4 ms·

How does the energy use compare of stamping out a DVD and of streaming a movie to your TV? Especially if it's a film you (or your children) watch repeatedly.

How does the energy use compare of stamping out a DVD and of streaming a movie to your TV? Especially if it's a film you (or your children) watch repeatedly. The answer is not obvious. According to [1], mailing a DVD and streaming a film use about the same amount of energy. This doesn't include the energy cost of manufacturing the DVD, but stamping out plastic disks is cheap, so it can't be too high. On the other hand, other studies show that DVD players, being older, tend to use more energy than streaming boxes. For repeated watching, ripping a DVD and streaming it locally seems likely to be better. Or best of all, stream the movie and store it locally for future viewings. But that's not allowed. DRM is killing the planet. [1]: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/energy-cost-streaming-video https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/energy-cost-stre...

criley2 5y ago
How much landfill use does my stream use when it's been watched 100 times and becomes garbage? How much of the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch will my Netflix stream take up? Plastic is killing the planet.
- mavhc 5y ago
  So is CO2 though.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    Yes, and oil converted to plastic sequesters CO2. Every plastic bag, every CD, is sequestered CO2. Of course, plastic is a problem on its own. I don't like it, its usage. Yet I am a realist, and in as such, believe that (sadly), every drop of oil will eventually be pumped. Thus, by this logic, any use which locks that carbon up may be a net benefit.
- lrvick 5y ago
  I mean, I can play a movie on a DVD player on solar energy for a very long time if I take care of it. How much electricity and infrastructure does it take to deliver the same movie over and over again via the internet I wonder? Both are silly solutions that could be avoided if we were allowed to buy and download a DRM-free copy of a movie once.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > Plastic is killing the planet. No, it isn't. Plastic is only showing up in large quantities in areas where it shouldn't, and occasionally hurting some animals. Microplastics in particular may become a problem at some point, but then again, maybe they won't. We aren't sure. And either way, it's not causing problems just yet. Greenhouse emissions are what's killing the planet. Manufacturing plastics is a part of that, but so is power generation, and thus all "purely digital" activity. It's a point that people often confuse. Microplastics are bad, and emissions are bad, but they're bad for completely different reasons. Climate is what's an existential threat to civilization, and what we need to focus on right now. We can deal with microplastics later, if we survive that long.
  - lofi_lory 5y ago
    Just to nuance the nuance... We do not have an alternative to petrol based plastic for our current economy. Yes, we can make plastic from non-fossil biomass, but it's energetically feasible to replace petrol based plastics. We don't have the landmass, fertilizer, ... to switch completely. (Especially, if you consider the big picture: Biofuel, carbon sinks, food security, ...) In a way petrol chemistry bought the planet some time before being destroyed by us. It saved the whales and prevented ecological exploitation in the colonies. Since plastics are used amass not just for stupid junk, but also critical for e.g. medical single use items, sanitation and so on, we shouldn't just think about pollution. Although the thought of eating up to 7g of plastics a day doesn't sit right with me. (Little known side fact: It's not just obvious "plastics", silicone and paint does contribute to microplastic accumulation too.) Our survival very much also depends on preserving oil reserves for essential use cases of petrol chemistry. Carbon neutral alternatives for many things usually come with an increase in another factor (energy, land use, non renewable resources) which makes them in concert unable to replace fossil energy/chemistry. Resist. REDUCE. Reuse. Recycle. Rebury.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      Infeasible I think you meant
      - 5y ago
fsflover 5y ago
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-hidden-costs-of-streaming-music https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-hidde...
everdrive 5y ago
These are all really good points, but what about the cost at the data center?
beckman466 5y ago
> DRM is killing the planet. Agreed. Thanks for the link. I think I could've stated my point clearer. I am against DRMed streaming/video, and I'm against DVDs. I still want people to be able to make movies and get paid, yet the above two options are unsustainable e.g. when considering the use of plastic for DVD's, and the high energy costs of streaming movies from a data center.

criley2 5y ago

How much landfill use does my stream use when it's been watched 100 times and becomes garbage? How much of the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch will my Netflix stream take up? Plastic is killing the planet.

mavhc 5y ago
So is CO2 though.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Yes, and oil converted to plastic sequesters CO2. Every plastic bag, every CD, is sequestered CO2. Of course, plastic is a problem on its own. I don't like it, its usage. Yet I am a realist, and in as such, believe that (sadly), every drop of oil will eventually be pumped. Thus, by this logic, any use which locks that carbon up may be a net benefit.
lrvick 5y ago
I mean, I can play a movie on a DVD player on solar energy for a very long time if I take care of it. How much electricity and infrastructure does it take to deliver the same movie over and over again via the internet I wonder? Both are silly solutions that could be avoided if we were allowed to buy and download a DRM-free copy of a movie once.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> Plastic is killing the planet. No, it isn't. Plastic is only showing up in large quantities in areas where it shouldn't, and occasionally hurting some animals. Microplastics in particular may become a problem at some point, but then again, maybe they won't. We aren't sure. And either way, it's not causing problems just yet. Greenhouse emissions are what's killing the planet. Manufacturing plastics is a part of that, but so is power generation, and thus all "purely digital" activity. It's a point that people often confuse. Microplastics are bad, and emissions are bad, but they're bad for completely different reasons. Climate is what's an existential threat to civilization, and what we need to focus on right now. We can deal with microplastics later, if we survive that long.
- lofi_lory 5y ago
  Just to nuance the nuance... We do not have an alternative to petrol based plastic for our current economy. Yes, we can make plastic from non-fossil biomass, but it's energetically feasible to replace petrol based plastics. We don't have the landmass, fertilizer, ... to switch completely. (Especially, if you consider the big picture: Biofuel, carbon sinks, food security, ...) In a way petrol chemistry bought the planet some time before being destroyed by us. It saved the whales and prevented ecological exploitation in the colonies. Since plastics are used amass not just for stupid junk, but also critical for e.g. medical single use items, sanitation and so on, we shouldn't just think about pollution. Although the thought of eating up to 7g of plastics a day doesn't sit right with me. (Little known side fact: It's not just obvious "plastics", silicone and paint does contribute to microplastic accumulation too.) Our survival very much also depends on preserving oil reserves for essential use cases of petrol chemistry. Carbon neutral alternatives for many things usually come with an increase in another factor (energy, land use, non renewable resources) which makes them in concert unable to replace fossil energy/chemistry. Resist. REDUCE. Reuse. Recycle. Rebury.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    Infeasible I think you meant
    - 5y ago

fsflover 5y ago

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-hidden-costs-of-streaming-music https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-hidde...

everdrive 5y ago

These are all really good points, but what about the cost at the data center?

beckman466 5y ago

> DRM is killing the planet. Agreed. Thanks for the link. I think I could've stated my point clearer. I am against DRMed streaming/video, and I'm against DVDs. I still want people to be able to make movies and get paid, yet the above two options are unsustainable e.g. when considering the use of plastic for DVD's, and the high energy costs of streaming movies from a data center.