6 ms·

Offtopic > The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per pag

Offtopic > The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. Isn't 1.2g per page view huge amount? I wonder if we can have api for this.

magnio 6y ago
According to Website Carbon Calculator, each page view produces 2.22g of CO₂. I think it would be lower if you use an ad blocker. https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/bbc-com-future-article-20200803-the-solar-canals-revolutionising-indias-renewable-energy/ https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/bbc-com-future-article...
- walrus01 6y ago
  I really have no idea how they're calculating that other than a lot of hand-wavy math. It will vary greatly depending where you are. If I'm in Vancouver and I access CDN or hosting resources from a massive datacenter located in WA or OR, it's highly likely that 98% of the energy for my home, and all of the telecom/ISP sites in between, and the datacenter itself are all hydroelectric powered.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    That power could be used elsewhere in your power grid. It probably makes sense to look at CO2/kWh averaged over the whole grid.
  - soperj 6y ago
    Despite our government repeating it over and over, it turns out that Hydro is actually worse than all fossil fuels in terms of GHGs (over double coal) depending on what you flood. If it's forest, it's the worst. For the W.A.C Bennett dam in BC, 350,000 acres of former forest land was flooded.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      OK, but it's not being re-flooded constantly, it's already done and can't reasonably be undone. So, long-term, it's a fantastic renewable resource with practically zero emissions.
      - soperj 6y ago
        See sibling comment. Practically zero emissions is false. It results in over double the GHG emissions per year than a coal fired plant producing the same amount of energy.
        Alupis 6y ago
        That is crazily misleading. For the initial construction, yes. Ongoing? No. At a point in time, the amortized emissions become zero.
        soperj 6y ago
        It's not misleading. The vegetation that is flooded decomposes anaerobically and releases methane. So there's an ongoing release over the years that it decomposes. They've measured these emissions at different dams over time, and the worst (where forest is flooded) results in nearly 2.5 times the GHG emissions as the worst coal plants. For instance the Balbina hydroelectric reservoir in Brazil was responsible for 39000 tons of methane each year (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252089237_CO2_emissions_from_a_tropical_hydroeletric_reservoir_Balbina_Brazil https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252089237_CO2_emiss...) That was a 2011 paper on a dam that was finished in 1989.
        Alupis 6y ago
        That is still misleading, grossly. More happens in the water than just releases of methane - there's plant and animal life producing oxygen and consuming decomposing materials. Plus 1989 is a brand new dam. The Hoover Dam was completed in 1936[1], and is expected to have a service life of at least 10,000 Years.[2] 10,000 years at a minimum. It will have paid dividends in renewable energies so many times over by then, that it's not even worth discussing. Do you think the solar panels installed on your roof will last 10,000 years? Will they even last 10 years without needing replacement or repairs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam [2] https://delzottoproducts.com/2017/03/15/long-will-take-concrete-hoover-dam-cure/#:~:text=While%20the%20dam%20is%20expected,shut%20down%20within%20two%20years https://delzottoproducts.com/2017/03/15/long-will-take-concr....
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, you exceeded that in 5 minutes yourself by just existing.
Baeocystin 6y ago
Some envelope math. From https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 , I get .99 pounds of CO2 per kWh. That converts to 449 grams. Splitting the difference between 1.2g and 3.6g, we get 2.4g. 2.4/449= 0.00534 or ~0.53% of 1 kWh consumed, or 5.3 watt-hours. Which does strike me as rather high.
- adrianN 6y ago
  The page took 20s to load for me. That's about 1kW to get the ~5Wh. That seems reasonable. Just my internet equipment consumes about 50W, and there are many servers involved in loading a BBC page.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Loaded in well under 2 secs for me (no JS, all ads blocked, not that there will be on the bbc)
    - manquer 6y ago
      they might have third party trackers though
    - Baeocystin 6y ago
      Makes me wonder just how much power/carbon waste goes in to ads vs content on the modern web.
      - CyberDildonics 6y ago
        A pi-hole dns filter will typically block 10%-30% of all domain queries (for a fast and loose estimate).
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        Tell you what, why don't you give it a try? It should take 30 secs to disable JS on firefox, then see how it feels, re-enable it afterwards. See what a snappy web can feel like (when it doesn't break, which is ~30% of the time). I keep saying it, strange that nobody has ever said that they tried it. There seems to be some weird mental block around trying something new, even if easy to do and with possible benefits. Why is this?

magnio 6y ago

According to Website Carbon Calculator, each page view produces 2.22g of CO₂. I think it would be lower if you use an ad blocker. https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/bbc-com-future-article-20200803-the-solar-canals-revolutionising-indias-renewable-energy/ https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/bbc-com-future-article...

walrus01 6y ago
I really have no idea how they're calculating that other than a lot of hand-wavy math. It will vary greatly depending where you are. If I'm in Vancouver and I access CDN or hosting resources from a massive datacenter located in WA or OR, it's highly likely that 98% of the energy for my home, and all of the telecom/ISP sites in between, and the datacenter itself are all hydroelectric powered.
- adrianN 6y ago
  That power could be used elsewhere in your power grid. It probably makes sense to look at CO2/kWh averaged over the whole grid.
- soperj 6y ago
  Despite our government repeating it over and over, it turns out that Hydro is actually worse than all fossil fuels in terms of GHGs (over double coal) depending on what you flood. If it's forest, it's the worst. For the W.A.C Bennett dam in BC, 350,000 acres of former forest land was flooded.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    OK, but it's not being re-flooded constantly, it's already done and can't reasonably be undone. So, long-term, it's a fantastic renewable resource with practically zero emissions.
    - soperj 6y ago
      See sibling comment. Practically zero emissions is false. It results in over double the GHG emissions per year than a coal fired plant producing the same amount of energy.
      - Alupis 6y ago
        That is crazily misleading. For the initial construction, yes. Ongoing? No. At a point in time, the amortized emissions become zero.
        soperj 6y ago
        It's not misleading. The vegetation that is flooded decomposes anaerobically and releases methane. So there's an ongoing release over the years that it decomposes. They've measured these emissions at different dams over time, and the worst (where forest is flooded) results in nearly 2.5 times the GHG emissions as the worst coal plants. For instance the Balbina hydroelectric reservoir in Brazil was responsible for 39000 tons of methane each year (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252089237_CO2_emissions_from_a_tropical_hydroeletric_reservoir_Balbina_Brazil https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252089237_CO2_emiss...) That was a 2011 paper on a dam that was finished in 1989.
        Alupis 6y ago
        That is still misleading, grossly. More happens in the water than just releases of methane - there's plant and animal life producing oxygen and consuming decomposing materials. Plus 1989 is a brand new dam. The Hoover Dam was completed in 1936[1], and is expected to have a service life of at least 10,000 Years.[2] 10,000 years at a minimum. It will have paid dividends in renewable energies so many times over by then, that it's not even worth discussing. Do you think the solar panels installed on your roof will last 10,000 years? Will they even last 10 years without needing replacement or repairs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam [2] https://delzottoproducts.com/2017/03/15/long-will-take-concrete-hoover-dam-cure/#:~:text=While%20the%20dam%20is%20expected,shut%20down%20within%20two%20years https://delzottoproducts.com/2017/03/15/long-will-take-concr....

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, you exceeded that in 5 minutes yourself by just existing.

Baeocystin 6y ago

Some envelope math. From https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 , I get .99 pounds of CO2 per kWh. That converts to 449 grams. Splitting the difference between 1.2g and 3.6g, we get 2.4g. 2.4/449= 0.00534 or ~0.53% of 1 kWh consumed, or 5.3 watt-hours. Which does strike me as rather high.

adrianN 6y ago
The page took 20s to load for me. That's about 1kW to get the ~5Wh. That seems reasonable. Just my internet equipment consumes about 50W, and there are many servers involved in loading a BBC page.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Loaded in well under 2 secs for me (no JS, all ads blocked, not that there will be on the bbc)
  - manquer 6y ago
    they might have third party trackers though
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    Makes me wonder just how much power/carbon waste goes in to ads vs content on the modern web.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      A pi-hole dns filter will typically block 10%-30% of all domain queries (for a fast and loose estimate).
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Tell you what, why don't you give it a try? It should take 30 secs to disable JS on firefox, then see how it feels, re-enable it afterwards. See what a snappy web can feel like (when it doesn't break, which is ~30% of the time). I keep saying it, strange that nobody has ever said that they tried it. There seems to be some weird mental block around trying something new, even if easy to do and with possible benefits. Why is this?