I've been reading some of the fantastic diaries on
peak oil (
example) that have been popping up lately, and it got me to thinking about the elephant in the "room": if energy becomes more costly, will the internet still be economical?
Details (questions, really) in extended.
We take it for granted, especially on an internet based forum, that the internet will always be the way that it is: cheap, open, etc. We don't really stop to consider what it takes to keep it all running: servers on racks in air conditioned rooms, telecommunication lines, signal switches, our own computers running, and more. Has anyone even tried to look at how much energy it takes to keep the internet up and running? Google itself has a massive power bill, I'm sure. How much power does the internet use? How much bandwidth do we get for that much power? This spreads over how many users? What is the best way to measure the internet's efficiency?
Certainly the old telephone and telegraph networks seem to be an apt comparison. Does the internet fair better or worse than these in terms of efficiency?
I'm not even sure that the public can get at the necessary data, but in considering how we may have to adjust our lives in an energy crunch, the internet is not immune from such considerations, so its best that we go in to this with our eyes open.
I have, of course, more general questions that are not directly related to this that it would be nice if we could pool our knowledge on. They include:
- At what price does it become economical for the US to start using oil shale (and at what cost environmentally)?
- How much slack can technologies like biofuels and thermal depolymerization pick up and at what price do they become economical?
- To what extent can other alternative energies (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) pick up the slack if we turn to plugin hybrids or full electric vehicles?
BlackGriffen