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.
Green/Eco friendly hosts..
Hypothetically, if I setup a counter about how many millionths part of a tree you can save by hosting your VPS on my OVH node compared to ColoCrossing (because its one of the evil hosts), would you switch over to me, or why are there still "green" hosts out there when essentially all the datacenters are same in terms of eco friendliness..
Maybe Hippies?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No, because I don't buy into feelgood ecoterror bullshit.
You wouldn't donate to greenpeace or WWF? Youre monster.
How is nuclear power killing trees?
No, I would not switch over to "green" hosts because I know that those are just marketing gimmick. Due to the nature of hosting, there cannot be true green hosting unless you are willing to accept SLA of perhaps 50% uptime.
I'd happily donate greenpeace to WWE (the fake wrestling group), provided they actually beat the fuck out of those annoying hippies on camera.
ehm...no?
Green hosting was a marketing thing back when global warming was first emerging. There are still some promoting it but I don't think it's as differentiating now.
I mean, there were only 4 threads in the WHT "green hosting" subforum in 2016 and none in 2017 :-)
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=157
netcup say that they use green electricity:
https://www.netcup.de/ueber-netcup/oekostrom.php (German)
https://www.netcup.eu/ueber-netcup/oekostrom.php (English)
When the carbon tax comes in, that will change things for sure.
I can't believe people are so fucking stupid as to buy into that.
I have always chosen green hosting because I thought that they kill ugly trees instead of those beautiful atoms to get their electricity. Have I been THAT wrong? Damn.
Would you think of these guys when you hear "germans"?
You don't believe in global warming? Carbon emissions?
In general, moving over to more sustainable energy and greater efficiency is just smart business. This will be even more true when carbon taxes do eventually actually become a thing for normal businesses.
The cost of solar + wind per KWH is not only competitive compared to oil/gas/nuclear, it is in many cases even cheaper, and so renewable energy can actually save money.
Increasing efficiency like wise reduces power consumption, and thus reduces your energy bill. For most DC (especially small ones) this is probably the biggest thing they can do to minimize carbon emissions at the same time as reducing costs. Switching from standard PSUs to high efficiency (80Plus) ones can reduce power consumption by upto 50%! Back in 2010, we didn't really pay much attention to this and we realized that actually most of our PSUs were quite inefficient at the levels we were using them (most PSUs do not perform efficiently at low power draw). The reduction in power consumption often meant that a change in PSU would mean we would break even within 6-8 months of buying the new one.
That's just dumb. Renewables have the potential to provide more than enough power for the world's needs. Yes renewables are inconsistent, as the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine, but eventually this can/will be solved through storage in batteries, dams and other technologies.
At the moment, batteries are the biggest hurdle. But that does not mean a DC cannot benefit from a solar or wind installation. DCs tend to have a pretty stable and predictable power draw, and so a solar or wind installation can be sized to maximize the usage and return. Problem with most household solar is that power draw is uneven. Come home, put the kettle on, the washing machine and dryer on, and your 5kw array is not going to supply enough power. But for 90% of the day, a typical house barely uses any power, so in order to make the most of that array, you need battery storage. DCs dont have this problem as they will use all the power they produce all the time.
It's just good business!
Virtually everything alive on our planet is carbon based. To tax a building block of life is to force humanity into both the ideology that they need to pay to merely exist, and is a great way to assert further control over fellow man.
I'm not going to address the first bit, because not only is it loaded, but I prefer to keep political discussions in the Cest Pit, where they belong.
Global warming, no.
Carbon emissions and overall pollution impacting the health of living beings, yes.
Sea levels will rise they said, and that a big part of the population living near the shore would have to run away , yet here I am, living near the shore for more than 15 years, and the sea levels are just fine.
"Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013"
When in 2015 the ice levels were the thickess they have ever been in almost 10 years.
And then it's curious how the narrative of global warming, changed from the planet heating up, to more extreme summers and winters, when people realized that the planet wasn't actually warming up.
It's also really hypocrite how all these presidents fly to these global warming conventions, in their private jets/planes. Creating limits for the gases produced by smaller industries, and ruining economy. Instead of investing money into new technologies for more efficient sustainable sources of energy, to incentive people to buy electric cars, and more efficient ways of recycling.
And why? Industries do produce harmful gases, yes. But not nearly as much as every single car, every single people drives, the energy that you use at home that may come from nuclear or coal, or the trash that if you don't recycle (most people dont) will end up in the same hole, burried and producing landfill gas.
But petroleum and coal industries would nearly die, those people have a lot of money and power, and they are not ready to lose their empire.
Do some research.
I am waiting for oil and coal industry to die sooner .
Not believing in climate change does not make it any less real.
The thing is, and I'm paraphrasing what Elon Musk said, even if there was no harmful effects of burning fossil fuels, we will inevitably all have to transition to sustainable energy anyway. After all, the alternatives are UNsustainable.
And even if there is only a 1% chance that emitting carbon will cause catastrophic damage to the world, why take that chance when we HAVE to move to sustainable energy anyway?
There is no downside to making this transition. Okay.. resources are allocated to 1 industry over another so for some time, some industries may have a downside, but as a whole, most economies, and the world as a whole benefits.
Why take the chance?
Is that a joke? Yes we are all carbon based, but it isn't a tax on life. It would be a tax on emissions from fossil fuels, not from renewable (including bio fuels). There is a cost to climate change, climate change which has been directly linked to rising emissions.
It's like dumping sewage in the streets. We all pay for sewage (that's actually more analogous to a tax on life) because we can all see the problems of not cleaning up our shit (literally). Just because you cannot see (instantly) the harmful affects of climate change does not mean it's not harmful, and incurs real economic cost to people.
You can tell yourself this all you like, but it's yet just another "You are dumb enough to think we want more than to swindle you out of your money" tax.
Research? Scientists these days can't say to you with 100% certainty, since it's just an hypothesis, that it's because of greenhouse gases. For f*cks sake, there were scientists found to be manipulating data just to "proof" global warming it's real.
It's a question either you believe it or not, there are no proofs that all you believe is because of greenhouse gases, or something entirely else like changes in the geomagnetic field. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
Either you believe it or not, I think you can agree with me when I said that CO2 emissions are not a good thing for health overall, as any other kind of pollution and there should be money invested
I don't see how I'm being swindled out of anything. There are few carbon taxes in place. I would be more than happy to pay a carbon tax, but at the same time I would be even more incentivised to do things that have a lesser carbon impact.
You see the problem with your thinking is that you think this is just a way to make money. But this is about changing behavior, not raising tax money. And I say this because there is a clear and obvious route to reduce your tax burden, and most options are available now and would allow people to SAVE money from the get go.
Just look at transport and heating: something that almost everyone pays.
Transport, increasing tax on fuel will encourage people to take public transport which almost always results in savings for the passenger.
Heating: Governments all over the EU actually help PAY for you to insulate your house to make it more energy efficient, so you pay less in gas/electric for heating.
The EU also subsidizes solar and wind installations, and push for a grids across Europe to allow households to sell their excess power to the grid.
Transitioning to sustainable energy comes at a cost, but to the benefit of the citizens. It makes sense to raise the money for this transition by taxing the very practices you wish to discourage.
Best case scenario for governments is that it is fiscally neutral, so it is clearly not motivated by increasing tax revenues.
This is because you are willingly submitting to it. By "taxing" people to change their behavior, you are only making things more difficult for not only your fellow man, but for people in emerging areas to be able to afford what we have at this time. You are supporting the indirect removal of our current means of transportation/et al from people who have no ability to buy a $60,000 battery with an hours' worth of use per day before being plugged back into the still-fossil-fuel grid.
It's your ideologies that I am personally against, and I will ensure to vote against them every possible chance I can.
You admit that it's directly, and implicitly about control. Fucking Illinois Nazis.
What color is the sky in your world?
I bring this back to.. even if there is only a 1% chance that this 'hypothesis' is correct, why take the risk when the transition to sustainable energy is inevitable any way?
If there is only a 1% chance it's correct, then there is a 1% chance our planet is basically doomed! Why the hell are playing with fire?
Would you play Russian roulette if there was only a 1% chance you'd shoot yourself? bare in mind there is no reward if you don't. Sounds dumb but that's we as a planet seem to be doing.
if it can be taxed it will be taxed that is all you need to believe.
Your country is certainly the epitome of this ideology.
My believe for global warming doesn't contradict that pollution is bad, as I mentioned in that same post, I am against CO2 and overall pollution.
I am NOT saying, pollution is fine. Im just saying that I don't believe that it's the cause of global warming, and instead of focusing on taxing companies that pollute and destroying the economy for those smaller companies that are creating jobs, focus on developing ways to actually reduce pollution and not just avoid it with taxes.
Gray.
Taxes should always be about influencing behavior to get the most out of people. In my opinion. But no it's not about control. Generally speaking, leaders are elected by the people.
Obviously the transition won't happen over night. There are ways to reduce the impact on the less well-off anyway though. Public transport typically solves this problem.
But the taxes probably should start being applicable to those who A.) can afford it most and B.) emit the most.
Raise taxes for 1st class/biz class and private air travel, new big gas guzzling SUVs and sports cars, and anything mostly consumed by the rich first. And then work your way down over time.
Seriously this is the most ignorant comment I've read from you.
Now I know you're probably exaggerating but I feel I must correct you any way.
A 100kwh batter pack on Tesla gets you about 500km / 300miles of driving, which would be about 4 hours of highway driving and cost about $20,000. NOT $60,000.
Further more, its ridiculous to even suggest lower income people to spend money on a NEW car, let alone a top of the line luxury car afforded only by the wealthy!
You can pick-up a used Nissan Leaf for under $10k with a range of around 100km, which incidentally WOULD be about an hours worth of highway driving.
But $10k is still a lot of money, and I would suggest that people probably opt for public transport if they cannot afford to buy, own and run a car.
Finally, even if the grid is pure coal, the energy efficiency of an EV is still vastly greater than that of any ICE. Petrol and Diesel does not exist in a vacuum. The ELECTRIC energy required to refine 1 gallon of petrol is is about 6kwh, and that would be enough to give an EV around 20 miles of range. And that's JUST from the electric energy used to refine the fuel. So we haven't even started to consider the energy cost of the actual delivery and usage of the fuel itself.
So even if the grid was 100% coal, which it isnt! You would still have far less emissions per mile driving an EV compared to ANY ICE vehicle.
What you could argue is that the manufacturing of new cars are energy intensive, and you could make a strong argument for buying used conventional vehicles since it would take many many miles of driving before the used card produces as many emissions as is produced from the mere manufacturing of any other car (EV or otherwise)... at least for now. This is especially true if you don't actually drive much.
Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? Are you a business owner or an employee?
I ask because a tax on emissions is generally designed to influence behavior. So the mere fact a company is getting tax, would encourage that company to seek alternative methods of manufacture or operation to avoid that tax. It does not destroy the economy, it shifts it.
Cost is a big driving factor.
As I mentioned in my above example, regarding PSUs, switching PSUs to better and more efficient ones allowed us to reduce our energy usage by around 40%, and the savings in our energy bill meant we recovered all our investment back within 8 months.
With respect to solar technology, the ROI is around 7 years WITHOUT any subsidies based on average (not peak) production. Okay 7 years is quite a bit longer than 8 months, but actually a solar installation for any DC or high energy demand business would see a reduction in operating cost by having it installed. An ROI of 7 years s pretty good and is generally better than the ROI on big coal/gas/oil/nuclear power stations.
edit:
Likewise if you're in the market for a new car, the life cycle cost of an EV is almost always lower than that of an equivalent ICE vehicle. So there may be a little more upfront cost, particularly lower down in the market (nothing really available for under $30k that's new), but for a vehicle, operating cost adds up over time. This is particularly pronounced in Europe where insurance, maintenance/services and fuel all cost quite a bit more than in the US. EV's have much less maintenance work, and 1/5 the cost per km for energy.
So where you may find a $20k ICE car and and $30k EV, you'll financially be ahead probably within around 2-3 years in fuel savings alone. Beyond 2 years, the maintenance bills add up on ALL ICE vehicles whereas EVs are are maintenance free and do not have such costs. Biggest cost is battery, but they last 8-10 years any way, and by that time batteries will be much cheaper than they are now.