I would like to first ask how many of you leave your computers running to crunch as much CPDN as possible?

Secondly, do you know where the electricity that your computer(s) uses to crunch comes from (or that delivers electricity to your electricity outlet comes from)?

Thirdly, have you ever considered that leaving your computer on to crunch CPDN data is a contradiction?

The reason I’m thinking this is because in many countries fossil fuel is used to generate energy and this is one of the main reasons we have global warming today. So ask your selves next time you leave your computer on to do some crunching: Why do I participate? If the reason is to get at better understanding of global warming and maybe find a solution, then turn your computer of when you are finished using it. It will be a contradiction to leave it on just to crunch data.

Have you considered the following possibilities?

1. That electricity can be supplied from renewable sources.

2. That carbon footprints can be trivially reduced by an equivalent amount.

3. That additional carbon can be offset very cheaply.

4. That some computers are on 24/7 anyway.

5. That CPDN has benefits as well as costs.

6. That CPDN is not the most wasteful activity on Earth.

Sometimes you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar.

This issue comes up periodically and has done so since we started in mid 2003. If memory serves, Dave Frame (former CPDN Project leader at Oxford) addressed it quantitatively and qualitatively on the main Boards a few years ago.

Not only do my boxes run continuously, they were built specifically to support this project. \'With malice aforethought\', eh?

I have a skeptical view of carbon offsets (too many scams and dubious endeavors/endeavours), so won\'t use them, but do pay a fixed premium, for renewable energy (primarily wind energy here) for more than 100% of the power I use; otherwise, our power is predominately from hydro. (\'All-electric\' house but haven\'t had to turn up the ceiling-radiant heat for the past three Winters, thanks to the \'intelligent space heaters\'. No air-conditioner.)

There are other remediation efforts more fruitful than turning a computer off. Drive less. Wear another sweater rather than turn up the heat. Let the air-conditioner gather cobwebs. Lighting changes, bulbs and usage. Bin vacation travel. Don\'t fly! Shun imported flowers, foodstuffs ...

As Iain noted, some investment is necessary to gain a broader understanding of the problem(s). The calculus is much more complex than computer usage and power source. In my 70 years, I\'ve found nothing in life that doesn\'t involve trade-offs; we do what we can, while maintaining a broad social perspective (as opposed to an egocentric worldview). In simplistic terms: Does the end justify the means? \'The Golden Rule\' works in this, too.

[Edit: Personal opinion; as a volunteer Moderator, my opinions are my own and not necessarily reflective of the CPDN \"house opinion\".]

---

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Greetings from coastal Washington state, the scenic US Pacific Northwest.

The fact you have raised is beyond dispute, but as living in Norway you may well be aware that you are heading for importing power from other nations in the not too distant future! Norway does not have the full capacity to provide its full power consumption in the next few years, and you use gas power on a large scale to produce electricity. This is better than coal, but what is your base load produced by?

Base load is 24/7 365 days a year.

---

Rory
Leave a planet to those following!

To answer your questions:

1. I leave my laptop running 24/7, because it is relatively fast, and consumes 36W of power, far less than the 145W for the desktop.

2. The electricity that I have is \"Green\", which means that is is generated from renewable sources, mainly biomass here in the Netherlands. Furthermore, I have a PV installation on the roof of my house of 3,2 kWp, which generates most of my electricity. Excess power is fed into the grid and metered separately.

3. Yes, I think this is a contradiction. But in my opinion I have found a way in between, as mentioned above. Also take a look at my profile....

I can also understand the reasons why others leave their computer on, the impact is relatively small (but a poor excuse anyway). astroWX made some good remarks as well.
Buy an accurate power meter, make a round in your house and see what can be taken off stand-by mode or not used altogether. For the average household this is enough to run a climate experiment!

Kees

Isn\'t it strange that those that have answered use renewable energy sources, expecially since I was not addressing this part of the CPDN participants? Most of the people living on this earth do not use renewable energy, but fossil fuel and therefore I think my question should be considered.

I do not leave my computer on after I’m finished with it, even though my energy is renewable. This to get into the habit of turning it of in the possibility, as Rory points out, that Norway starts importing energy, and to save money. Rory is wrong on one point and that is that Norway does have more than enough renewable energy to go around for many years, but the state chooses to sell it to other countries for economical reasons. One of the main reasons for this is because a lot of the highly electricity consuming factories get subsidised electricity, meaning they would earn more selling the electricity and buying cheep dirty electricity. Many Norwegians know this but they shake their heads and say that not good, but do nothing. This is Norwegians in a nutshell.

I’m not saying I’m a saint when it comes to CO2, but I try and think things through and even though I make noticeable changes I can try and participate in keeping mine and my families CO2 outlet to a minimum.

It’s17. May and Norway’s national day, so I must be off and watch my children parade in a lovely worm sunny day.

---

I would like to first ask how many of you leave your computers running to crunch as much CPDN as possible?

Secondly, do you know where the electricity that your computer(s) uses to crunch comes from (or that delivers electricity to your electricity outlet comes from)?

Thirdly, have you ever considered that leaving your computer on to crunch CPDN data is a contradiction?

The reason I’m thinking this is because in many countries fossil fuel is used to generate energy and this is one of the main reasons we have global warming today. So ask your selves next time you leave your computer on to do some crunching: Why do I participate? If the reason is to get at better understanding of global warming and maybe find a solution, then turn your computer of when you are finished using it. It will be a contradiction to leave it on just to crunch data.

I have 5 systems here. Mine x2 64 4800+, the wife\'s x64 3700+, and the server XP2200+. All 3 of these systems stay on 24/7 for a number of reasons. Back in the old days it was better to leave your systems on all the time to prevent the stress of starting up, heat/contraction of the cards in the slots, etc. However, over time I have been involved in a number of projects. Currently I\'ve devoted my system to ClimatePrediction, the wife\'s to einstein, and the server to Seti. For the difference in my usage of power I think I outweight all the potential problems of using the resources. Rather than waste them , I feel its going to good use for scientific endoeavors. So much more to gain from that than playing games and running them now stop.
I have 2 other boxes which aren\'t hooked up present. One is my son\'s XP2400+ that just got home for the summer from College and the other is a box in a jerky state of being rebuilt for a friend to replace his aging PIII 550e. Neither of those 2 boxes are online and therefore not wasting energy. If it were possible to have enough outlets, I\'d probably fire up my son\'s computer so it could work on ClimatePrediction so that in the run we might have answers to this so called global warming scare.

Just my 2 ¢ worth..
Arion

---

There is some people (myself included because I have saw it happen), that power cycling computers often causes them less life time.

Power on and off can cause spikes from the PSU, etc. These spikes can zap the MB, video cards, etc. Drives are also affected by the stop and start. They are thin film that when spinning hold their shape well, but stopping they can slowly start to warp and cause issues.

So, even though I do not use renewable energy at the moment, I do leave them on 24/7. I did other things to conserve, by getting more efficient computers, better driving techniques, use fans and open windows instead of the air conditioner, etc.

---

So if everyone stopped crunching climate model data where would that leave things?

So if everyone stopped crunching climate model data where would that leave things?

I\'m not asking everyone to stop crunching climate data, just to ask themselves if it is really necessary to leave the computers on beyond the time that one actively uses the computer. The question is mostly directed to those that use \"dirty\" energy. I honestly do not think that there is doubt that global heating is a reality and therefore the running of this data is not essential any more. The data results are still very useful, but not essential. The question is more that is it not a contradiction to run computers on “dirty” energy to try and save the earth from global heating?

---

Hi
I have only quoted your own governments published information. This may be misleading, but I hazard a guess its not too far out. The peak loads required to fuel the nations requirement are more than probably supplied by Hydro. I have to use a dirty fuel, as you say. But my monthly bill at the peak of the price increase in the UK last winter only work out at £6.50 per month. I try to keep my use down in all areas, except running my computer 24/7 on this project.

You must remember that using Nuclear as a low carbon fuel is a good idea, with the exception of, dirty fuel to build it, dirty fuel to dig the basic fuel in the beginning, and dirty fuel to transport it around the world. Norway is not totally self sufficient according to your own nations information, and will run out of renewable supply in the next 5 to, 7 years! But this is not base supply, this is provided 24/7 365 day\'s a year. What supplies your base?

---

Rory
Leave a planet to those following!

Hi
I have only quoted your own governments published information. This may be misleading, but I hazard a guess its not too far out. The peak loads required to fuel the nations requirement are more than probably supplied by Hydro. I have to use a dirty fuel, as you say. But my monthly bill at the peak of the price increase in the UK last winter only work out at £6.50 per month. I try to keep my use down in all areas, except running my computer 24/7 on this project.

You must remember that using Nuclear as a low carbon fuel is a good idea, with the exception of, dirty fuel to build it, dirty fuel to dig the basic fuel in the beginning, and dirty fuel to transport it around the world. Norway is not totally self sufficient according to your own nations information, and will run out of renewable supply in the next 5 to, 7 years! But this is not base supply, this is provided 24/7 365 day\'s a year. What supplies your base?

You’re absolutely right about what the Norwegian government says. The Norwegian government wants to be the good guy, the example to follow, but one shouldn\'t be lured by this. Norway pollutes a lot! It has not reduced its CO2 outlet since 2003. The government talks warmly about CO2 quota, why, because Norway is rich enough to buy “conscience”. It is beyond doubt that the Norwegian government has a double morale in concern to pollution, but will never admit it.

As far as I know, and this is what my energy supplier says, my base is supplied from river systems. I have no reason to not believe this. As for nuclear fuel, it\'s a good idea until it’s used up, what happens then to the nuclear waste? Another thing that is worrying about nuclear power plants is the risk, even though it is very small there is always a risk. Take Sweden, not such a long time ago they had to shout down a nuclear power plant in Oskarshamn because of a construction fault. The consequences can be so dire and one must ask if it’s worth the risk? Tsjernobyl and Harrisburg!

---

I will have to go and digest the information you have given me, Slartibartfast (Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy). I just don\'t see you as a grey-haired old man, drawing fiord\'s.

---

Rory
Leave a planet to those following!

Not only do my boxes run continuously, they were built specifically to support this project. \'With malice aforethought\', eh?

Yes, I hold up my hand to this.

There was a time when I wasted my time and electricity on totally useless \'entertainments\'; computer games, downloading junk, etc.

I still do all that now, I still pay the electricity bills, I still worry about the state of the planet and what we are all doing to it. Except now, by getting into BOINC projects including climate, I don\'t think my time is so wasted, I still worry about the planet, but I\'m contributing something positive, and the graphics I\'m coming out with are my best.

Hey Rory, Slartibartfast didn\'t just draw the fiords, but he designed and built them all over the universe. But not enough arets to my liking ;)

---

This topic has been discussed in the other forum as well....

Take a look here.

Although you can argue over the figures, the total impact seems to be rather samll.


Kees

Don\'t panic!

It\'s not about me wanting anyone to stop crunching. I\'m just asking if it\'s a contradictiction to leave your the computers crunching when your not actively using the computer.

The answer is pretty simple, it\'s 42!

Joke aside, the question is really about prinsiple. The computers that are used to crunch the data would not make any difference to global heating if they were all turned off. But if you are doing this to maybe find a solution to global heating, then you should also think about your own emissions on all levels. I\'m not trying to moralize you, Al Gore as already tried this, I\'m just asking a question and am glad to see that there are quite a few that have done the same, asked the question. :)

It brings tears to my eyes when I see my glaciers melt away!

---

Don\'t panic!
Too late dear boy, well to late! I have reduced my requirements for derv, electricity, and gas. But I am only one, the tipping points that everyone talks about, have started to tip. The one saving grace is we have a fighting chance to change the abuse in the future. But on no account will it get any better, till the world moderates its abuse, (read mankind) till the ape decides to live with the world not change it!

---

Rory
Leave a planet to those following!

Don\'t panic!
Too late dear boy, well to late! ... But on no account will it get any better, till the world moderates its abuse, (read mankind) till the ape decides to live with the world not change it!

Panic has never helped anyone!

Though it is important to react and start making changes, yesterday. But it really does not help all that much if the mutant apes controlling USA and China see no evil or hear no evil. It is by no doubt to late, and changes are happening and probably will continue to get worse as long as I and probably my children live. We must show the mutant apes’ controlling these two countries is that mutant apes elsewhere on this planet want to survive on it, only by cleaning our own doorstep can we prove that we are serious. I am afraid that if we are not conscious of our own emissions, how can we then point our fingers at others?

As I said it’s a matter of principle, even if we, participants of CPDN, stop using electricity and start living in caves only lighting a fire to make food, it wouldn’t have any effect on global heating. But by reducing our emissions we can show that we do care and ask of others to do the same. It’s a matter of not contradicting ones statements in ones actions, then no one will listen. Very few are listening to the Norwegian government requests to reduce emissions because of exactly this.

---

A contradiction it is for sure, but the energy used for CDPN doesn\'t go to waste. In other words, what do you think will contribute more in the battle against climate change, calculating for CDPN or switching your computer off?
I do think that awareness of energy consumption is very important and that many people have a long way to go in this, but when acting against it, one needs to look at the full consequenses and not lose perspective.
I do think that CO2 is the main contibutor to climate change and that fossile fuel should be used careful. However, I feel that that knowledge will be our most powerful tool against climate change, and I think we are beyond the point where simply reducing our CO2 exhaust will be enough.

---

Not fully agreeing here, but I will have to see if you mean CO2 and nothing else, that leads to Methane exposure, then the break down of Methane is a form of CO2. The problem is it breaks down and is present in the atmosphere as CO2 for longer than its base as Methane. Methane as in its raw state, expelled from the retreating tundra is about 20 times more potent as a gas, but less of a dire problem as it degrades, but helps to throw things off track. Thus adding to the effects, but it will be limited if abuse of humans, and nations, who are starting to see(including the USA, and China), all moderation is for the benefit of all!

But it is hard to say I have, and you must accept less!

---

Rory
Leave a planet to those following!