NAS & electric energy consumption or impact to pocket/environment

[jeyare]

Intro:
in these days, when people trying find a way how to be more energy efficient, usage of green sources is important. No doubt.
But what is impact of NAS usage to this environment? I would like open this topic and discussion about your experiences (no political, no orthodox green driven).

Basics:
Absorbed or Incoming or Input power ... is measured continuously value from your device expressed in Watts (W)
Max. Input power ... is peak of consumed energy taken by the device (max. load from all NAS resources) during certain period
I will avoid description of power factor and others, driven by simplifying.
Input power measured over time of the consumption is expressed in Watt hours (Wh).

Then, how I know how is my NAS exact Power input? Two ways description:
- Socket power meter, able to measure not just real Input power in W but also in time to Wh (sure in kWh or MWh), but also Max Input power and others (incl. Power factor)
- Single Phase Electricity Sub Meter, it’s designed to be installed at your electricity switch board or meter board. But there is just cumulative measure.
Of course, there is another “laboratory” equipped device range for precise measurements, but I believe that it isn’t common in consumer segment.
This is one of my problem, that I need to find a place in my rack for the Power meters for every single NASs.

So, an example of (white paper based) consumption of the NAS - Synology DS918+(frequently used in this forum)
Follow Synology specs, you can find two Power consumption definitions:
- 28.8 W (Access), Power consumption is measured when it's fully loaded with Western Digital 1TB WD10EFRX hard drive(s).
- 12.6 W (HDD Hibernation), w/o details of measurement

It is miss-leading information or an interpretation by some consumers that the “Access” Power consumption (or Input power):
- is/should be the Max. Input power. No. It’s just measured value during such “Synology laboratory” environment, because we don’t know how was precise load of major system resources, packages also HW parts (energy eaters).
- your NAS average Power input. No, by same reason as for Max. Input power (there is no same operation conditions).
But driven by simplification, I will use the Synology data (extrapolation).

Energy eaters in NAS = disks
Just to be sure, there is also miss-leading information or an interpretation by some consumers that the SSD is better from HDD follow energy consumption. Up to models.
An example:
1. SSD Idle power draw is from 0.1 to 0.6W
2. 3.5"HDD Idle power draw is from 4 to 6W, but 2.5" from 0.7 to 3W
but
3. SSD Max Power Draw is from 2 to 4W
4. 3.5"HDD Max Power Draw is from 6 to 10W
In year comparison is saving (from max power draws) of singe SSD for 24h x 365 days:
in max difference 10w(HDD) - 4W(SSD) x 24 x 365 = 52.56kWh what is approx. (up to country pricing) 25-53 Euro per year per disk in usage
in average difference 8w(HDD) - 3W(SSD) x 24 x 365 = 43.8kWh what is approx. (up to country pricing) 21-44 Euro per year per disk in usage
The real saving is better when you calculate a hibernation time.

Back to DS918+ model.
For base I will use 24h cycle and 365days of Access power input 28.8W (DS918+) =252 288 Wh = 252 kWh per year.
But when you look into previous information from Synology product spec., it was "measured" when the NAS was fully loaded with Western Digital 1TB WD10EFRX hard drive(s). But this nas has 4 bays. OK lets check WD product page:
Read/write 3.7W
Idle 3.2W
Standby 0.6W
Sleep 0.6W
... then 3.7W x 4 HDDs = 14.8W
... then the NAS itself consumes 28.8W -14.8W = 14W. The question is WHEN? E.g. during 25% of CPU and 30% of RAM utilization, average disk I/O, 4k/128k blocks W/R? By what scenario? E.g. full HP, ....

NAS Hibernation
What is Input power reduction when you will use the hibernation? When your NAS is hibernating for:
1. 12hours from 24h cycle = you will save = 28.8W(or more by tour real environment and measurements) - 12.6W(hibernation) =16.2W x 12h x 365d = 71 kWh per year
2. 8hours from 24h cycle = you will save 16.2W x 8h x 365d = 47 kWh per year
again it is up to your country specific prices of kWh in total currency amount saving.

Impact to out life environment
You have to count that every single consumed W must be produced by specific kind of technology. A there is another point of view.
When you multiply this 12h saving from the hibernation 71 kWh/per ingle NAS (DS918+) with e.g. 100 000 installed NASs base = 71kWh x 100 000 = 7.1TWh per year of energy savings.
Then you multiply this 7.1TWh by your country average CO2 emmision per kWh factor and you will see how many Tons of CO2 we can save per year.
As a rough guide what kind of energy production has a carbon intensity:
- coal based 1,000g CO2/kWh = 7.1T of CO2
- oil is 800g CO2/kWh = 5.7T of CO2
- natural gas is around 500g CO2/kWh = 3.55T of CO2
- while hydro, wind and solar are all less than 30g CO2/kWh = 0,21T of CO2
- to be sure nuclear power is less than 15g CO2/kWh = 0,11T of CO2
what a difference!

In comparison with average petrol car consumption:
When petrol has 2392g CO2 emmision per liter
An average consumption of 6 liters/100 km then corresponds to 6 l x 2392 g/l / 100 (per km) = 143.5 g CO2/km,
then 43.056kg CO2 per average 30k km/year is emitted to air by single petrol car

then 100 000 installed NASs with 12h hibernation cycle per day have saving yearly impact as 164 902 petrol cars excluded from roads.

This topic isn't about how to save our planet, or how to change petrol/diesel cars to EVs (EVs have brutal impact to environment from same reason = kind of electricity plant technology). It just point to imagination about the electricity consumption of your NAS. Cheers

 

[jeyare]

Update
of course, you can calculate also with controlled switch off (DSM task manager). Then you can save more than declared 28.8Wh (still I can't trust that the NAS draws 14kWh only, needs a measurement) = Expected total impact is about 12.6 TWh/year (100 000 NAs). How to produce such huge amount of energy by some Green energy sources. Here is another point of view to your imagination.

1. solar (Photovoltaics) energy plant, when single panel (1.6m2) will produce 250Wp & 1kWp produce in (CEE) max. 1.2MWh/y then we need 12.6TWh / 1.2MWh = 10 512 x 1.6 = 17 km2 of fully covered agricultural land solar panels. There is no calculated loses e.g. clouds shadings (up to 80%), Inverter losses (4% to10%), Temperature losses (5% to 20%), Losses at weak radiation (5% to 20%), etc. Then in real life you need more than twice = 34 km2 fully covered land. Still w/o calculated space for operation/maintenance between panels, secure zone, etc. What is again more than twice that just for the panels, then finally we need 64km2 covered agricultural land by solar panels just for 100 000 NAS (DS918+) that will run just for 12h/day (365d cycle).
Why I use the term - covered agricultural land? It is simple, the solar panel we can put (in Europe) just to:
- agricultural land
- or we need cut down forest.
Sun/clouds are unpredictable (long term) and the availability of solar energy is not constant. Also Efficiency of solar panels will go down every year (approx -1%), then every 10y you need 10% more panels/space for same energy production (where to take it?). This kind of energy is therefore not well suited as a base load energy source. Try to ask someone from energy distribution networks about troubles with control of unbalanced solar energy (I'm working with some prediction projects for them).
But we have in usage more electrical tools. Still except mentioning of EVs impact.
This is highway to hell, just to time, when we reinvent better kind of Photovoltaics plants. Except countries with specific conditions.

2. wind energy plant is in same way. Not a solution for every countries. Why:
Cut in wind speed - This is the wind speed at which the wind turbine will start generating power— typical cut-in wind speeds are 3 to 5 m/s.
Nominal wind speed: This is the lowest speed at which the wind turbine reaches its nominal power output. Above this speed, higher power outputs are possible, but the rotor is controlled to maintain a constant power to limit loads and stresses on the blades.
I will use Vetas V82 wind turbine (82m diameter) with 1,65kW that can produce 3 800MWh/year in land where is 25% capacity factor (number of windy hours with > nominal wind speed). Then for these 100 000 NASs (DS918+) that will run just for 12h/day (365d cycle) we need build 12.6 TWh/year / 0.0038TWh = 3 316 Wind turbines. When we will use relation 4MW of installed power per 1 km2, then we need 4/1.6 = 2.4 turbines per km2 = 3316 turbines / 2.4 = 1 382km2 of covered agricultural land (except coastal area). Then no way for every single country. Same as in Solar, wind is unpredictable (long term) and the availability of solar energy is not constant. Except countries with specific conditions.

3. Nuclear power plant (NPP). I know that Chernobil was catastrophe. No doubt. But there is single solution that can help us to alive the energy eating period of this civilization - avg 450MW of installed power per reactor can provide 3.5TWh/yearly per single reactor (frequently 2 or 4 reactor in single plant), include all regulatory required maintenance/controlled shutdown (30d per year). It will takes 6km2 only and provides 14TWh/yearly.

I think wee need to be educated first and after we can speak about pros a cons of energy consumption impact, e.g. of our NASs.

 

[WST16]

Wow man! You did all this for the NAS! Interesting.
Can we go over the fridge now?

 

[jeyare]

this topic was driven by this chart from Germany:

they are fighting for car green gas emissions, but more important are emissions from the energy production sources, specially from coal in Germany. So they have plan how to close Coal power plants until 2038, they will stop produce power from Nuclear power plant from 2022. And they will build up Wind and Solar power plants as an alternative. Seems to be eating of solar panels instead of potatoes will be next gen development. Because replacement of power supply from coals + new sources for EVs boom will eat more agricultural lands. Math and physics are clear. What about rest of countries?
How is it in relation to NAS? Non efficient electricity consumption make an impact to our environment, also by NAS. That was my idea to leave full spinners club.

 

[WST16]

Check the latest issue of The Economist.

 

[jeyare]

have you seen - announcement of Google re their biggest renewable energy purchase ever? If you will read carefully, they just purchase a future consumption of base power 1600MW from wind and solar power plant sources (US, Chile and EU).
What is not clear, if it is nominal power, or final calculated consumption base.
However, it is a lot of power source devices:
- 969 696 wind turbines per 1,65kW of nominal power or 2-4x more for final consumption. With unpredictable efficiency of supply.
- or just 4 nuclear reactors in 6km2 land coverage, with stable supply. Zero emission.
Save forest, kill the beavers.

 

[WST16]

Apple-launched China Clean Energy Fund Invests in Three Wind Farms.

 

[jeyare]

week of digital silence
and some interesting link to this topic - here

 

[jeyare]

I like the planet saving attitude, but the last hallooo effort from the Greta group is out of my approach:
- Greta used 60ft racing yacht
- the hull is build from composite and GRP(fibre glass)
- then just for a production of 1kg fibre glass you will produce new 1kg of CO2, or 0.3-0.8kg of CO2 for carbon fibre are emitted to atmosphere, plus additional nitrogen oxide and dioxide (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), chloride, fluoride, volatile organic compounds (VOC), ...
- Furthermore 17 GJ of power are consumed for every tonne of melted glass. What is equal to 4.72MWh of electric energy. Or 150MJ (42kWh) for 1kg of carbon fiber.
-still not about how much energy (CO2 emitters) was consumed during the vessel build
- and what about a recycling of unused or damaged vessels (specially recycling of fibreglass and polyesters? From CO2 point of view, of course.
- majority of personal or pleasure craft vessels have also diesel or petrol engine.

Summary:
7000kg hull of similar sailing yacht produces min. 7 tons of CO2, just for material production. What is an equivalent of 53846km used by average personal vehicle. Or 13 fully loaded 737-400 each 6h in air. Again, just related to the material production.

So we can switch all transport activities from aircrafts to vessels, but we can’t save CO2 emission increase by this way. It is a mistake.

An advice for Greta, there is no positive evaluation for wooden or aluminum hulls. Inside out, it is worse.
Woden, because forest killing will kill us also.
Aluminum, because there is 15:1 ratio (15kg CO2).

 

[WST16]

I think you shouldn’t be bothered by all this. Just turn the TV to any news channel, you’ll see that the world has gone mad. The end is soon.

 

[durin]

Not sure why cutting down a tree to build a boat increases CO2 emissions. Granted, if the wood was burned, it would. But if it's used to build a boat it will continue to bind the carbon. And as long as the cut down trees are replaced with freshly replanted trees, those in turn will continue to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

On aluminium, it clearly depends on where it is produced. If it's sourced from Iceland, where aluminium is produced using thermal energy, its carbon impact is zero. If it's in China or the US, where a decent chunk of electricity output comes from coal, then it will clearly have a bigger carbon footprint.

Also, once you've built the sailing boat it will produce zero additional carbon in during use. A plane, by contrast, won't. So even if you don't save any emissions in the construction phase, you most certainly will while using the thing.

Just like the initial production emissions of an electric vehicle will be larger than those of an equivalent petrol/diesel car (due to the emissions from producing the batteries), but they will emit a lot less (around 50% less according to the US Union of Concerned Scientists) over the lifetime of the vehicle. And as electricity generation shifts towards increasingly zero carbon sources, the emissions savings of an EV vs. a fossil fuel car will increase.

 

[jeyare]

I think you shouldn’t be bothered by all this. Just turn the TV to any news channel, you’ll see that the world has gone mad. The end is soon.

bothered, no
just thinking about relations and causalities when hypothesis is evaluated
“stop the aicraft use more eco-boats”
as sailor I know, that there is lot of opened questions- what is eco in the sailing environment. Specially in operation side.

 

[Telos]

I use my NAS to heat the house in cold season, and to provide hot water. Quite the green beast it is

 

[jeyare]

Not sure why cutting down a tree to build a boat increases CO2 emissions. Granted, if the wood was burned, it would. But if it's used to build a boat it will continue to bind the carbon. And as long as the cut down trees are replaced with freshly replanted trees, those in turn will continue to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

the answer is simple, a guide:
- every tree has volumetric weight, e.g. 0.7t/m3 for adult spruce
- adult forest contains approx. 500-600 m3 of spruce wooden mass per 1ha (hectare)
- 10ha = 1km2
- adult forest for lumber mature +30years (2-3feets/y in first 25years, then slowly)
- each wood is mainly composed of atoms Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon
- molecule weight of CO2 is also known, then adult spruce is absorbing approx. 0.7t of CO2 per single adult tree

... but the young tree needs additional 30y for this performance. Then freshly replanted tree have just miniature ability to replace adult tree CO2 capture.
Of course, we need “rebuild” forests.

 

[jeyare]

On aluminium, it clearly depends on where it is produced. If it's sourced from Iceland, where aluminium is produced using thermal energy, its carbon impact is zero. If it's in China or the US, where a decent chunk of electricity output comes from coal, then it will clearly have a bigger carbon footprint.

Iceland annual production of Aluminum (870k mT) is pea-nut or statistical error in compare of rest countries (total 60000k mT). Then the Aluminum boats are really not eco.

 

[jeyare]

Also, once you've built the sailing boat it will produce zero additional carbon in during use. A plane, by contrast, won't. So even if you don't save any emissions in the construction phase, you most certainly will while using the thing.

Nope. Just few point of view from practice:
- pleasure sailing boats used for personal or business (chartering) are most widespread boats over world
- most of them use diesel engine (minority petrol) for a movement w/o sails
- people are impatient when lost a wind, then they use the engine for a movement. Specially in party boats, as I call pleasure catamarans with sails, but running wit engines (two) only.
- for all of them it’s valid for a port maneuvering = the engine usage
- all the pleasure boats have batteries, frequently more than 3 independent circuits (single circuit has single or more batteries), up to setup (fridges, navigation instruments,/lights, aux, engine, ...).
- the batteries need to be charged. During a cruise most commonly by the diesel engine. In port, by electric power generated by power plant - as we know frequently as dirty CO2 emission issuers.
Then major part of such pleasure sailing boats aren’t emission free.
Yes I have seen few exceptions. But just few.
Yes there is an approach to replace diesels in sailing boats by electric engines. But there is still same problem = batteries and recharge. Or weight of the batteries and boat performance, price, ... Etc.

 

[durin]

the answer is simple, a guide:
- every tree has volumetric weight, e.g. 0.7t/m3 for adult spruce
- adult forest contains approx. 500-600 m3 of spruce wooden mass per 1ha (hectare)
- 10ha = 1km2
- adult forest for lumber mature +30years (2-3feets/y in first 25years, then slowly)
- each wood is mainly composed of atoms Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon
- molecule weight of CO2 is also known, then adult spruce is absorbing approx. 0.7t of CO2 per single adult tree

... but the young tree needs additional 30y for this performance. Then freshly replanted tree have just miniature ability to replace adult tree CO2 capture.
Of course, we need “rebuild” forests.

In other words, the act of cutting down the tree to build a hull does not in of itself increase CO2 emissions.

 

[durin]

Nope. Just few point of view from practice:
- pleasure sailing boats used for personal or business (chartering) are most widespread boats over world
- most of them use diesel engine (minority petrol) for a movement w/o sails
- people are impatient when lost a wind, then they use the engine for a movement. Specially in party boats, as I call pleasure catamarans with sails, but running wit engines (two) only.
- for all of them it’s valid for a port maneuvering = the engine usage
- all the pleasure boats have batteries, frequently more than 3 independent circuits (single circuit has single or more batteries), up to setup (fridges, navigation instruments,/lights, aux, engine, ...).
- the batteries need to be charged. During a cruise most commonly by the diesel engine. In port, by electric power generated by power plant - as we know frequently as dirty CO2 emission issuers.
Then major part of such pleasure sailing boats aren’t emission free.
Yes I have seen few exceptions. But just few.
Yes there is an approach to replace diesels in sailing boats by electric engines. But there is still same problem = batteries and recharge. Or weight of the batteries and boat performance, price, ... Etc.

What do pleasure boats and party boats have to do with using boats primarily as a mode of transport? They are by definition primarily a way of passing time, not a means of getting from A to B.

Moreover, the boat that was used for the Thunberg's voyage was a racing yacht with solar panels and underwater turbines for electricity generation.

 

[jeyare]

In other words, the act of cutting down the tree to build a hull does not in of itself increase CO2 emissions.

because the young tree doesn’t same capacity of absorption of CO2 as adult one, then the capacity of CO2 in air will increase by cutting of adult tree (for new boat hulls).
We have two choices:
- to plant more young tree, then we have capture more agriculture land back (or settled), then we need less people on the earth, because we need agriculture land for a food production, or less settled land for more agriculture and forest. For this kind of attitude we need wait 30years for first massive change of transport to wooden boats.
- no massive wooden boat hulls production.

Btw: all wooden hulls need to be penetrated by a substance, that keeping water out and allowing the boat to float. This medium is:
- tar - not good for environment
- pitch - also bad idea
- natural oil or wax - again bad idea for massive production
- synthetic oil or wax - common source is oil, bad idea
- super nanotechnology wood protection - we need wait for such material

 

[jeyare]

What do pleasure boats and party boats have to do with using boats primarily as a mode of transport? They are by definition primarily a way of passing time, not a means of getting from A to B.

Moreover, the boat that was used for the Thunberg's voyage was a racing yacht with solar panels and underwater turbines for electricity generation.

boats? nothing. People behavior.

Re Gretta’s vessel.
First, the vessel is really bigger than standard pleasure sailing boat, it’s about 60fts.
Second, the building cost of such vessel (4M GBP) is too far from standard e.g. Beneteau Oceanis 41 (41fts) pleasure sailing boat (from 135k GBP). What about the operation and maintenance cost? Then you can’t compare such two different worlds.
Third - did you tried North Atlantic by such pleasure sailing boat? In 15days? No way for each persons, no way for 15days. An example: min. 3290 Nautical miles from London to New York, if you are lucky with that boat and you will get non stop 8kts (8 NM per hour) speed, then you can reach New York over 17 days. But every skipper will tell you, that you never get direct line between two points. Then final line can gets more than 30% in common. Then if you finish this trip with health and boat in full operation, it will be more than 25days (weather, wind, direction). Then you need prepare a “service” for the crew or passengers (food, comfort, ...). then you need bigger boat for bigger cost. bigger photovoltaic panels, bigger hydro-generators, then bigger boat, ... it’s a physics & math.