In some homes, the electricity used to power computers is already a significant fraction of total household power used. If a carbon tax were applied to the natural gas bonanza from fracking, prices would discourage buying just straight additional CPUs, in favour of making better use of the CPU speed we have already—it would simply be uneconomic for a company to run 100 times the CPU power it currently does.
EDITED TO ADD:
I guess I should expand on my reasoning a little.
Moore’s law continues, in part, because there is the demand for additional computing power (as well as the expectation that it will keep getting cheaper). Reduce the demand, and you reduce the pressure for the law to be continued.
There’s near infinite demand for increased computing power, so trying to suppress the demand part of the equation might at first seem a dead loss. However compare it to cars. People like cars that can drive fast. So why isn’t the top speed of all cars 180 mph, now that technology can achieve that and more? The reason isn’t just the purchase price of the car (which is what Moore’s law covers—the price per cpu power purchased). The reason is also the cost of running the car. Engines designed for speed use lots of fuel. Having an 4 litre engine in their car is uneconomic for many families.
Keeping a server on for a year costs about $200 in electricity. source. Unless the energy efficiency per CPU dramatically improves, a server with 10 times the computing power would be more expensive, one 100 times would be more expensive still, etc. At some point, more computing power (desirable though that is) is no longer affordable in terms of what it costs to run. And the higher energy prices are, the sooner we reach that point.
I mentioned fracking because that’s the reason the American price of natural gas (which fuels many power stations) has more than halved in the last few years. A carbon tax might be one method of reversing that price increase.
I know, not a major effect, but it could be a contributing factor, give us a few years grace. shrugs
Actually, the current trend in CPU development is minor (10%-20%) performance increases at same or lower power usage levels. The efficiency is improving dramatically.
In some homes, the electricity used to power computers is already a significant fraction of total household power used. If a carbon tax were applied to the natural gas bonanza from fracking, prices would discourage buying just straight additional CPUs, in favour of making better use of the CPU speed we have already—it would simply be uneconomic for a company to run 100 times the CPU power it currently does.
EDITED TO ADD:
I guess I should expand on my reasoning a little.
Moore’s law continues, in part, because there is the demand for additional computing power (as well as the expectation that it will keep getting cheaper). Reduce the demand, and you reduce the pressure for the law to be continued.
There’s near infinite demand for increased computing power, so trying to suppress the demand part of the equation might at first seem a dead loss. However compare it to cars. People like cars that can drive fast. So why isn’t the top speed of all cars 180 mph, now that technology can achieve that and more? The reason isn’t just the purchase price of the car (which is what Moore’s law covers—the price per cpu power purchased). The reason is also the cost of running the car. Engines designed for speed use lots of fuel. Having an 4 litre engine in their car is uneconomic for many families.
Keeping a server on for a year costs about $200 in electricity. source. Unless the energy efficiency per CPU dramatically improves, a server with 10 times the computing power would be more expensive, one 100 times would be more expensive still, etc. At some point, more computing power (desirable though that is) is no longer affordable in terms of what it costs to run. And the higher energy prices are, the sooner we reach that point.
I mentioned fracking because that’s the reason the American price of natural gas (which fuels many power stations) has more than halved in the last few years. A carbon tax might be one method of reversing that price increase.
I know, not a major effect, but it could be a contributing factor, give us a few years grace. shrugs
Actually, the current trend in CPU development is minor (10%-20%) performance increases at same or lower power usage levels. The efficiency is improving dramatically.