Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My solar-powered and self-hosted website

dri.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#51

Post by teamonkey »

skrtskrt wrote: post #24
genter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't like that the rest of the infrastructure is on the grid, so you're proposing moving the site to the grid too?

the grid is going to continue to get efficiency and renewable energy improvements that help at a much more massive scale. it's 1000x more helpful to just like only run your big appliances when your grid is using more renewables.

Not sure that’s true due to power losses over distance. Running your appliances off your own solar panels and not having to draw from the grid is probably more efficient in terms of energy generation.

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#54

Post by snickerer »

rijoja wrote: post #52

> Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP or LiFePO4) battery This should be "Lithium Ion Phosphate...", right?

No, they used a Lithium IRON battery. LiFePO₄ literally means Lithium Iron Phosphate. These batteries are safer, more thermally stable, and have a longer cycle life compared to typical Lithium-Ion (LiCoO₂) batteries. However, LiFePO₄ has a lower energy density, meaning less capacity for the same size and weight.

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#55

Post by bantunes »

mbrizic wrote: post #34
emdanielsen wrote: post #15

This is so cool! I'm so surprised I've never heard of someone doing this before :)

I did something very similar a while back: https://mbrizic.com/blog/solarhosting/

What did you use to differentiate green from (I'm guessing) blue links when it's down?

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#56

Post by mbrizic »

bantunes wrote: post #55
mbrizic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did something very similar a while back: https://mbrizic.com/blog/solarhosting/

What did you use to differentiate green from (I'm guessing) blue links when it's down?

Each color is a different build running on a different server. And then a load balancer picks which server you'll end up on.

Code-wise, the only difference between the builds is the CSS setting the link color.

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#57

Post by left-struck »

noman-land wrote: post #46
vedmed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I missing the joke here? Clue me in. Cloudflare isn't a host to my understanding. You can't upload files to it and serve them. At least, not on the free tier.

Yes you can.

It’s hilarious because vedmed said “ You can't upload files to it and serve them. At least, not on the free tier.” but that is EXACTLY how cloudflare pages’ free tier works lol

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#58

Post by Vegenoid »

nine_k wrote: post #42
Vegenoid wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Used" doesn't magically wave away the carbon/resource cost of producing the hardware. Buying used hardware still stimulates demand for the production of new hardware, although to a lesser extent than buying new. Buying used also only works when not that many people are doing it. On an individual level, it is a good thing to do, but it isn't a solution. It does help foster an environment of maintaining and supporting…

It reliability waves away the costs of producing hardware for this particular project. The second-hand computer and second-hand panels have already been produced for someone else, their cost is sunk. But their value can continue with this project, or end with the hardware and panels going to a dumping ground.

Again, no it does not. When someone buys a new RPi, it was already made. The cost of making it was already sunk. Buying it gives the company that made it more money, and encourages them to make more.

If you buy a used RPi, it gives money to someone who buys new computers, and encourages them to buy more. It stimulates demand for the production of hardware, just like buying new stimulates the production of new hardware, even though the hardware you bought had already been built.

Yes, it is to a much lesser extent than buying new, but it certainly isn’t zero. And again, it only works on a small individual level.

It is a good thing to do, but it does not zero out the cost of producing (or running) the hardware.

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#59

Post by rakoo »

cortesoft wrote: post #39
pluto_modadic wrote: post #35

controversial take: but I think it's fine to host stuff on your own machines, rather than the massive big-data hyperscale datacenters. Yes, google/cloudflare/AWS might be more efficient per watt, but I don't like giving them more money to continue to violate privacy/TOS/labor... (AI, kiwifarms, &, well, everything amazon does). No, it won't be the most efficient, but it's yours.

You wouldn't be giving cloudflare any money to host it with them.

So they'd violate your privacy and re-centralize the web for free ? That's not exactly a rebuttal

Re: My solar-powered and self-hosted website

#60

Post by rakoo »

Vegenoid wrote: post #16
IncreasePosts wrote: post #10

Solar powered sites are cool and fun, but I find it ultimately lacking because so much of the rest of the networking infrastructure is reliant on the grid. It would be more energy efficient to just host the static site on cloudflare or whatever, and use the solar panel to charge some batteries, or something you would normally use the grid for. I suspect overall energy usage would be even lower if the site was hosted…

Agreed. When I see this type of thing, I am always turned off by people describing it as "greener" or “more sustainable”. Every small website having its own solar panel and hardware is not greener. People frequently think only of the carbon emissions of the energy used by the hardware once it's running, ignoring the carbon (and raw material) cost of building that hardware. Serving websites is an area where capitalism…

> Serving websites is an area where capitalism’s promise of achieving efficiency of resource utilization through economic incentives probably actually works, via shared hardware.

Most of the environmental impact happens at the building of hardware, so putting even more websites in datacenter only increases environmental impact. All Capitalism has done here is completely forget that impact by telling you it's ok to do always more.

What we collectively need to do is not find a better tech, it's reduce the total amount of tech we use, and that starts with questioning our actual uses. We don't need 24/7 available websites, 90% availability is more than enough. In fact, more sites should only target 90% availability, and if we were serious about tackling this we'd look towards 1. using old computers to the death because they still can and 2. doing more offline-first. Putting your website in a datacenter is exactly what the Jevons Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) warns about. Its environmental impact keeps exploding year after year and it's not with that mindset that we'll make a dent in it.

(Remember, the environment is not a resource, so Capitalism doesn't care about it)

Post reply on HN