5 ms·

Nitpick: > Note that transfer of 1GB of data produces 3kg of CO2. This is wrong, it's closer to 29 grams of CO2 for 1GB, on average. Of course it depends on t

Nitpick: > Note that transfer of 1GB of data produces 3kg of CO2. This is wrong, it's closer to 29 grams of CO2 for 1GB, on average. Of course it depends on the mix of power sources used. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-str... It doesn't change the point of the comparison, the smaller size is still good.

dmos62 6y ago
What is 29 grams of CO2 comparable to? How far would you have to drive your average car to emit that much?
- qayxc 6y ago
  About a 150 metres depending on the model [1]. [1] http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Grams_CO2_transportmodesUK.pdf http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Grams_CO2_transportmodesUK.p...
- lloeki 6y ago
  Current standards emission around here are pushing for under 95gCO2/km, which seems to eliminate pure ICE. My 2008 sports car is rated as emitting 200gCO2/km (WFH so not a daily driver mind you). The average car around here should be in the ballpark of 150gCO2/km, so 29g would be 200m.
c-smile 6y ago
Data taken from : https://www.emergeinteractive.com/insights/detail/does-irresponsible-web-development-contribute-to-global-warming https://www.emergeinteractive.com/insights/detail/does-irres... > And according to the Department of Energy the average US power plant expends 600 grams of carbon dioxide for every kWh generated. That means that transferring 1GB of data produces 3kg of CO2.
- ericpauley 6y ago
  Are we to believe that it takes 5kWh to transfer 1GB of data? My media server runs under 500W, so could operate for over 10 hours before hitting this and download terabytes of data. Even other machines needed to facilitate the connection can't explain a 1000x discrepancy. My guess is that the author confused kWh with Wh at some point.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- luc4sdreyer 6y ago
  Thanks, so we're actually in agreement then :) If you look at your own source (the two Figure 3 inserts from 2017 and 2018 studies), they estimate that in 2020 the kWh/GB measure would be between 0.1 and 0.01. That equates to between 60 and 6 grams of CO2 per GB, smack bang in the middle of the International Energy Agency estimate I linked to (29 grams). The reason for the big discrepancy is your source article was written in 2016, and it referenced a study from 2012 for its 5.12 kWh/GB number, and that 2012 study used bandwidth data from 2011. Telecommunication systems are still getting exponentially more efficient over time (see the second Figure 3), so estimates get old very quickly.
cashsterling 6y ago
Yeah... The "1GB of data transfer --> 3kg of CO2" is high by orders of magnitude. Computer systems and network equipment have a fixed install and fixed operational costs. I think the incremental energy cost of transferring 1GB across 5000km is on the order of 1000 Joules of energy. I think 10Gb optical transfer requires less than 10W per 100km... this probably a really high upper limit (equipment electrical power plus cooling power). 1000 J is roughly equal to 0.0003 kWh 1 kWh electrical power generation produces about 200-500g CO2 depending upon the electrical grid. So that would work out to about 0.15grams per 1GB of data, at the most. The fixed upfront equipment costs and carbon footprint do need to the factored in as well but they are not going to amount to much. So yeah... we talking about less than a gram of CO2 per 1GB. I don't care to run the numbers further than this...
- luc4sdreyer 6y ago
  >The fixed upfront equipment costs and carbon footprint do need to the factored in as well but they are not going to amount to much. In the source I gave they actually _do_ factor in the equipment costs, and turns out it does amount to more than you think. You can't ignore the fixed operational costs, because we're not asking what's the cost of sending a single incremental gigabyte. We're asking what's the cost of transferring data, today. Total energy divided by total data volume.

dmos62 6y ago

What is 29 grams of CO2 comparable to? How far would you have to drive your average car to emit that much?

qayxc 6y ago
About a 150 metres depending on the model [1]. [1] http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Grams_CO2_transportmodesUK.pdf http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Grams_CO2_transportmodesUK.p...
lloeki 6y ago
Current standards emission around here are pushing for under 95gCO2/km, which seems to eliminate pure ICE. My 2008 sports car is rated as emitting 200gCO2/km (WFH so not a daily driver mind you). The average car around here should be in the ballpark of 150gCO2/km, so 29g would be 200m.

c-smile 6y ago

Data taken from : https://www.emergeinteractive.com/insights/detail/does-irresponsible-web-development-contribute-to-global-warming https://www.emergeinteractive.com/insights/detail/does-irres... > And according to the Department of Energy the average US power plant expends 600 grams of carbon dioxide for every kWh generated. That means that transferring 1GB of data produces 3kg of CO2.

ericpauley 6y ago
Are we to believe that it takes 5kWh to transfer 1GB of data? My media server runs under 500W, so could operate for over 10 hours before hitting this and download terabytes of data. Even other machines needed to facilitate the connection can't explain a 1000x discrepancy. My guess is that the author confused kWh with Wh at some point.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
luc4sdreyer 6y ago
Thanks, so we're actually in agreement then :) If you look at your own source (the two Figure 3 inserts from 2017 and 2018 studies), they estimate that in 2020 the kWh/GB measure would be between 0.1 and 0.01. That equates to between 60 and 6 grams of CO2 per GB, smack bang in the middle of the International Energy Agency estimate I linked to (29 grams). The reason for the big discrepancy is your source article was written in 2016, and it referenced a study from 2012 for its 5.12 kWh/GB number, and that 2012 study used bandwidth data from 2011. Telecommunication systems are still getting exponentially more efficient over time (see the second Figure 3), so estimates get old very quickly.

cashsterling 6y ago

Yeah... The "1GB of data transfer --> 3kg of CO2" is high by orders of magnitude. Computer systems and network equipment have a fixed install and fixed operational costs. I think the incremental energy cost of transferring 1GB across 5000km is on the order of 1000 Joules of energy. I think 10Gb optical transfer requires less than 10W per 100km... this probably a really high upper limit (equipment electrical power plus cooling power). 1000 J is roughly equal to 0.0003 kWh 1 kWh electrical power generation produces about 200-500g CO2 depending upon the electrical grid. So that would work out to about 0.15grams per 1GB of data, at the most. The fixed upfront equipment costs and carbon footprint do need to the factored in as well but they are not going to amount to much. So yeah... we talking about less than a gram of CO2 per 1GB. I don't care to run the numbers further than this...

luc4sdreyer 6y ago
>The fixed upfront equipment costs and carbon footprint do need to the factored in as well but they are not going to amount to much. In the source I gave they actually _do_ factor in the equipment costs, and turns out it does amount to more than you think. You can't ignore the fixed operational costs, because we're not asking what's the cost of sending a single incremental gigabyte. We're asking what's the cost of transferring data, today. Total energy divided by total data volume.