2 ms·

There is no way 7kWh/GB is an accurate figure. For example, AWS Oregon region charges you $0.05/GB after the first 150 TB.[1] This page[2] says the current el

There is no way 7kWh/GB is an accurate figure. For example, AWS Oregon region charges you $0.05/GB after the first 150 TB.[1] This page[2] says the current electricity rate of Oregon is 9.8¢/kWh. Assuming AWS is getting electricity at half the price (and making no profit), it can burn 1.02 kWh/GB. The actual number is most likely lower: AWS has to make some profit, and it's not known for being cheap. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ [2] https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/oregon/ https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/oregon/

_Microft 7y ago
The article talks about the cost of transferring a file from the cloud vs loading it from a local harddrive. It's not only the amount of energy used for that at the datacenter, it's also summing up all the fractions of power usage per GB of the used fiber connection, the repeaters on this fiber connection, routers, switches, losses in power supplies, energy required for air conditioning the hardware, the phone/cable/mobile infrastructure that also has switches, repeaters, ... until ones own modem, router and computer at the own location that is needing energy to operate.
hn23 7y ago
It really does not matter how much they pay because the market price does not include the actual costs a company imposes on the environment. There is no CO2 Tax, is there? Ask yourself: How can it be more efficient to stream the same stuff over and over again, wasting CPU cycles on couple of fat machines etc. instead of playing it from a local cache (hard drive, ...). IMHO it cannot be more efficient. It is convenient and it appears to be cheap.
- yongjik 7y ago
  You are right that these companies don't pay the "actual costs" on environmental damage, but that's a separate issue, and not really relevant to the initial claim. If you claim that someone is using 7 kWh or electricity, you had better be prepared to show they actually do. (Besides, consumers don't pay for the environmental cost of building and shipping an SSD from Taiwan, either.) Companies like Amazon may not care about environment, but they care a lot about saving money, and modern computers can handle a surprising amount of connections simultaneously: it's not like those beefy AWS instances are serving just your music.
  - hn23 7y ago
    The 7kWh figure was not mine. However, I see what the intend of the Thread starter was and I think he is right. Streaming video/music on top of 'AI' (to sell more stuff), security theater and Ad campaigns is just a waste of resources. /s I would bet Bezos and folks can buy fresh air when it comes to this point. But at least we all could watch Game of Thrones when we wanted to.

_Microft 7y ago

The article talks about the cost of transferring a file from the cloud vs loading it from a local harddrive. It's not only the amount of energy used for that at the datacenter, it's also summing up all the fractions of power usage per GB of the used fiber connection, the repeaters on this fiber connection, routers, switches, losses in power supplies, energy required for air conditioning the hardware, the phone/cable/mobile infrastructure that also has switches, repeaters, ... until ones own modem, router and computer at the own location that is needing energy to operate.

hn23 7y ago

It really does not matter how much they pay because the market price does not include the actual costs a company imposes on the environment. There is no CO2 Tax, is there? Ask yourself: How can it be more efficient to stream the same stuff over and over again, wasting CPU cycles on couple of fat machines etc. instead of playing it from a local cache (hard drive, ...). IMHO it cannot be more efficient. It is convenient and it appears to be cheap.

yongjik 7y ago
You are right that these companies don't pay the "actual costs" on environmental damage, but that's a separate issue, and not really relevant to the initial claim. If you claim that someone is using 7 kWh or electricity, you had better be prepared to show they actually do. (Besides, consumers don't pay for the environmental cost of building and shipping an SSD from Taiwan, either.) Companies like Amazon may not care about environment, but they care a lot about saving money, and modern computers can handle a surprising amount of connections simultaneously: it's not like those beefy AWS instances are serving just your music.
- hn23 7y ago
  The 7kWh figure was not mine. However, I see what the intend of the Thread starter was and I think he is right. Streaming video/music on top of 'AI' (to sell more stuff), security theater and Ad campaigns is just a waste of resources. /s I would bet Bezos and folks can buy fresh air when it comes to this point. But at least we all could watch Game of Thrones when we wanted to.