Google says its carbon footprint is now zero • Hacker News Board

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#161

Post by iagovar » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

boogies wrote: post #156

actuator wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies do provide credits towards cycling and FB does this for even tube in London, but that will be still limited based on location. Though you are right about the location bit, they should force the hand of the state by speaking with their foot, I guess fear of losing talent opportunity scares them. > Facebook even builds their own employee housing. I wasn't aware about this, where are they building these?

Menlo Park, and apparently Google’s up to something similar in San Jose: https://levels.io/facebook-city/

Isn't this the definitive cultural bubble? Jesus.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#162

Post by nend » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

actuator wrote: post #116

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #109

There's a really good explanation of different loopholes in calculating carbon emissions in the Microsoft carbon target announcement from last year[1]. Eg do you count secondary services your employees use, like food services or emissions from their commute? Do you count partner services, like shipping providers for physical product? These, along with your direct emissions, are categorized into three "scopes" of emis…

> emissions from their commute Isn't stuff like this kind of out of their hand unless the state itself tries to fix this.

Why would an employees commute be out of the hands of the employer? Companies already provide incentives to help employees with commutes: public transit benefits, wfh days, shuttle services.

It seems especially obvious at the moment that companies could simply eliminate tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of commutes instantly by letting the vast majority of their employees wfh permanently (or much more frequently at least).

Additionally it'd probably be pretty easy to brainstorm a dozen more less common ideas/incentives companies could start trialing: pay people to take public transit instead of just subsidizing partial costs, have more satellite offices or pay for wework type space, a welcome packet that includes an option for a bicycle and fitness trainer, additional shuttle services, long term plans such as working with the government to invest in bicycle/public transit infrastructure, etc etc

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#163

Post by bawolff » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #109

There's a really good explanation of different loopholes in calculating carbon emissions in the Microsoft carbon target announcement from last year[1]. Eg do you count secondary services your employees use, like food services or emissions from their commute? Do you count partner services, like shipping providers for physical product? These, along with your direct emissions, are categorized into three "scopes" of emis…

Even with all those caveats, its still an impressive milestone and a step in the right direction.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#164

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

bouncycastle wrote: post #146

djsumdog wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a ton of the "clean" power isn't clean. Solar needs to have standby fossil plants that keep at idle or else you get brownouts. Those high end molten salt solar plans take natural gas to startup. Most "wood chip" plants burn the same fast growing trees used by paper mills. CO2 is a stupid thing to focus on. There are so many other forms of pollution that are so much worse. Factory cities in China that have lakes o…

I actually help run a solar farm part time. Most of my work is to use a petrol powered snipper to cut all the weeds that are growing around it, and I wonder if cutting down trees to make way for solar lots is really the future? It's quite a big block of land that could be a forest or a park. Also, the thing is that panels expire after 20 years, so new ones will need to be manufactured and the process to make them and…

if not for the problem of mitigating sand erosion, deserts seem well-suited for solar farms. I believe the statistic is that all the necessary power to power double humanity's electric consumption could be generated from a tiny patch of the Sahara---big enough to be seen from space, but tiny in the grand scheme of things (1)

(1) This is, of course, the foolish way to go about it, since distribution costs would be enormous and that kind of centralization is dangerous for a robust system. But it's a fun thought experiment to visualize the scale of the problem and the gap between the inefficiency of the modern system and potential improvements.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#165

Post by gdubs » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

bouncycastle wrote: post #146

djsumdog wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a ton of the "clean" power isn't clean. Solar needs to have standby fossil plants that keep at idle or else you get brownouts. Those high end molten salt solar plans take natural gas to startup. Most "wood chip" plants burn the same fast growing trees used by paper mills. CO2 is a stupid thing to focus on. There are so many other forms of pollution that are so much worse. Factory cities in China that have lakes o…

I actually help run a solar farm part time. Most of my work is to use a petrol powered snipper to cut all the weeds that are growing around it, and I wonder if cutting down trees to make way for solar lots is really the future? It's quite a big block of land that could be a forest or a park. Also, the thing is that panels expire after 20 years, so new ones will need to be manufactured and the process to make them and…

Hawaii has one of (if the not the) largest solar farms in the world — and they use sheep for weed removal. We definitely should be reforesting land, but land that is already pasture has a lot of potential for regenerative agricultural practices which greatly increase the prairie’s carbon-capture potential. Particularly if animals are incorporated intelligently. One study showed that the panels themselves can actually help improve pasture soil.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#166

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

boogies wrote: post #152

djsumdog wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a ton of the "clean" power isn't clean. Solar needs to have standby fossil plants that keep at idle or else you get brownouts. Those high end molten salt solar plans take natural gas to startup. Most "wood chip" plants burn the same fast growing trees used by paper mills. CO2 is a stupid thing to focus on. There are so many other forms of pollution that are so much worse. Factory cities in China that have lakes o…

> But a ton of the "clean" power isn't clean. Emphasis on a ton — not all. Nuclear basically is. And as of this millennium at the latest it’s been safe. The nuclear deaths in the US add up to a grand total of 0 (zero). That’s better than eg. wind can say — at least one turbine has burst into flame during maintenance, forcing the workers to choose between burning or leaping to death. Google’s Ivanpah solar plant has a…

Both Fukushima and Chernobyl raise serious questions about the safety of nuclear power, unfortunately.

> And of course CO₂ danger is exaggerated, most scientists from the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) don’t believe there will be catastrophic effects of global warming (including from more potent greenhouse gasses like methane) in the next 50-100 years.

Have they looked into what's going on in the west coast of the US right now?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#167

Post by abyssin » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #125

matthewheath wrote: post #94

Offsets are helpful, but are not the solution. At best, they're a stepping stone. The only sustainable solution is reduction in usage. I'm not sure how feasible that is, or how to achieve it necessarily, but that's the only sustainable basis to proceed on.

>I'm not sure how feasible that is This is actually why I 100% believe we will not be able to change any amount of global warming, and if anything will make it worse as more and more countries become industrialized. The only way to reduce usage is to change our lifestyles. Less consumption, less travel, less of the 'modern conveniences' people in wealthy counties have become accustomed to. Maybe I'm too cynical, but…

In our situation, optimism is a moral duty. I understand the cynical attitude, because I have it at times. But I also think we can't just say there's nothing to do. I'm afraid that would strengthen the tendency of many people to downplay what's happening, and ignore the truth. Even in the face of disaster, I want to keep valuing truth, and I want to be surrounded by people who value truth.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#168

Post by jeffbee » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

kolinko wrote: post #143

benwsapp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Network traffic makes sense if you consider that network traffic is active usage - and the routers, switches, infra all need power. Whereas a typical user's CPU sits idle most of the time.

Idle CPU still uses a ton of energy. Even a laptop in sleep mode uses ~2W, and a desktop - 6-10W. Average wifi router uses constant 6W if I'm not mistaken.

You should get your money back if your sleeping laptop uses 2W. At that rate, a MacBook Pro would drain its battery in only one day. Correctly-working laptops should draw about 100-200mW and their batteries should last for a week or more.

6-10W kinda sucks for an active desktop, much less a sleeping one. My development system while in S0 currently measures 3.04W (of course, ~30W when running hard).

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#169

Post by robjan » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

polote wrote: post #107

robjan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bought carbon offsets which are more focused on preventing / reducing carbon from being generated. It's basically saying "if I stop x amount of carbon from being emitted somewhere in the world, it's as good as -ve carbon on the balance sheet".

so basically company A says it built one solar panel for company B to use. Company A says it reduced its carbon emission and company B says it reduced also his. So we have reduced emission by a factor of 2 solar panels by using only one? seems smart!

More like Company A buys carbon credits which are invested in a company / NGO who provide replacements for (as an example) 30 year old tractors in the developing world. The polluting vehicles have been removed so therefore there is a reduction in carbon. Since Company A continues to produce carbon the net carbon is now 0.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#170

Post by jefftk » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #120

Aunche wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't displacing factories to third world countries. They're displacing dirty power with cleaner power. Obviously this won't be sustainable forever, but it's a good start.

But a ton of the "clean" power isn't clean. Solar needs to have standby fossil plants that keep at idle or else you get brownouts. Those high end molten salt solar plans take natural gas to startup. Most "wood chip" plants burn the same fast growing trees used by paper mills. CO2 is a stupid thing to focus on. There are so many other forms of pollution that are so much worse. Factory cities in China that have lakes o…

> CO2 is a stupid thing to focus on. There are so many other forms of pollution that are so much worse. Factory cities in China that have lakes of toxic sludge waste. The massive amount of plastic particles in the ocean. Colossal e-waste from electronics only designed to last two years.

CO2, and other greenhouse gasses, are exactly what we should be focusing on. Sea level rise alone is more urgent than everything else you've mentioned, let alone unpredictable weather changes and their potential for causing war.