You can point to any administration in the government and make the same statement. They're mostly defensive administrations; making sure things aren't getting out of control. NASA almost by definition needs a technical project and problems to solve. They were never a defense administration keeping the status quo.
This is the correct take. The advice preceded the LLM boom. They were trained on the 'dump them' advice and proceeded to reinforce the take. So why did the relationship advice change dramatically? I speculate attribution to the disinformation campaigns during this time. They were and still are grossly underestimated.
How many querys are people going to be using though when they don't see the upfront costs? And how many querys would have been just as solved with a simple google search or wikipedia page that will instead/also be put through an llm and use extra power? Like if I search for the chocolate tempering temperature or the atomic number of tantalum, isn't all that energy just wasted on the companion llm results? It seems like it will add up.
I'll question it. Why does it exist? Why can't we just shut off the panels or dump excess energy into a metal rod? Why do we need to have a buyer at all?
It's not a buyer, people are paid to take the energy that would otherwise be wasted. And when energy use is shifted it means you need to generate less later, saving money.
The people who pay that cost to the people using the energy are people running energy generators that suffer wear and tear when they ramp down.
Or sometimes it's a subsidy for the use of clean energy being passed on to ensure the clean energy is actually used, not wasted.
Because otherwise the incentive structures for solar-as-baseload, sweeping the actual cost on the consumers, collapse. The system is built on putting equality sign between oversubscribed solar and coal/gas backups during times of undersubscription.
"Suddenly" is horrific evidence that the government has no idea how to do long-term plans.
Wait until you tell them you can run cars entirely on electricity from a solar farming. I'm sure they will ignore you until the price of diesel reaches four-digit territory. 1000p today? If only we didn't have to pay these incredible prices, what a miracle that would be..
It's not that government has no idea, it's that around the world, too many "leaders" are directly or strongly indirectly being enriched by the fossil fuel industry and their support industries.
So politicians have a choice: do what's right for the people, or gain more power/money for themselves. Not every one of them chooses poorly, but enough do that it is difficult for real progress to be made.
Don't forget the truly staggering amount of voters who seem to be ideologically opposed to energy independence and self delusion to support those bought politicians.
People earnestly and genuinely spout "But the birds" to wind installations. Why are they so intent on taking any possible excuse? Why do they need to have an opinion on something they know nothing about?
65W TDP? Let's say we want to run a PC so we're switching to a newer low-end Ryzen with a 35W TDP and that that's a 30W difference for the whole system. Let's say we're running the system 24/7 and the CPU is pulling its full TDP constantly. Average US residential electricity price is $0.18/kWh.
In the UK, residential electricity tariffs are currently capped by the regulator at 27.69p per kWh, resulting in a total yearly cost of £72.77. Much higher than in the US, but still much cheaper than a new PC.
Yup. But from the OP, all the information we have is the CPU model, and the GP decided that was enough to say it should be thrown in the trash for power inefficiency, so I thought it was enough for some bad math.
(FWIW, searching for the CPU model brings up an old review where the full system they’re testing pulls 145W under some amount of load. While that’s not nothing, it’s also not outrageous for a desktop PC that does the desktop PC things you require of it.)
So $50/yr for 4 years gives you ~$150 with $50 extra for shipping or whatever, which gets you a decent Lenovo M700 Tiny with much better performance in both power and power consumption.
I guess. It's hardly an open-and-shut case of "throw your old computer away!" though, especially when this is a worst-case scenario of running a desktop computer at full blast 24/7 without it ever going into sleep mode or being turned off, and when you don't know what the user's needs are. Maybe a mini-PC with basically no expansion just won't really work for them?
Watts in TDP are not the same as watts in electricity, although they're both measures of energy.
TDP is a thermal measurement, it's how much heat energy your heatsink and fan need to be able to dissipate to keep the unit within operational temperatures. It does not directly correlate to the amount of electricity consumed in operation.
An interesting point. Some random measurement gets 49W idle[1] which is probably close enough. I don't constantly compile stuff or stream video. At my local electricity rate of $0.072/kWh that works out to $31USD/year.
New systems idle at something like 25 Watts according to a lazy search. So 49-25=24W. That works out to $15/year hypothetically saved by going to a newer system. But I live in a cold climate and the heating season is something like half the year. But I only pay something like half as much for gas heat as opposed to electric heat. So let's just knock a quarter off and end up with 15-(15/4)=$11.25USD hypothetically saved per year. I will leave it here as I don't know how much the hypothetical alternative computer would cost and, as already mentioned, I don't care.
reply