> Although that being said we could just try to cover the earth with as many generators everywhere and then fully connect the grids.

This is the easier route: you do this by having as many businesses as possible purchase renewables PPAs, where they're specifically contracting for renewable energy.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/as-corporate-renewable-buyi...

I respect lowtechmagazine's experiment: it's designed to make you think, and it succeeds.

But CPUs have an incredibly high embodied energy, we should aim for full utilization of servers, regardless of the source of that energy.

If it's three CPUs with carbon-neutral electricity, or one CPU with electricity from coal, the latter is the responsible choice.

Did you mean the reverse? I.e. "If it's one CPU with carbon-neutral electricity, or three CPUs with electricity from coal, the latter is the responsible choice."

If no, then why. I can explain my confusion if needed.

I don't mean the reverse, I mean that running one CPU 24 hours a day instead of 3 CPUs 8 hours a day is better, even if the 3 CPUs have carbon-neutral energy and the 1 CPU does not.

To be fair, these are artificial choices, and that's not even what lowtech was doing (they have a battery). I was responding to the post about the CDNs that stop working at night.

I mean, technically, that's what Google's solution ends up doing.

Their DCs are globally distributed, so their timings on when they'd actually be doing the heavy lifting is shuffled around.