Is SETI@Home an environmental catastrophe?

Question

OK I once tried SETI@home until I got my next utility bill, and realized that running my computer full speed 24/7 was costing me $30 a month. Is SETI@home the cause of global warming? Doesn't it waste enough electricity every year to power all of France? All to find aliens who aren't at home? Should it be banned by some kind of international treaty?

Answer 1

Well, that's a good point, that is a lot of power for something that may be flawed to begin with. The entire SETI project presumes that we'll detect "recognizably alien" signals from outer space, but it's fallacious to believe that we have the simple capability of doing that by checking for "non-randomness" in the signals. Advanced civilizations are are far more likely to maximize information transfer in any of their signals, which means that to us, such signals would appear to be entirely random, like static. We could be already be picking up "alien signals", and not even know it, because it appears to be static to us. A litlte known fact is that signals of maximum data compression passes statistical tests of randomness.

Answer 2

That is an extremely valid point and one that I had never considered. The same with other "shared / distributed" programs that work in a similar way.

The cause of global warming - no - but something of a contributor - then almost certainly yes. I forget how many hundreds of thousands of machines work on SETI - or is it MILLIONS now ?

It does indeed increase power consumption as an idling processor does not get anywhere near as hot as one working full tilt.

Not *quite* sure I like the idea of banning things - but certainly I think it would be helpful to make people aware of the actual cost (in terms of money and Co2) in running SETI and other programs 24/7 on an otherwise idling PC

Mark


*update* with regard to folks not seeing a difference in their bills, it may not be a dramatic one - but it is a simple statement of fact that a processor working at capcity (default SETI setting) uses VASTLY more energy than one idling.

If your electricity bill is perhaps £300 a quarter, you might not really spot the extra £18.37 down to the PC - or as you have used the a/c less, it might even be a smaller bill than last quarter's.

**UPDATE 2 **

Seti by default does have the PC run in economy mode - the whole POINT is to take advantage of spare processing power - and anyone who thinks a decent processor uses 5W of power when going full tilt needs to have their bumps felt. You don't have a MASSIVE heatsink AND a fan struggling to keep the thing from frying for the sake of 5 Watts.

Typically a CPU under full load will use between 50 and 70 watts - google for CPU power consumption if you wish to dispute. This in addition to the hard drive, fans, and sundry other bits and bobs. Not a huge amount of power I grant you, but there IS a difference from tickover and "full processing power" .

Answer 3

A 100 W bulb left on for a full month = 1 kWh for 10 h, 2.4 kWh per day = 74.4 kWh per month = $10. per month.

Maybe your computer should be banned.

Mine uses less than 30 W when it is in economic mode (running without showing anything on the screen), so that it costs me a lot less.

Also, I work on the computer over 10 hours a day, so that SETI actually costs me $2 a month for the other 14 hours a day.

Having said that, this is something that we discussed in another group. The majority agrees that SETI is OK if you run it in the background but that you should not leave your computer on just for SETI (or BOINC). I am in the minority who thinks it is OK because my computer does not use much power to run it when in economic mode.

---

Reading other answers, I suddenly realise that the extra power is not wasted for 6 months a year: I'd have to heat the house a bit more to compensate for the missing 30 W. Maybe I should stop running it in the summer.

Answer 4

The cause of global warming? Of course not.

But it is wasting energy if you are leaving the computer on 24/7 just so SETI@home can run.

There is a possibility of finding something interesting though, and while the chances are slim, those chances drop to zero if we don't look at all.

The real question is: is it worth it to look? What about other distributed computing projects, like Folding@home?

Answer 5

Here's a clue for you...what you do with your computer hardly makes a difference on how much power it uses. It all depends how much stuff you have plugged into it...processors themselves use a miniscule amount of power. We're talking like 5 watts. It's unlikely to cost you more than a ten bucks a year for full time 100% processing power.

Did it not occur to you that your electricity bill varies for many more reasons than your computer usage? Worldwide, power used computers is a small fraction of one percent. It simply is not the environmental issue that you sarcastically suggest.

Answer 6

When compared with the huge amounts of energy used for other things, such as launching a rocket, or even the amount of energy all living things produce as a result of cellular respiration (just living), the amount of thermal energy caused by running our computers is really so little it's not making much difference.

The real problem is the gasses that trap thermal energy from the sun. The sun gives us WAY WAY too much energy, and we usually bounce back all but one millionth of it (maybe not 1 millionth, but some miniscule number like 1/10000 or something, I can't remember) but when those gasses are trapping more energy, even just a little bit more, that is much more than we use by running computers.

Answer 7

Numerous people I know run SETI@home on their computers and none have ever seen any increase in their energy bills. None.

Answer 8

Oh come ON! There is no way that it is THE one and only cause of global warming. But if you find it a waste of energy, feel free not to participate. I don't.

Answer 9

ban it and stop scientific progress!? why

If someone has PAID the utility bill for the satellites in the project that search the sky, what's the big deal?

Answer 10

Dude, turn the screen off at night....