the question would be, would your computer be on anyway. If not, then add up the cost of the extra hours, at perhaps 100W to 200W depending on computer, then look at the cost to you.
then find the cost of computing power if the cancer people bought it in bulk, and decide which is cheaper. it could go either way. it’s just that most people are more likely to leave their PC on than to actually give $10 a month to a charity
I confess my ignorance, but other than paper, clothes, bedsheets and napkins, what are you folding and why would electric company executives even take notice?
Now, “greens” want to get their stupid noses into everything we do on the principle that since they are enlightened, they can’t possibly be at fault for any problem and therefore it must be us, but “folding”? This seems like a stretch even for them.
Congrats on your top 100. I’m languishing in the 170s. I wish I could get a second computer folding.
Ask the greenie about carbon credits.
The math should be fairly simple.
((Watts * Hours) / 1000) * electrical rate.
Lets suppose that you’ve got a hot gpu that uses 200 watts to fold. I have a GTX280 at home that draws roughly 200 watts while folding.
200 * 24 = 4800
4800 / 1000 = 4.8 kilowatts a day
4.8 * 11(cents per kwh) = 52.8 cents a day
52.8 * 365.25(day/year) = 19285.2 cents per year
Cost = $192 per year
Now, if you sent $192/year to cancer researchers, how much do you think would actually be spent on cancer research? 100%? Reality shows that while they say “x dollars goes towards research” you have understand that the guy delivering lunch is contributing towards cancer research by that metric. Much of each dollar goes towards administrative, overhead and capital costs. I would bet that actual money spent towards research falls somewhere down at about 25% of donated money.
Do you think that $50/year spent towards cancer research will ever provide meaningful results.
100% of what your donating via folding is actual cancer research, not going towards takeaway Chinese and administrative bonuses.
In my case, at one point, I had 50+ machines folding so the benefit was even greater! :)
Ping.
How cold is it where you are? The heat generated by the system goes to warm your house, so if you need the heat anyways it is a wash.
The last time I measured power usage was back when I had 3 machines running the folding software. I kept them on 24 hours a day; when idle they drew about 286 watts, and used 373 watts when running folding. At my current electric rates, that works out to about $8.61 a month to run folding.
I’m down to one machine now, though — 47 watts idle, 60 watts when folding. Estimated monthly cost for folding: about $1.29.
While SETI did not discover firm proof of intelligent life in the universe (including way too often on our own planet) it pioneered the entire discipline of distributed computing. Without the efforts of the SETI group, there would not have been a Genome@home project to help create the equipment to decode genes by the thousands as they do now. It has to start somewhere.
Malsua is correct, most of these systems will be left on anyway, or are doing such simple tasks that we can easily slip in processing to fold proteins. The power consumed is a trickle compared to the results.
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers
In the case of Folding@home, Stanford University has released 63 peer reviewed papers to date, more than any other DC project in the world.
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Diseases
With all due respect, if it wasn't for projects like Folding@home I could never meaningfully participate in this scientific research. I don't have the math background, the medical background or the time to do more than an occational fundraiser. F@H allows me to contribute 24/7 to finding cures that will one day benefit ME personally, and my family.
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Science
The sheer scale of protein folding is difficult to comprehend. Some proteins can fold a million times per second, but it takes a modern supercomputer a day to simulate one-billionth of a second of folding. There simply isn't enough computing power outside of distributed computing to achieve any detailed results in the field.
And what is wrong with allowing utilities, many of which are owned by the public, from selling electricity? The shareholders certainly care about power sales, and in most parts of the country folding power usage doesn't even effect the grid during the peak usage at 3 - 5 pm.
Now, if the greenie wants to prove how green he is by living totally off grid, then we can have a different discussion. Have fun taunting the little green fool.
It also depends on whether or not you let your monitor go to sleep when you’re not using your computer - in my experience, the majority of power (determined by battery life in different situations) my computer uses while idle or even just running something that takes half the night goes to the screen. If the monitor/screen is ‘asleep’, which is possible because it’s not necessary for *you* to see it while your computer is folding, then it probably is more cost-effective.
Plus, you’ve got to consider that the donations would go to publicity, overhead, salaries (even in a nonprofit, in order for people to be full-time they do need a salary), and so on in addition to the research, whereas when you’re folding you’re contributing 100% to the research.