←back to thread

My solar-powered and self-hosted website

(dri.es)
192 points lightlyused | 4 comments | 17 Oct 24 10:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
IncreasePosts ◴[18 Oct 24 17:17 UTC] No.41881461[source]▶
Solar powered sites are cool and fun, but I find it ultimately lacking because so much of the rest of the networking infrastructure is reliant on the grid. It would be more energy efficient to just host the static site on cloudflare or whatever, and use the solar panel to charge some batteries, or something you would normally use the grid for. I suspect overall energy usage would be even lower if the site was hosted on a CDN, due to the CDN operators keeping their machines near full utilization, and fewer network hops required for an average request.
replies(5): >>41881698 #>>41881739 #>>41882749 #>>41884166 #>>41884809 #
Vegenoid ◴[18 Oct 24 17:43 UTC] No.41881739[source]▶
Agreed. When I see this type of thing, I am always turned off by people describing it as "greener" or “more sustainable”. Every small website having its own solar panel and hardware is not greener. People frequently think only of the carbon emissions of the energy used by the hardware once it's running, ignoring the carbon (and raw material) cost of building that hardware.

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.

replies(4): >>41882529 #>>41882802 #>>41884626 #>>41889793 #
1. ravetcofx ◴[18 Oct 24 19:14 UTC] No.41882529[source]▶
except all of this could be used hardware and panels. no need to buy new.
replies(1): >>41883357 #
2. Vegenoid ◴[18 Oct 24 20:48 UTC] No.41883357[source]▶
"Used" doesn't magically wave away the carbon/resource cost of producing the hardware. Buying used hardware still stimulates demand for the production of new hardware, although to a lesser extent than buying new.

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.

replies(1): >>41884642 #
3. nine_k ◴[19 Oct 24 00:25 UTC] No.41884642[source]▶
It reliability waves away the costs of producing hardware for this particular 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.

replies(1): >>41888988 #
4. Vegenoid ◴[19 Oct 24 17:04 UTC] No.41888988{3}[source]▶
Again, no it does not. When someone buys a new RPi, it was already made. The cost of making it was already sunk. Buying it gives the company that made it more money, and encourages them to make more.

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.