Re: Proposal for a new W3C CG: "Web We Can Afford"

Hi,

Le Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:37:57 +0100, Brandt Dainow <bd@thinkmetrics.com> a  
écrit:

> Hi - I am not sure the figures for energy consumption will stand close  
> examination.  I have read the paper for which Alexandre kindly provide  
> the link.  Its source for these numbers is an article in ZDNET, which is  
> a commercial, not peer-reviewed, publication.  In  which they state:
>
> "Dans 25 ans, si les technologies informatiques ne progressent pas,  
> l’internet consommera autant d’énergie que l’humanité en 2008. C’est le  
> calcul qu’a réalisé Gerhard Fettweis de l’Université de Dresde."

Funnily, I've discussed with someone from Ademe about this point and he  
confirmed it was a study from Dresden. I could ask him the exact source.

This said, I think part of the group interest could be to find means to  
improve the way we access the source behind such studies (that's just one  
example).

> They also cite a number of studies making claims such as "one search of  
> Google uses the same energy as one hour's use of a lightbulb."

Which I haven't mentioned myself ;)) Mainly because the group, again,  
should not be just about IT & energy to my mind.

> The studies they quote are not researched, but uncited claims made by  
> eco-groups, such as Green IT.  On a purely factual basis, such a claim  
> is meaningless - what sort of lightbulb, halogen, neon, etc?  Of what  
> strength?  ZDNet do not offer a formal citation for the Fettweis number,  
> even though they provide formal citations for other documents.  I have  
> looked at Gerhard Fettweis's page at the University of Dresden, where he  
> is Vodaphone Chair of Mobile Communications.  There is nothing in his  
> list of publications related to this issue.  His publications are all  
> concerned with the technology of mobile phones.  Some of these do  
> discuss energy efficiency, so it is possible he mentions this figure in  
> one of those publications.  However, I cannot find any publication by  
> him which looks like it could be a direct study from which this number  
> is a research finding.  IF he is the source of this figure, then it  
> looks more probable he is quoting another study.
>
> On the basis of my research, I have to conclude that we do not have a  
> proper source for this figure because it cannot be traced to any  
> originating publication.  I therefore suggest it is an unsafe figure to  
> use in any debate because it is easily challenged, but lacks any  
> supporting evidence which could be used to defend it.
>
> I would love to find proper evidence to support this claim so I could  
> use it in my own research into the ethical implications of emerging  
> ICT's, so if anyone can find a reliable source, I would be interested to  
> see it.

Helping to find and reference such evidence could be part of our  
discussion...

Best,
A.

> Regards,
> Brandt Dainow
> brandt.dainow@gmail.com
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow
> http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexandre.monnin@web-and-philosophy.org  
> [mailto:alexandre.monnin@web-and-philosophy.org]
> Sent: 23 January 2016 15:49
> To: public-philoweb@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for a new W3C CG: "Web We Can Afford"
>
> Hi Henry,
>
> Le Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:58:13 +0100, Henry Story  
> <henry.story@bblfish.net> a  crit:
>
>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 17:10, alexandre.monnin@web-and-philosophy.org  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the description of the group:
>>>
>>> Most scientists now seem to agree that we've entered a new epoch dubbed
>>> the "Anthropocene", where the environmental consequences of human
>>> development have a tremendous impact on Earth's equilibrium. Those
>>> effects are already set in motion and will have far-reaching
>>> consequences in the coming years despite all the measures we could take
>>> to mitigate them (considering we simply do not fail to take action).
>>> While trying to avoid some of the consequences of the Anthropocene is
>>> an issue that is well-worth striving for, another task would be to
>>> reconsider the design of things at the time of the Anthropocene and
>>> that includes the Web. For instance, a 2008 study by the University of
>>> Dresden stated that if no measure was taken, the energy needed to power
>>> the infrastructure of the Web in 2030 would be tantamount to the energy
>>> consumed by humanity in 2008.
>>
>> Is there a link to the study?
>
> I quote a study from Ademe (the French angency for the environment) which
> mentions it:
> http://www.presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Web-Energy-Archive-Note-de-synth%C3%A8se.fr_2.doc
>
>>> The agendas of the stakeholders who are trying to set the Web forward
>>> in motion are mainly focused on adding new technological layers to the
>>> existing ones. Yet, the logic behind these developments remains that of
>>> tapping into unlimited resources, not limited ones.
>>
>> It is true that the PCs behind Google running Linux were built for the
>> PC industry and have been well known to be the least energy efficient.
>> Still in this space there is huge opportunity for improvement.
>
> True. The question regarding improvement is whether you improve to do  
> less
> or more (so that it may eventually lead to negative results).
>
>> When I was working at Sun Microsystems, we developed the T series of
>> microprocessors that were very efficient in energy
>> consumption. Sun argued that the energy saving alone could pay back for
>> these very expensive computers within one year
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_T-Series
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_T-Series>
>>
>> The latest of these now have 32 cores, 256 threads
>> https://www.oracle.com/servers/sparc/silicon-expression-of-oracle-strategy.html
>> <https://www.oracle.com/servers/sparc/silicon-expression-of-oracle-strategy.html>
>>
>> The large cloud providers consume a lot of electricity, but they also
>> have staff to measure that electricity consumed, and the
>> money to optimize as much as possible out of it. Those optimizations
>> then find their way into software architectures that
>> can be more widely used in more distributed networks which can use solar
>> engergy, heat, etc to power the IoT of a home.
>
> Henry, please note that this group is not about energy optimization in  
> IT.
> It's about assessing the impact of IT but more than that, about the kind
> of IT we need (if any) in a world that will be forever changed in just a
> few years, facing effect that are already set in motion.
>
> I was happily surprised yesterday to discuss with lots of Inria
> researchers who are more interested in this issue, which has to do with
> notion of imminent collapse, that with the so-called ecological
> "transition".
>
>>> Lots of endeavors are currently focused on reshaping the Web into a
>>> "Web we want", a redecentralized open Web fit for an enlightened
>>> digital age. Those who advocate such an agenda and those who oppose it
>>> generally both share a common assumption: that enlightened or not, the
>>> future will be even more digital than the present. Yet, life at the
>>> time of the Anthropocene, at least in the coming decades, might not
>>> remain as pervasively digital as it is today. Other efforts that see
>>> the ongoing battle for the decentralization of the Web as an
>>> opportunity to  downscale  it (in particular in Africa) seem to be
>>> aware of that. Maybe it's time to take into account other perspectives
>>> on the future and concretely act towards building a sustain-able (Tony
>>> Fry) Web. In other words, a Web We Can Afford. This group would like to
>>> reconcile the development of the Web and an awareness to the
>>> environmental issues by appealing to Web architects and designers,
>>> eco-designers, activists, philosophers, social scientists, etc., so as
>>> to make the issue a public one to begin with, before devising a set of
>>> guidelines as a first step towards concrete action.
>>
>> I think it's interesting. This may actually be a topic for the Web
>> Science group ( see Southampton ) to investigate.
>
> Let's ask Les then! ;)
>
>> I have a feeling that this is a very holistic type of problem. Because
>> one cannot just look at the electricty consumed one has to look at the
>> efficiencies gained through that consumption. One has to consider
>> exponential improvements in efficiency at all levels, from moving stuff,
>> to capturing and transforming energy, to knwledge sharing, which itself
>> can advance even further the improvements in the other areas.
>
> Odds are, for such improvements to have a positive effect, you'll need to
> tackle difficult political issues. Optimization (which is not a silver
> bulet) is not all there is to these complex questions.
>
> Best,
> A.
>
>


-- 


* Membre du collège d'experts Open Data de la mission Etalab du Premier  
Ministre
* Chercheur associé chez Inria (EPI Wimmics, Sophia Antipolis)
* Co-initiateur du projet DBpedia Francophone et SemanticPedia
* Docteur en philosophie à Paris 1 Panthéon -Sorbonne (PHICO, EXeCO) -  
Thèse sur la philosophie du Web : disponible et annotable sur  
http://philoweb.org
* Co-chair du Community Group "Philosophy of the Web" au W3C
* Organisateur des "Rencontres du Web de données"

http://web-and-philosophy.org/,
Twitter : @aamonnz & @PhiloWeb,
PhiloWeb on Dailymotion, PhiloWeb discussion list @INRIA

Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 17:38:15 UTC