get an X% performance gain when the sun is out, it also means you get a similar X% performance loss when the sun is not out. Users of the system will get used to the improvement, which becomes the new standard, and then a particularly dreary season comes in with weeks of cloud cover, and suddenly there is concern about the degradation of service.
(Like I said, it's still a good idea, it's efficient use of resources, but the PR is funny, that's all.)
The greater the flexibility, the greater the savings when demand can be smoothed out to better allocate resources and allow easier forecasting.
If compute jobs that are run on demand can be deferred a few hours and run during a time period, that allows resources to better utilized. Like charging an EV overnight, but better.
They've worked so hard to sell their AI solutions to the fossil fuel industry, lately, so they can help them extract and burn more oil and gas[0].
[0] https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/3/21030688/google-amazon-a...
How can Google, while helping others extract as much oil as possible, can still pretend it may not end up being burned?
It's like a a drug dealer saying "I'm definitely not helping anyone taking drugs. I'm only selling it, they stay them somewhere if they please. Don't blame me".
Fossil fuels are global commodities. Anyone who reduces their oil consumption is reducing demand for those global commodities, which makes them cheaper. Making them cheaper makes renewable energy less competitive, which discourages investment, which means as a society we keep using fossil fuels for longer, which means in the end we produce more carbon.
Ergo, anyone who tries to reduce their fossil fuel consumption by not flying, not driving, or turning off the A/C, is actually more responsible for destroying the planet.
Who said they'd burn it for fun? Necessity suffices.
>In Russia, one of the world’s top producers, the industry is considering resorting to burning its oil to take it off the market, sources told Reuters
Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-turmoil/when-o...
Unfortunately an unintended side consequence of these kinds of efforts (unless you're very conscientious about maintaining the correct incentives, generally through pricing) is sometimes that the gains in energy efficiency and savings are clawed back by an increase in overall energy consumption because it's gotten effectively cheaper to operate for the same number of compute cycles.
Just like with energy efficient LED light bulbs, although the overall energy use goes down, often it doesn't go down as much as it could have ideally, because people start lighting places that didn't have light before, because it's gotten so much more affordable to do so!
Or like when you add highway lane capacity, traffic gets worse...
Or in this case, the Google video engineers come up with new useless filters and resolutions to occupy the newly freed-up compute capacity.
Just something to be aware of. The people who do this have to monitor and put in place controls so that the outcome is what they intended. Otherwise people are more clever than you think.
LEDS have to be one of the worst possible example for claims of induced demand as a bad thing given that the efficency gains outstripped proliferation of additional always on devices and a cellphone per person.
While Induced Demand may exist it too has its saturating limits of diminished returns.