4 ms·
I do wonder what the environmental impact of doing it like this is. The embodied energy and materials used for all these structures and robots, as well as the e
by rvense 5y ago
I do wonder what the environmental impact of doing it like this is. The embodied energy and materials used for all these structures and robots, as well as the energy to keep them running.
My immediate guess is that it adds a significant overhead to the products, but I really don't know.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoIf there's some overhead but in return they can work 24/7 without breaks then it's cheaper. Constant output is really valuable.
- rvense 5y agoOh, I'm sure it's cheaper to operate, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But I am of the opinion that energy and many natural resources are extremely underpriced when one factors in climate change and other externalities like the impact of exported e-waste.
- yissp 5y agoWould you need to compare it to the environmental impact of the lifestyles of the dozens / hundreds of human workers who would be staffing a traditional warehouse?
- rvense 5y agoDo the humans only exist to staff the warehouse?
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y agoNo, but they have to drive or otherwise travel to the warehouse to work, provisions have to be made for them, such as air conditioning, and so on. A human at work is hardly environmentally neutral.
- Shmebulock 5y agoWould be interesting to compare this to the environmental impact of having human workers
- dageshi 5y agoProbably less environmentally damaging than an equivalent human work force to do the same job I'm guessing.
- mongol 5y agoI don't know either, but I expect the opposite. It seems incredibly efficient for what it does. I don't know how you could do the same thing with less energy? Obviously, it is possibe to optimize something here and there, but if we compare with humans doing the same job, and the energy they would need, this must surely be less...?
- rvense 5y agoI don't actually know! But there are a lot of factors. One is the movement of the robots, another is their construction and the supporting structure, as well as all the electronics involved. Making electronics is very resource-intensive. I often wonder about how to make these kinds of comparisons, but it always involves so many guesstimates that it quickly falls apart.
- matsemann 5y agoI think you should compare it to what's normally being done for groceries. You would get a trailer of a good. Then in your warehouse split that into smaller pallets, going with other goods on a new trailer to a store. There, a worker would have to put the goods on the shelves, and a customer later pick it into their cart. The store also uses lots of resources. Same with every shopper in a neighborhood driving their own car to the store, vs a van delivering to multiple homes. So I think it's better.
- rvense 5y agoOh, I understand that. It's still a lot of robots, but maybe it means less lorries and, ultimately, a whole layer of small shops and maybe secondary warehouses that aren't needed. Maybe it does add up to less fuel and less steel. It also leads to a lot more centralization, but that's a different discussion, of course.
- autoexec 5y ago> Obviously, it is possibe to optimize something here and there, but if we compare with humans doing the same job, and the energy they would need, this must surely be less...? The issue here is that the human needs the same amount of energy no matter what he's tasked with. Ideally robots will mean humans will be spending their time on fewer menial tasks, but the environmental impact of a living human is the same no matter if they're stocking shelves or doing any other job. Robots might be able to give some environmental improvements in the workplace though. The areas they inhabit don't need to be well lit or heated/cooled for human comfort, but that's only true for places and times where humans can be removed entirely. Even in a fully automated warehouse the moment a repair person comes in, or a janitor, or a exterminator, or any human employee you have to accommodate their safety and comfort. I suspect the additional efficiency of machines will just make it faster and easier for people to consume irresponsibility produced and packaged goods
- tobyhinloopen 5y agoIf you think robots consume much energy and are bad for the environment, try switching them out for humans and see how much energy you need to keep them running.
- snarf21 5y agoI don't have a source handy but I remember reading something a while ago that said the carbon footprint for someone to drive to the grocery store and back is larger that the carbon footprint of all the other transportation involved in that product.
- dsign 5y agoIt's probably non-trivial, but human time also has a high environmental impact, because we eat and use stuff (think about a parking lot full of shoppers or employee cars). If we are going to pay our environmental human cost anyway, better if our time is not spent doing boring things that we do just because of the money.
- lucb1e 5y agoFrom a simple mass ratio perspective, these robots and a human probably carry about the same amount of stuff. Moving a few kg of robot units versus 80 kg of standard white male units, I can see the efficiency gain there. That is of course just one aspect, but I think you're being a bit quick to jump to guessing about conclusions of it being 'significantly' worse.
- randyrand 5y agohumans require ~60-100 watts, 24/7. A human only works about 8hrs a day. Also our food is much less efficient to produce than electricity. So if this robot is less than ~600 watts average, and as productive as a human, it’s a win. Id imagine it’s well under 600.