My solar-powered and self-hosted website

Serving websites is an area where capitalism’s promise of achieving efficiency of resource utilization through economic incentives probably actually works, via shared hardware.

This is a hobby and aesthetic thing, which is valid and interesting.

If anyone has some good data about carbon emissions of self-hosted vs shared hardware I’d love to see it.

The carbon is hard to account for in manufacturing. Solar, for example, is pretty close to being produced entirely with electric consumption and very little required CO2 output (except perhaps in the transport of silicon and other raw materials). The big energy draw for solar and battery is a kiln stage in both. Solar has to melt down the silicon which requires a high temperature furnace and batteries are basically "cooking" the raw materials onto their foil.

The math for solar is something like 1 to 4 years of generation before it pays back the manufacturing power debt. Batteries tend to be much shorter as they take less energy in their manufacturing process (with some hopeful techniques in the future significantly reducing that number).

Now, none of this is to contradict you, just putting the numbers out there. I completely agree that a server farm is likely to be far more efficient for hosting a website than home built solar powered pi. The CO2 emissions will be hard to beat, particularly if your cloud host resides in the PNW where power is nearly entirely renewable already.

Buying used also only works when not that many people are doing it. On an individual level, it is a good thing to do, but it isn't a solution. It does help foster an environment of maintaining and supporting hardware for longer, which is a better solution.

I could envision a scenario where solar self-hosters replace hardware at a rate so much lower than than hosting companies that it outweighs the additional hardware it requires, but I don't think it is the current reality.

BTW same is true for solar panels. Second-hand solar panels, with remaining efficiency of 70%-90% of the original rating, are really cheap. It's a perfect thing to reuse for a "greener hosting" hobby project.

The second-hand computer and second-hand panels have already been produced for someone else, their cost is sunk. But their value can continue with this project, or end with the hardware and panels going to a dumping ground.

If you buy a used RPi, it gives money to someone who buys new computers, and encourages them to buy more. It stimulates demand for the production of hardware, just like buying new stimulates the production of new hardware, even though the hardware you bought had already been built.

Yes, it is to a much lesser extent than buying new, but it certainly isn’t zero. And again, it only works on a small individual level.

It is a good thing to do, but it does not zero out the cost of producing (or running) the hardware.

Most of the environmental impact happens at the building of hardware, so putting even more websites in datacenter only increases environmental impact. All Capitalism has done here is completely forget that impact by telling you it's ok to do always more.

What we collectively need to do is not find a better tech, it's reduce the total amount of tech we use, and that starts with questioning our actual uses. We don't need 24/7 available websites, 90% availability is more than enough. In fact, more sites should only target 90% availability, and if we were serious about tackling this we'd look towards 1. using old computers to the death because they still can and 2. doing more offline-first. Putting your website in a datacenter is exactly what the Jevons Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) warns about. Its environmental impact keeps exploding year after year and it's not with that mindset that we'll make a dent in it.

(Remember, the environment is not a resource, so Capitalism doesn't care about it)

I think a more likely way of changing usage patterns is by actually pricing carbon cost into energy production and manufacturing via taxes. The costs of things are only so low because we are borrowing from the future. I don't think a mindset shift will happen under capitalism without the monetary cost of things increasing. And I don't think capitalism will change unless by collapsing, at which point we're too late anyway, and would come with much human suffering. I don't believe that capitalism is fundamentally broken, but I do believe that unchecked capitalism is. Regulation and taxes are required to manage its negative tendencies.

If we want to take it into consideration, we have to take the matter in our own hands, away from the State, away from capitalistic interests.