From that perspective, you've got a finite amount of energy that's being consumed at any point of time and by that logic, you'd be better served to use the solar energy for something else in your household that would've needed the grid, because a cloud provider will almost certainly only need a fraction of the electricity you'd need to keep the static files served.

So, by doing that you've effectively reduced your absolute energy footprint.

But these projects aren't about reducing your energy footprint. They're about having a local webserver that's running on solar energy. Or in the authors words: At its heart, this project is about learning and contributing to a conversation on a greener, local-first future for the web

Economies of scale make cloud more efficient for basic sites like this. It is like using street lights vs. every house putting out a few candles.

In addition we love the grid! We want it to get greener. Put the effort into making the grid energy zero carbon, low pollution while still highly available.

Furthermore using that solar to say charge your work laptop and then hosting the site in CF would net use less energy.

it's 1000x more helpful to just like only run your big appliances when your grid is using more renewables.

The carbon is hard to account for in manufacturing. Solar, for example, is pretty close to being produced entirely with electric consumption and very little required CO2 output (except perhaps in the transport of silicon and other raw materials). The big energy draw for solar and battery is a kiln stage in both. Solar has to melt down the silicon which requires a high temperature furnace and batteries are basically "cooking" the raw materials onto their foil.

The math for solar is something like 1 to 4 years of generation before it pays back the manufacturing power debt. Batteries tend to be much shorter as they take less energy in their manufacturing process (with some hopeful techniques in the future significantly reducing that number).

Now, none of this is to contradict you, just putting the numbers out there. I completely agree that a server farm is likely to be far more efficient for hosting a website than home built solar powered pi. The CO2 emissions will be hard to beat, particularly if your cloud host resides in the PNW where power is nearly entirely renewable already.

BTW same is true for solar panels. Second-hand solar panels, with remaining efficiency of 70%-90% of the original rating, are really cheap. It's a perfect thing to reuse for a "greener hosting" hobby project.

Most of the environmental impact happens at the building of hardware, so putting even more websites in datacenter only increases environmental impact. All Capitalism has done here is completely forget that impact by telling you it's ok to do always more.

What we collectively need to do is not find a better tech, it's reduce the total amount of tech we use, and that starts with questioning our actual uses. We don't need 24/7 available websites, 90% availability is more than enough. In fact, more sites should only target 90% availability, and if we were serious about tackling this we'd look towards 1. using old computers to the death because they still can and 2. doing more offline-first. Putting your website in a datacenter is exactly what the Jevons Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) warns about. Its environmental impact keeps exploding year after year and it's not with that mindset that we'll make a dent in it.

(Remember, the environment is not a resource, so Capitalism doesn't care about it)

Granted I doubt you could "farm" bamboo like trees or other plant. Given how fast section species of bamboo can grow, which is a big benefit in this hypothetical, you would probably need a ton of water and no matter how nutrient rich the soil is you'd probably deplete the soil after a few harvests.

Shame considering how fast growing and dense bamboo is.

I doubt there’s a cement kiln, cattle farm or oil refinery within city limits.