New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
That's an updated definition of renewable energy. Realistically for a long time we thought Hydropower was green when later assessment came to recognize it isn't. Also most hydropower systems actually pump water back up to the reservoir when power is cheap and then release when water is expensive. Many hydropower as well as multi-use dams use this strategy.
Believe whatever you want. I couldn't be assed to care if you're skeptical, I'd rather have this information out there though and include citations to the actual reports (or figures from the report or reputable interpretation of the report). I've included links to other articles that should have more weight than my own words. You're correct that anyone on the internet can claim they're an expert, so feel free to exercise a healthy level of skepticism but if you do then actually look into it to validate it instead of lazily saying "you sound fake" and then backhand commenting about it.
I've been around the block here long enough (at varying levels of activity) that people know I've been studying this for a long time... Especially since this is what my PhD is in/related to. I also currently don't work in the hosting industry and my actual day job is climate change adaptation research.
I used to work with @jar, as well as a few other fine people in this community, a long time ago (and have met Jarland in person). If I'm wrong I'll tell you I'm wrong and try to fix my errors.
Edit: I made a few changes to my text.
Only - it's not that simple.
Wind, water and solar electricity can cost more environmental destruction than nuclear - because the forests etc. get cleared to make room for those turbines & panels.
Similar goes for the GMO. If done right, it can mean you need fewer pesticides in order to make food, so a well-made GMO food can actually be healthier, both for humans and for the environment.
There is a lot of abuse - as with most other things humans do, but "green" energy is far from green, just like GMO food is far from evil - in and of itself.
And yes, Internet and the media are full of nonsense info on all these topics, a regular Joe hasn't got enough knowledge to discern if an "expert" is paid do to marketing for a lobby, or speak their mind, and even less knowledge to tell whether the "expert" is an idiot, or really knows their shit. The same goes for my posts in this (and all the other) thread - double-check, use common sense.
Yes, I would pay more if the company uses 100% renewable energy.
Some providers here operate in datacenters that are using renewable energy, but they miss to advertise it properly.
What? Since when? What definition are you going by if the updated definition doesn't match what you said? Why are you going by some old definition I've never heard of and hasn't been used?
Many, some or all? Because plenty of us lived around hydro power all our lives and know how it works. And that would still fit the definition I quoted. But again, you seem to mix "green" with renewable energy, which isn't the same.
What information, though? You never made a point, was my point. I don't know what I'd be skeptical about. Edit: you did have a point, just contrary to your stats.
Then surely you should know better how to construct your words to better convey a point than to quote useless stats. Stats should be used to back up your opinion.
You wouldn't even be the first person on this site to say that while ignorantly refusing to acknowledge being wrong. My point is simple, renewable energy is about the energy source and "green" is about carbon neutrality. Two totally different things.
Edit: ok, re-read OP and your post. OP does a mention of "green" in the first paragraph, but I had only focused on the example question referring to renewable energy only. The two should not be conflated.
On your post, you put out stats saying that the world is fucked worse than we thought, but instead of taking the position "everything helps" you say it's only worth it for economical reasons. That's like saying you should only eat healthy if it costs less to eat healthier food rather than saying because you'll live longer/better.
So advice for writing your papers. Start by telling us what you're about to tell us. Then tell us what you're telling us. Finally, tell us what you just told us. (This is advice I was given by a VP about talking to CEO's that works everywhere).
Honestly I would probably try to avoid it even if the price was the same. Things like this just make people think they are doing something for the environment but in reality it makes no difference.
If done "enthusiastically" enough, "renewable" electricity can in fact make things a lot worse (clear a forest, plant some solar panels, then brag about saving the environment).
You're thinking too hard into this. The content I write on here isn't as well flushed out or publication ready as the actual work I do. Since it seems like you're only in it to complain and argue, I hope you have a good rest of your day.
In reality, you make no sense.
Yes, everyone should just falsely say hydropower isn't renewable energy because I just like to argue. FFS. SMH
So the actual part of the hydropower debate is fairly diverse. This excerpt is from a "Tidal Energy Systems" book published in 2019 by Elsevier. It's from the chapter titled "Chapter 1 - introduction to energy sources". The point of this isn't to show "a line from a book and say see it's the truth haha screw you!" but more realistically to show you that this is a debated subject even to this day.
Excerpt:
Building new hydropower dams isn't on the top the list for much of the US as there are other (economically driven) sources of power... New dams are interesting but our large-scale dam building phase has been over since the 1960s-1970s. So this is definitely not the hottest topic. Also the actual policy behind it is a bit outside of my full scope (I focus more on how to navigate around climate change using current (and future) systems in the US and Africa through computational modeling, stakeholder engagements, and recommendations to the decision maker), but there are policies known as "Renewable Portfolio Standards" that our clients need to worry about. These standards are built to incentivize states to have a certain % of their power from renewable resources.
There's definitely different specs and parameters for each energy source, but Hydropower is the one that's most "controversial" as it's technically accepted but with much more restrictive parameters. From a 2020 report on Hydropower role in RPS an excerpt reads:
The excerpt shows that the difference in criteria from state-by-state changes it's eligibility as a renewable resource. To support your argument, the report makes good arguments for expanding hydropower's role as a sustainable and renewable source of energy. However, if you look at a reservoir in an economic sense the tradeoff matrix gets better the longer you use it. It's one of those systems that requires a significant investment (not only financially but also carbon-budget wise) only to see those investments to break-even around 40-50 years of use. Our original dams (like the Hoover dam) was only designed to stay for about 50 years, but with continued "recertification" (with "proper maintenance, inspections, and repairs") they're changing their estimates higher to 100+ years. Now that looks great for us as we don't need to build a whole new dam, but the problem is that erosion happens over time. We're getting better at fixing dams but they'll have more problems over time.
Factoring in the cost and benefit (and PR nightmare a dam failure would be, plus loss of life), the question comes that hydropower isn't a good option.
The "renewable" part of it isn't really worth it if you look at the total carbon budget you need to spend to get those benefits 50+ years out. In addition, the renewable-ness of hydropower is based on the water cycle, which is in the process of getting disrupted and soon certain reservoirs will actually be running dry. Also many of these reservoirs are multi-use with many (not all) operating agencies follow a "Water-First" policy (energy demand does not dictate their reservoir operation).
So in some context, you're looking at uncertain reliability of power generation from hydropower alone. In water-rich regions (e.g. Northeastern USA) you can make better arguments that they're renewable. But in water-scarce regions (California for example), it's a lot harder argument.
But at the end of the day man. I'm just trying to help keep people informed. If you don't like what I have to say or want to debate it sure. But the backhanded aggressive comments aren't really called for and at the end of the day, it's not useful to engage with you since you're just being a dick. This is what I work on day-to-day to make a living so I really do know this area and many things are not as set-in-stone or cut-and-dry as you'd expect. As a subject matter expert you're a bit more aware of what's going on. I've also offered citation to my arguments whereas you've just been countering with "you're full of horseshit". You're also not a decision maker I'm trying to impress, but instead just some guy on the internet on a web forum. I'm not looking to impress you nor do I really care to. I'm just trying to inform and suggest alternatives. I get it that you don't really like me, but you're not helping your argument by being aggressive.
Just a another quick note @TimboJones
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032118302235
This was published in 2018 in a good journal that's well respected. The figure that I've hot-linked here shows the comparison of various "renewable energy" sources vs hydropower and the total amount of carbon emissions released based on their study (these are statistical studies so they looked at a ton of reservoirs, not just 3).
They factor in:
It shows that some hydropower reservoirs are actually worse than burning natural gas and coal. It shows other renewables (Wind, Geothermal, Solar, and Biomass) to have significantly less carbon emissions than hydropower reservoirs in most cases.
I don't know what else you want out of me.
how about hydro power?
For home use hydro is superb. Norway example is a proof of that. But for business... Data centers require a lot more power than hydro can offer at affordable rate. Still, good old atomic rules.
If something is not clear I'll gladly explain but you have to tell me what first.
"Renewable" Energy Hosting is probably same like the "BIO" concept people who are clueless use and pay for...
You misunderstood. You said hydropower wasn't renewable energy source, but it is and it's literally in the first sentence you quoted (note the "as well" and not "or" used) and the fact that it's referring to a system (as a whole) and not a source (which was what was being discussed). Whether it makes economic sense or whether it generates more carbon is irrelevant and I shouldn't have to point that out. State's policies do not change whether hydropower is renewable resource or not, the presence of water ticks the box. When the water source dries up, it won't be true anymore.
I did.
Hydro is like $0.04/kWh iirc (Hydro Quebec). Coal power from what I've seen is $0.06/kWh at least, as coal mining/transport/burning is expensive. I think OVH BHS is a good example of when hydro works.
Maybe I'm wrong, but.. I'm not sure, any provider (DC) are able to guarantee, the actually used energy is from 'green source'. Maybe the DC pay the bills for an 'energy provider company' which have green sources (wind turbines, solar panels etc), but the datacenter (DC) probably use the same electricity infrastructure like others in the country, so the 'end user' (DC) truly will never know the used power is from which power plant (coal plant, wind turbine, etc) provided into the national/country energy infrastructure.
DC's equipments consume a lot energy all day long constantly, while the solar panels not generate power at night, wind turbines not generate (enough) energy when the wind not blowing.. and the produced energy not 'storable' (for long time)..
I think, It's a nice goal/idea & also 'good marketing' but.. 'not the reality' at the moment..
So is there a reliable VPS provider in Europe that actually care about these stuff in the LET price range?
@VPSSLIM
Thanks for the mention! Yes all energy we use is 100% renewable (wind) energy.
When did LET become the auditorium for dissertation 🤔 I thought this is just where we buy one-man host or laugh at summer hosts
We have 100% renewable energy for where our servers are colocated in Norway, but unfortunately when compared to traditional power it is more expensive.
Renewable power is great if you wish to target a certain audience or supportive of new technologies.
Propaganda detected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Only prolonging the life of older atomic bombs fukushina style is less expensive than wind and solar. Even coal is close to new nuclear (safe plants).
That wouldn't make sense, because:
1. Many forests are not on flat terrain. While there can be some situations in which having a slope in the perfect situation is better than on flat land, that is rare and building there is more costly most of the time, also more dangerous, exposed to landslides, etc;
2. Where forests grow there is usually a lot of rain. You don't really want that for solar, deserts are better.
That being said, of course there is jumping over the horse, like using palm oil to produce "biofuels" or corn to make ethanol so the people can claim they fly "green". That is wrong in so many ways. Same with "black", "brown", "grey", "blue" hydrogen, etc.
In short, you have a point, but the example was wrong.
https://vpsboard.com/ ? Why did guys decide to sell or are you still a Moderator there?
Looking back, why do you think it went down?
The hosting company that owns it now wants over $7K for it like it's a gold mine or something.
Eating brown beans all day also provides enough wind