GEP for Super Green Farming with 100% Renewable Energy

Based on my original post and the ongoing discussion I am formulating a GEP for Super Green Farming with 100% Renewable Energy.

Uptime Requirements
Since renewable energy is not available 100% of the time, lower uptime requirements are needed for 100% green farming. Based on my analysis the following uptimes could be realistically achieved:

  • 90% Uptime using a combination of wind & solar power, or a combination of wind & backup batteries

Optional: Since wind power availability can fluctuate greatly for different months of the year, it could be considered to have uptime requirements be calculated on a yearly basis, instead of monthly basis. This way more windy months could potentially compensate for less windy months.

Minting Rewards
In order to incentivise farmers to use renewables to power their 3Nodes, minting rewards should be higher than for conventional farmers. This way the grid will eventually become more sustainable itself, as more farmers go green. I propose the following minting rewards:

  • 125% for super green farmers on DIY hardware
  • 150% for super green farmers on certified hardware

Suitable Workloads
Lower uptime requirements mean that those green servers are not very practical for use cases that require more or less constant availability (eg. hosting a website or running a gaming server). Instead I can imagine that those 3Nodes flagged as Super Green could be constrained to accept only certain workloads, including but not limited to:

  • Backup & Archiving
  • 2D/3D Rendering
  • Machine Learning
  • Other less time sensitive high performance computing tasks

Bandwidth Requirements
Without a constant uptime, and considering the suitable workloads, it may be necessary to send and receive larger amounts of data from and to the 3Nodes and in a higher frequency than usual. Therefore it may be beneficial to set higher bandwidth requirements for super green farmers. My proposal would be to:

  • Increase bandwidth requirements by 25% compared to conventional 3Nodes

Use of cheap Excess Energy
Many times of the year (when it is very windy) more energy is being produced than the electricity grids can handle. Huge amounts of energy are being wasted this way. If super green nodes were able to let the grid know, that they currently have plenty of excess energy available, certain less time sensitive but power hungry workloads could be started. This would improve the grid both in an economical and a sustainable way.

Smart Contracts for IT
By using smart contracts on the TF Grid we could potentially make this entire thing even greater and more efficient. When a workload definition is sent out by a capacity consumer (user) the following things could optionally be specified:

  • super_green: deploy workload on super green node(s)
  • deadline: The grid will make sure that the task at hand will be completed by then (eg. rendering a 3D scene). Super green nodes (if available) can be preferred for being assigned the workload. If no super green nodes are available, conventional nodes may be used. If no deadline is specified, workload will not run until super green nodes are ready to process.
  • only_excess_energy: If somebody wants to be as sustainable as possible, he or she could let the workload run only on excess energy that would have been wasted otherwise (may take a while until workload is handled).

contract = {
version: contractVersion,
contract_id: contractID
…
super_green: true, //run workload on super green nodes
deadline: “TimeStampOfDeadLine”, // workload must finish by this time,
only_excess_energy: false // if true, workload will only run on excess energy
}

All of this could be further enhanced by providing predictions about power availability of our 3Nodes to the TF grid. We are able to predict (to a certain degree) what our power production in the near future will be. This data could be valuable for the grid to decide how and when to run workloads or move them over to a different location (in case a power drop is expected soon). In the future it may also be thinkable to provide energy prices of our nodes to the grid. On the german energy exchange the price per kWh changes every hour, so it may be beneficial for users (and the environment) to have their workloads run when energy prices are lower (by giving them as small discount on their used capacity).

Proof of origin of electricity
In order to prevent farmers using conventional energy to power their super green nodes, and thus cheat the system, a proof of origin of electricity for super green farmers shall be required. As a green energy company we have all the necessary electric meters for this already in place. If required, a certified public accountant can confirm this for any farms joining the grid in the future.

VOTING

  • OK with GEP for 100% Super Green Farming
  • Not OK

0 voters

1 Like

Will a hybrid solar (Grid tied with battery backup) system qualify for this?

In my opinion anything that can be proven to be 100% renewable should qualify.

1 Like

I think it could be ok only when we combine regular electricity with renewalble energy. Because of its reliability that we need to get as good as it’s possible

Providing reliable renewable energy to reach the minimum availability of 90% will be the responsibility of the farmers. Anyone that is not able to do so can participate as a regular farmer.

1 Like

I think the direction of information should follow the direction of energy, meaning that the grid decides when to run and when not.

A nice map for that: https://app.electricitymap.org/map
Note that even 100% renewable does not mean 0 CO2.

From the IT perspective, running on these workloads should be cheaper, because you need to wait for your computation to run.

I think anyone should be incentivized to run on green power, as well as non aircon cooling and heat re-use!

Combining this would give 2 tiers:

  1. Planned green workload. Cheaper, but maybe running on a different point in time & Location
  2. Always green workload. Little bit more expensive, but backed by renewable power certificates, a PUE <1.2 certificate and ERF >50% ?

In case 1, the difference should come from TFT in general, and in 2 a part of the extra revenue needs to go to the farmer…

1 Like

I agree that for maximum efficiency, the TF grid should potentially be able to decide itself when to run a specific workload (respecting the workload definition, including deadline etc). In order to do so there must be some way to let the grid know about a specific nodes power availability (predicted & live), excess energy or maybe even kWh prices.

And yes. Giving users a discount when they run their workloads in the most efficient way could also be a good incentive.

Non aircon cooling and heat reuse are definitely not a bad idea (heat reuse is something we are currently exploring in a different context). Having strict requirements on PUE and ERF is something that could be realised independent of the source of energy. I think that would exceed the scope of this proposal. Maybe for another future GEP?

On the other hand, I’m not sure how much green energy cloud space is on the market, if this is somewhat unique, I would expect a lot of demand for it.

1 Like

So far, I haven’t experienced that… more than welcome though :stuck_out_tongue:

Sorry, With Grid you mean TFT grid.

I mean that you can see the availability of (green) energy on the energy market.
If we really want to differentiate, than you should focus on actual CO2 impact. All the datacenters and cloud providers are already using CoO’s (and you could price that in for the “normal green farming”?)

When you are talking about actual CO2 impact, it comes down to the location (electricitymap), PUE, WUE, ERF and scope 3 emissions.

  • Scope 3 is really difficult to measure
  • PUE: every Datacenter reports that. If you are running at home, difficult to determine if you have an AC running
  • WUE: only in Datacenters, they also should report that.
  • ERF: what are you doing with the waste heat. Any datacenter working on that will report that.

All in all quite a complex equation. A proposition of “green farming” based on CoO’s sounds a lot easier…

We’re planning to use exclusively 100% renewable wind and solar power from our own production.
I don’t think there is much room to become more green than that (except using less energy overall).
Of course running completely without backup batteries would be even greener, but then there is no way to reach 90% availability consistently.

Optimizing PUE, WUE or ERF are great, but IMO these should not be tied to the source of energy that is used. One could even argue, that those things are less important overall when using green energy (compared to energy mix, or exclusively carbon based energy).

We are already producing heat (warm water) for 35 houses in a small village in north east Germany using mostly excess wind energy. For more info on this project click here.
In a future project this could become even more efficient when we heat up our water reservoir with waste heat from a (ThreeFold) server farm, instead using solely heating rods (which convert electricity to heat without any further productive use case).

Anyway, if a future GEP includes those aspects you brought up I will be glad to support it!

3 Likes