Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexwg | Hacker News Reader

Great question! We measure quite a variety of signals, including but not limited to client locations (e.g., is traffic coming from coal-burning areas?), visit lengths, server locations, transfer sizes, transfer times, and window sizes. These signals are fed into a "hand-built" database that allows us to compute aggregate carbon footprints.

View on HN

Very interesting . . . best of luck with the venture!

Thanks!

I'm curious: Why do you keep sending posts to your server every few minutes?

The CO2Stats calculation includes the contribution of client electricity use. In order to more accurately measure the time clients spend on a given CO2Stats-powered page, it's necessary to have the client infrequently check in.

Do you include the CO2 stats overhead (the pinging, etc) in your calculations for neutralizing?

Absolutely!

I thought I heard the idea for CO2stats somewhere before...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Oh yeah, that's it.

It's not quite as bad as that. It's better to burn coal and buy a few trees than it is to just burn the coal, right?

While I don't think that carbon offsetting is going to solve any long-term problems, it is nice to plant some trees and have a bit more money poured into renewable energy research.

We're not going to see real change until we are out of coal and oil. Hopefully that will happen soon. (Yes, it will be painful. But the sooner the pain starts, the sooner it will be over with.)

You should cut your both arms then, so you won't have to suffer losing them should you become involved in an accident.

That is a different situation. It's not likely that I will ever lose my limbs. It is likely that we will run out of oil and coal some day, since we use a lot and there isn't a lot left.

I think you may be mistaken on ther enot being a lot of coal left:

"According to the widely accepted view, at current production levels proven coal reserves will last 155 years (this according to the World Coal Institute). The US Department of Energy (USDoE) projects annual global coal consumption to grow 2.5 per cent a year through 2030, by which time world consumption will be nearly double that of today."

From: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919

The article goes on to say that we probably don't have 155 years of coal reserves, but it should still last for some time now, unless the rate of usage sky rockets.

So your argument is that the human race will be wiped out in 155 years, so we don't need to worry?

No, my argument would be that in 155 years we'll have better alternative sources of energy. Wind and Solar are already viable alternatives, with time their cost will come down and their efficiency will go up potentially eliminating the need for fossil fuels such as coal.

Oil will get scarce, soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves says:

"At the current production rate, [coal reserves] would last 164 years."

Thanks. One more regarding certificates: My guess is that a certificate subsidizes the cost of more expensive clean energy so that it equals the cost of non-renewable energy. Is this right?

Either way, very interesting business model. Best of luck!

Thanks, Mwerty! That's right, RECs function subsidize the difference between renewable/non-renewable sources.

So if a geo-ip lookup on my location (Which is extremely inaccurate) says I live near a coal station, you assume that I use that power and not power from some other source?

I guess they are just taking the average power mix of your country/state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com