Computing for the Future of the Planet.

On 25th June 2103 I attended this presentation by Andy Hopper, President of the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) and director of the Cambridge University Computer Laboratory, as part of the York Festival of Ideas. This is what I learnt.

It’s about the crossover between computing and sustainability. It’s not the answer to sustainability but it is a contribution to the answer to sustainability. 

Green Computing 

Green computing is about establishing an optimal digital infrastructure. For example, 3-4% of the world’s total energy is used by computers and communications. How much of this energy consumption can be offset? Prof Hopper described how technology can be used to move the processing load around the world to where surplus energy is available. Renewable energy is notorious for intermittence. Sometimes power is generated but there is no use for it so it is wasted. If data centres are located close to sources of renewable energy these surpluses can be used. Global networks permit processing to be carried out wherever this “free” energy is available. Google, which alone has some 1.5 million servers, is already using software to carry this out automatically.

Data centres can be designed for economy and efficiency and computer architecture can be built so that instead of having two extreme states – standby and full power – there can be a proportionate increase or decrease in computer usage as processing demand fluctuates. Increasing hardware performance and more interconnected devices will improve energy efficiency. Workload trends will also affect energy consumption - increases in batch processing and increasing amounts of data produced and consumed. Recognising that not all processing is needed on demand but that some can be scheduled to smooth peaks and troughs will also improve efficiency.

All these measures could lead to future energy savings of 15-20%.

Computing for Green

Having established the most green and efficient computing infrastructure, how do we use this to green the rest of society? Professor Hopper talked of a “Google of Everything” - a universal data resource available to all and with information about everyone and everything. For example, Google Street View could be adapted to give an infra-red view and to immediately reveal where houses are losing heat. This is a first step to saving energy on heating. He told us about Ubisense, a system for tracking objects in three dimensions with an accuracy of  15cm. This is used by BMW not only to track assembly equipment, but also to programme it according to its next task. As the unit approaches a nut it is programmed with the number of turns it should give and the required torque. As it moves to the next nut the system automatically re-programmes it. The result is increased efficiency - more accuracy, less manual intervention, time saved. Accurate tracking already saves money and improves efficiency for Airbus, in public transport depots, dairy farms, distribution centres and convalescent homes.

The big question is how far we go to track ourselves. It is possible to track an individual’s energy footprint, carbon footprint or water footprint. It is also theoretically possible to track an individual’s location to a very high degree of accuracy. With data as detailed as this we can take action to control the use of energy, carbon or water. This would include managing services within buildings according to their occupation and use, monitored in real time. We can give people feedback and tailored incentives. Other sorts of wearable sensors could monitor an individual’s state of health, so if they felt unwell they could go to the doctor and provide a read-out to help him make a diagnosis. (Or maybe the sensor detects a life-threatening condition and automatically calls the ambulance!) A major obstacle to this is the trust issue. Will people believe that their privacy is respected and trust their governments with their data? Just at the moment, with the GCHQ and PRISM issues, evidence of cover-ups and secrecy in the NHS and the police and a legal system way behind technological reality, many people will refuse to participate.

Another example of the benefits of technology is the electronic shoe. A shoe with strain gauges built in to analyse the gait of the runner accelerating, cruising and slowing down. Valuable information for trainers, but an adaptation could monitor the runner’s weight and send an alarm if it fell out side the normal range. Raspberry Pi, the ultra-cheap computer, gives today’s youth an introduction to computing and makes them aware of the threats to privacy from surveillance and hackers. At the same time, this generation is totally relaxed about posting almost anything on Facebook - the bad and the good for all to see for all time. Smartphones, particularly with location services enabled, potentially compromise privacy. However, it is now possible to use fake data when requested by apps, to get the service without giving away private details. But how long before this “mocking” can be detected?

Will we demand privacy and restrict data which could otherwise improve sustainability - consumption patterns, energy use etc? Trends indicate that we will allow our privacy to be gradually eroded. After all, caller ID was once thought to be the work of the devil and now everyone takes it for granted.

Assured Computing

Computer systems are now crucial to society. They are like a pacemaker for the planet: we cannot afford them to stop. We can use more detailed knowledge of ourselves and the way we use the world to take measures to tackle global warming, traffic management and energy demand. However, the more data we manage, the more challenges arise. What parameters of error can we accept? Is there a clear audit trail to authenticate the data? How can we assure privacy and security? 

For the future, Professor Hopper looked forward to robust, self-correcting energy management and mapping systems on a global scale. He’d like to see a method of absolutely removing an image from the internet. At present, nothing can be revoked. Those party pictures you posted on Facebook are there for ever. He’d like to see an application which analyses the correctness of news. He called it a virtual BBC “More or Less”. [More or Less is a BBC Radio 4 series which picks out statistics in the news and shows how they have been twisted, misquoted or wilfully misunderstood.]

Wealth in Cyberspace

This last section of the presentation was quite difficult to understand. Our speaker mentioned an “Ebay for all”. Does he mean that the internet will provide everything we ever need. That we’ll shop on line, meet up on line and have all our life experiences on line? Will we no longer need to travel? He suggested that the developing world could go straight to this state of data abundance, without going through the stages that the developed world passed through.

Not altogether sure what he meant here. Has he read “The Machine Stops” by E M Forster, I wonder? (Perhaps Ross Noble has read it, although it doesn’t mention moles.)

Liberal Helping

As the LibDem conference comes to a close we’ve seen another expression of green policies. The LibDems are particularly upset, because alone of the three major parties they have been talking about environmental issues for years. Both Labour and the Conservatives now have a green agenda, but the worrying thing is that there’s no consensus.

Measures that will really make a difference to our carbon emissions will not be popular with the voters. Two million signed a Downing Street petition against road pricing, and last week I saw one of those chain emails claiming that high petrol prices were an oil company conspiracy and we could drive prices down to 69p a litre if we only stopped buying from Esso and BP. If all the political parties adopted the same policies on the environment then elections would change nothing. Unfortunately there is still argument between the parties – and argument within parties. One LibDem was heard to say that green policies were about as realistic as perpetual motion! More public education clearly needed.

And will the parties stop arguing about green issues and work together to actually do something? As the Labour Party gathers for this week’s conference we can only wait and see.

More on Biofuels

We can't just write off biofuels, but we can't accept them blindly either. My view is that there are only three solutions to the coming energy crisis: reduce, reduce and reduce. (Yes I know it's an old one) Once we have minimised our fuel use, where do we get the remainder from?

In some circumstances biofuels are economically viable, but in some cases they are not. US farmers are heavily subsidised to grow crops for bio-ethanol, but it is very doubtful that the energy in the bio-fuel exceeds the energy needed to plough the fields, fertilise the crop, irrigate it, spray it against diseases and pests (and produce and deliver the fertilisers and insecticides to the farm), harvest it, process it and deliver it to the refinery and then refine it. It's good business for US farmers, but it's pushed up the world price of wheat which is affecting UK pig farmers and third-world countries trying to buy food.

Have you seen this month's Ecologist magazine? An article talks about how Colombia is becoming a major producer of African oil palm, a biofuel plant. This development is supported by the US and the EU, and on the face of it, it's attractive. It provides a source of green fuel (plant growth is more effective in warmer Colombia) and it can displace some of the drug barons' coca crops. The drug barons see an opportunity too. They are taking over the land, if necessary driving out the local farmers at gunpoint, and planting the oil palms. The government plans to cover an area twice the size of Belgium with the trees. If necessary they cut down the rain forest. Mono culture is rarely viable, and before long the land is exhausted and turned to scrubland. The rain forest has been destroyed, the ecosystems have been destroyed, the livelihood of the local people has been destroyed and the possibility of growing more biofuel crops on that land has been destroyed - and for what? To allow Westerners to continue to drive highly inefficient vehicles!

Our fatal assumption is that we will be able to continue with our present lifestyle and continue to enjoy the same access to energy, but just get it from different sources. There is a serious risk that if we don't wake up to reality, and if chase solutions without thinking through their consequences, we will destroy the planet faster than ever before!

Have we got the energy?

I received a post today asking why I thought that renewable energy could only ever account for about 20% of our total requirements. Surely if we cut our total energy use that proportion could be greater? I also said that microgeneration could actually increae co2 emissions. Why?

Here's my answer:

"I suggest you read "Energy beyond oil" by Paul Mobbs which is an excellent review of our energy options - and challenges. It explains all the technical issues in detail but in a very readable form.

Yes, I agree we can go a long way towards reducing our energy demand, but in spite of those people who are already cutting down, UK energy demand continues to grow. We will have to make life-changing decisions to really have an effect. The problem with renewables - wind, wave, tide and solar - is that they are intermittent and cannot be controlled to match the fluctuating demand from the grid. Indeed, if they account for a major proportion of electricity production they provide great difficulties for the grid controllers who have to deal not only with fluctuating demand but fluctuating supply as well. If they can't balance supply and demand the risk is that the grid becomes unstable with cascading failures and power cuts. Biomass and biogas are renewables which can provide power 24/7 and are controllable, but the problem here is that growing biofuel crops competes for land where food is grown (or in some cases where rain forest grows) and the planting, harvesting, processing and transporting of biofuel all takes energy so biofuel is not carbon neutral and some studies have suggested that the process absorbs more energy than it yields.

Microgeneration? Microgeneration of electricity comes from wind or solar. Micro-hydro is possible, but very, very few people will have a suitable water source. In all cases we must look at the total life cycle, which includes the energy used and CO2 emitted in the manufacture, installation and disposal of the turbine or solar panel. Unless the unit saves more CO2 during its useful life than is emitted at these stages, it is actually contributing to CO2, not saving it. A wind turbine needs a steady flow at about 10-12 metres per second. If you go to the DTI wind speed database you will find the average speed for your postcode. The average is only about 6mps. A turbine running at 6mps produces a lot less than half the electricity of a unit at 12mps - it is not a simple straight-line relationship. The other problem - which rules turbines out for most urban locations - is turbulence. Trees, roofs, chimneys and lamposts all cause turbulence which means the airflow - and direction - is constantly changing. The turbine may overspeed, which will damage it, or run too slowly to produce any power. If it is swinging backwards and forwards in the gusts it will not produce a useful output. Once you have the electricity you either have to convert it to ac and transform it to mains voltage (a process absorbing energy) or use it to charge a battery. In the second case you have the additional cost of the battery and of your low-voltage dc lighting circuit or whatever you are using, together with the CO2 emissions involved in manufacturing this kit. In the first case you can sell electricity back to the grid if you aren't using it, but the bit left after transformation and rectification will be subject to further losses in the grid and you will be paid only 4p per unit compared with the 10 or 15p it will cost you to buy it back.

Solar panels have the same problems of rectification and transformation if you go for mains voltage and the same extra costs of batteries etc if you go for low voltage dc. I believe the disposal of solar panels is problematical because of the heavy metals and rare elements they contain. In fact the increasing scarcity of such substances will probably severely limit the availability of solar panels.

Sorry this is such a long answer. Hope it makes sense!"

Electric Dreams

Johan Hari has an article in today's Independent called "Big Oil's vendetta against the electric car."

You have to admit that Johan Hari writes a good conspiracy. A lot of what he says is true, but it’s only part of the story. Electric cars are clean and silent, but only because the pollution and noise are generated at the power stations. Over 50% of the energy input to a conventional power station is lost in the process and more energy is lost as it travels across the grid, making electric cars very inefficient. Of course he may claim that we should be using green energy, but we would need to double our total electricity output to meet our transport needs. With only 4% of electricity coming from renewables at present – mostly from landfill gas and waste incineration – there is a long way to go.

The capacity of the grid would have to be doubled as well; will Mr Hari accept twice as many pylons? The other problem is that many of us have to park on the street and could not plug in our cars “like a mobile phone.” However, assuming you could charge your car and drive from London to Scotland as he claims, a 300 mile range would still leave you 100 miles short of Edinburgh.

The quoted fuel economy is impressive. Mr Hari tells us that he can buy the electrical equivalent of a gallon of petrol for only 30p. Given that a gallon of petrol contains 36kWh of energy, that is equal to less than 1p per unit. Can he tell us the name of his power supplier?