IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [E-impact] kWh/GB should be banned and the IETF should warn against its use

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 12 May 2023 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F202EC1522AD for <e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2023 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4_rfKT14CZt for <e-impact@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2023 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38CA7C1522A0 for <e-impact@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 34C8n5x4064929 for <e-impact@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 10:49:05 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A3AC6205957 for <e-impact@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 10:49:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996B020579A for <e-impact@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 10:49:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.32.70] (is156570.intra.cea.fr [10.8.32.70]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 34C8n59E048177 for <e-impact@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 10:49:05 +0200
Message-ID: <3348a82b-c5bc-5c13-4265-a4c257f10da7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 10:49:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.1
Content-Language: fr
To: e-impact@ietf.org
References: <CAPWZuKmxP3KEh0VQnEMz=-o8x1kuEdxUpLqifYvV8XGNh8kasA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPWZuKmxP3KEh0VQnEMz=-o8x1kuEdxUpLqifYvV8XGNh8kasA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/e-impact/ZTfbI05GYruLGnirgklxcx2rw48>
Subject: Re: [E-impact] kWh/GB should be banned and the IETF should warn against its use
X-BeenThere: e-impact@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Environmental impacts of the Internet <e-impact.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/e-impact>, <mailto:e-impact-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/e-impact/>
List-Post: <mailto:e-impact@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e-impact-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact>, <mailto:e-impact-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 08:49:09 -0000


Le 11/05/2023 à 12:24, Rudolf van der Berg a écrit :
> Dom Robinson looped me in and I now joined the mailing list.
> 
> I was surprised to see that kWh/GB and equivalents as measures of 
> electricity use of networks and sometimes wider; datacenters and 
> consumer electronics, are seriously mentioned by some people on this 
> list. kWh/GB is one of the most misleading and scientifically incorrect 
> ways of describing the energy use of networks.

Sure.

It could be kWGoh (short for (kW * Go)/h), or it could Joule per bit.

For qubits it would be different again.

Alex

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status