Yes, we're also looking into reducing the environmental impact of the rest
of the activities in the Wikimedia movement. And I am very aware that many
websites consume a lot more energy than Wikipedia does. (Please see
for more information.)
But this doesn't mean we should not try to have the Wikimedia servers run
on renewable energy. Even some big for-profit companies like Apple and
Yahoo are already doing this. So, how can we get there as well and what
would it cost us?
Thanks for your help!
2016-05-16 9:02 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Tim Landscheidt
Lukas Mezger <lukas.mezger(a)gmail.com>
> With the help of Juliet Barbara and Gregory Varnum, we now have detailed
> public figures regarding the energy use and energy sources of the
> servers: As of May 2016, the servers use 222
kW, summing up to about 2
electrical energy per year. For more information, please see
> The next step would be to figure out the cost and feasibility of having
> servers run on 100% renewable energy. I'd
appreciate it if someone could
> help me find out how this works. As a European consumer, I can order
> renewable energy for my house simply by calling my energy company on the
> phone, with the price difference being negligible. I assume it is not
in our case, right?
At Hawaii consumer prices, 2 GWh equals less than
US-$ 800,000; that would be roughly 1 % of the Wikimedia
Foundation budget. Don't you think it would be much better
for *actually* reducing the environmental impact to start on
the 99 % (or probably more like 99.5 %)? It would certainly
be cheaper than paying *more* for energy.
What is an energy consumption estimate of the other 99% of budget
Wikitech-l mailing list