Google Deploys Street View Cameras on Trikes

Google Street View will soon include images of streets where cars aren’t allowed, thanks to a green and low-tech solution: mounting the cameras on a trike.

From Auto Blog Green via Groovy Green:

The three-wheeled, human-powered overgrown tricycles carry 250 pounds of ballast in the form of “a mounted Street View camera and a specially decorated box containing image collecting gadgetry,” says the internet giant. All that extra heft reportedly requires a “specially trained super fit” rider.

Google’s new trikes will be deployed first in Genoa, Italy, this spring. Assuming that launch proves successful, Google will send its pedal-powered cameras to the United Kingdom, where they’ll point their lenses towards a slew of famous British landmarks. Have a good one in mind? Google says its open to suggestions and will be working with VisitBritain to pick the most desirable locations to shoot.

Of course, not everyone has taken kindly to being subjected to the all-seeing eye of Google, and being on a trike instead of in a vehicle makes these drivers vulnerable to angry Japanese and British people.  But, at least they’re not on foot like this guy.

Link [Auto Blog Green] via [Groovy Green]

Google Co-Founder Larry Page Building Green Mansion

Yet another gaudy “green” mansion is in the works in Palo Alto, California and it belongs to none other than Google co-founder Larry Page. Page is planning a 6,000-sq-ft “eco-friendly” four-bedroom GreenPoint-rated home on the lot next door to his current $7 million home.

From Earth2Tech, via Ecorazzi:

To be sure, Page plans to use some pretty cool stuff: Recycled materials that have low levels of volatile organic compounds (or none at all), a rooftop garden, solar panels, zinc cladding and pervious pavement, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. And the planned structure will likely take advantage of smart energy tools — IT technology that can help the homeowner better manage and reduce energy consumption — in particular Google’s PowerMeter.

Of course, this begs the question, WHY?  We’ve already asked whether a mansion be green at all and answered ourselves with a resounding “no”. While Page’s new digs won’t be nearly as ridiculous and anti-green as Acqua Liana, the Florida monstrosity being billed as an eco-friendly mansion, it’s still kind of silly. I mean, awesome, it’s gonna have solar panels and will be made partially from recycled materials, but how much room does one family need?  Building a massive second home right next to your current home isn’t green, no matter how many eco-friendly features you pack into it.

Link [Earth2Tech] via [Ecorazzi]
Photo credit: Intel

Google Rebuts Claims about CO2 Cost of Searches

The UK’s Times reported last Sunday that doing two searches on Google uses about as much energy as boiling a kettle of water, an allegation that Google is denying on their official blog. The information in theTimes article was supposedly based on research by Harvard University physicist Alex Wissner-Gross and delves into the “secrecy” of Google’s energy consumption and carbon footprint.

From the Times Online:

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates. When you type in a Google search for, say, “energy saving tips”, your request doesn’t go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other.

It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart. Google’s infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption. Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China.

Google responded by explaining on their blog why the “7g of CO2” number is “many times too high”.

Google is fast — a typical search returns results in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

In terms of greenhouse gases, one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2. The current EU standard for tailpipe emissions calls for 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, but most cars don’t reach that level yet. Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches.

On Monday, January 12th, Alex Wissner-Gross denied singling out Google, saying his study focuses on the internet in general and that the Times apparently had an ax to grind with Google. Tech News World has the scoop:

“Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes on average about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second to visit a Web site.”

And the example involving tea kettles? “They did that. I have no idea where they got those statistics,” Wissner-Gross said.

Wissner-Gross, who manages the Web site CO2stats.com to help educate people about energy efficiencies on the Internet, has been inundated with press requests since the Times story was published. The Times quoted him correctly in the story as saying, “A Google search has a definite environmental impact” and “Google operates huge data centers around the world that consume a great deal of power,” he confirmed.

“I don’t think anybody would disagree with those statements,” Wissner-Gross said. “Everything online has a definite environmental impact. I think everybody can agree on that, including Google.”

As Fast Company points out amidst all of these accusations and rebuttals, the real story here is that there is, and will continue to be, dialogue about the energy costs of the information age. It’s a reminder that there’s a carbon cost to everything we do on the computer, from watching videos to playing games. Awareness is spreading about how our use of such technology has an impact on the earth’s resources, and that will undoubtedly continue in the years to come.

Link [Times Online] + [Google] + [Tech News World] + [Fast Company]

Need Voting Info? Check “the Google”

Do you care about the environment? Then you care about this election. Check out the Google Maps voter guide where you can locate your polling place, get info about absentee ballots and make sure you’ll all set for Nov.4th. Remember, you’re not allowed to complain if you don’t vote!

[video via HeadsUp.tv]

Get Your Green Ideas to Google

Have you ever had a great idea that could help the planet but not enough cash to make it happen? Get your green ideas to Google’s Project 10^1000. It’s a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible.

From the website:

If you have an idea that you believe would help somebody, we want to hear about it. We’re looking for ideas that help as many people as possible, in any way, and we’re committing the funding to launch them. You can submit your ideas and help vote on ideas from others. Final idea selections will be made by an advisory board.

Google Considering Wave-Powered ‘Data Barges’

Google may be moving their data centers offshore (and toward green), if the patent they applied for is any indication. It seems as if they’re seeking to cut power costs and avoid paying property taxes by placing their supercomputers on barges anchored 3-7 miles offshore, where they would use wave energy to power and cool the computers.

The Times Online has it:

In the patent application seen by The Times, Google writes: “Computing centres are located on a ship or ships, anchored in a water body from which energy from natural motion of the water may be captured, and turned into electricity and/or pumping power for cooling pumps to carry heat away.”

The increasing number of data centres necessary to cope with the massive information flows generated on popular websites has prompted companies to look at radical ideas to reduce their running costs.

Data centres consumed 1 per cent of the world’s electricity in 2005. By 2020 the carbon footprint of the computers that run the internet will be larger than that of air travel, a recent study by McKinsey, a consultancy firm, and the Uptime Institute, a think tank, predicted.

Technology experts dubbed the offshore data barges ‘a computer army’, drawing reactions across the web with titles like, ‘If Google was Iran, wouldn’t we be scared right now?’  A lot of questions have arisen about the idea, including the fact that 7 miles offshore is within the jurisdiction of many states, the fact that security could be an issue and that having the exclusive right to attempt such a thing would prevent other companies from achieving similar carbon-cutting progress.  Google has refused to clarify the plan, saying they often file patent applications on ideas that may or may not ever become reality.

Seems like a pretty smart move to us.  If, as noted by The Times Online, the carbon footprint of these supercomputers could outweigh that of air travel, something should be done about it now, and the idea of using wave power is pretty innovative.

Link [The Times Online]

Green Search Engine Forestle Gets the Boot from Google

Just four days after it went public, green search engine Forestle was forced to shut down due to a decision by Google to end their partnership. Google claims that Forestle offered incentives to artificially click on sponsored links.  Forestle disagrees with Google’s assertion and says they’re working on getting the issue clarified so they can get back up and running.

The new green search engine delivered results through Google and money was made through sponsored advertising links at the top of each results page.  The site’s income from the sponsored links, minus administrative costs, goes to the Nature Conservancy’s Adopt an Acre program, which helps sustain rainforests.  Within four days of operation, Forestle says 15,000 total square yards of rainforest were saved.

From ars technica:

Forestle insists that, despite what Google thinks, it did not offer incentives to click on sponsored links or ads. At the top of every search result page, the company displayed a note explicitly saying not to click on Google sponsored links unless users are truly interested in them. “You harm Forestle, Google and the advertising websites with artificial clicking,” reads the warning. Apparently that’s not enough for Google, though, and perhaps the only incentive required to pull the plug is the mere admission that Forestle was making money on advertising that it planned to donate to charity.

Forestle goes on to accuse Google of ending the partnership because Forestle ‘became too successful’.  They’re asking users and bloggers to rally to bring them back, and to use another green search engine, Znout, in the meantime.  Znout doesn’t donate money to green charities, they just claim to reduce energy using black backgrounds (which doesn’t really work, by the way) and EcoServers.
Link [ars technica]