We already know that the SAFENetwork will be greener than bitcoin. Will SAFENetwork help companies like Netflix improve their CO2 footprint?
I think it’d be really difficult to determine that. All other things being equal, would a video served up from the Safe Network be more efficient and emit less than from one served from Netflix’s own CDN? And are average home computers more efficient than servers in a data centre?
The Bitcoin comparison is easy, as the energy waste is built in into bitcoin by design.
And it’s also easy to see why the de-duplication and Safe storage of data for information typically kept locally and accessed infrequently, could have amazing benefits as well… but the Netflix usecase probably isn’t as night and day.
Where is the comparison with watching broadcast terrestrial HD, satellite HD, Bluerays, etc? In short, are our new watching habits appreciably more energy intensive than our old ones?
Creating and shipping physical media around the world may not be great either. Putting satellites in space isn’t a low energy activity either.
Without knowing the alternatives, it is hard to draw conclusions. After all, sitting in silently on the cold and dark is preferable to any TV watching, but would that be advocated?
My thought is that getting an exact figure is not possible with some unmeasurable factors involved.
For instance the mix of data-centre and home vaults. I hope and expect a good %age will be home. But home also has the issue of hours the computer is on, will SBCs (lowest power) be used.
Even though home (PC) computers will consume more power on average per vault, it is power that is being used anyhow. But the vaults using SBCs (single board computers like RPi) will likely have lower power per vault than data centres which also have aircon, security, etc to factor into the cost per vault. There is a chance home PCs could be close or better than data centres with the new PCs, laptops etc coming out now.
The reason for that verbose paragraph is that netflix has computers sitting in data centres and the power is based on the computers+security+aircon+? requirements.
Now for SAFE with a large %age of home (PC) computers using no extra power which means essentially zero rated power and home SBCs with lower than DC vaults, means that expected mix of computers used for SAFE should use less (extra) power than what netflix is using per movie watched
I was just trying to think back to using just old tech… books. That’s not good either, not only are you shipping heavy books around the planet… you are cutting down trees.
I think it comes down to data. Has anyone sat down to write an equation that give the relationship between data and energy for a human. I think just by existing and doing stuff each human generates CO2 in proportion to how advanced a society they live in. I lf we went back to being hunter gatherers we would have a very low foot print. Maybe that’s how civilisations die out… Death by data.
Technically you could make paper out of hemp or recycle old paper. You don’t need to make new paper out of new wood. It’s not just about the tech it’s about methods used to make it as well.
As for shipping books, yes transport takes energy but once you have the book it doesn’t take power to use it. And people can in fact carry and exchange books in a low tech manner without digital aid. Same to some degree with physical media like DVDs.
Companies perhaps but remember the data still needs to be housed somewhere, hard drives still need to run and power still needs to be supplied. SAFE may decentralize the system and make it more efficient via deduplication but it still requires physical resources. Sooner or later the SAFE network will have to take things like power generation into consideration and calculate percentages of the population (percentage of user nodes) using renewables vs fossil fuels to generate power if it wants to calculate the carbon footprint of the network.
Books though lock up carbon. We have forests now specifically for paper and building lumber. Each tree cut down is replaced with a new tree that will be cut down in due time and the cycle continues.
The beauty of these forests is that they are ones that lock up a lot more carbon than natural forests that slow down carbon uptake as they get older.
No one cares - a Google search uses enough energy to light a 60W bulb for around 15 seconds… How many people will stop tweeting rubbish or looking at useless videos online? In the end, very few will change and instead will choose to hide behind the corrupt myth of carbon offsets.
Netflix only burns electricity? If the electricity comes from other sources than coal powerplants then the emissions should be low.
If the enviromental movement goes after Netflix then they are stupid. My solution is to talk a language that is understood all over the world “Money”. I would like people to demand from their goverments to impose following: Nations world wide have ten years to close every coal powerplant or nations should enforce customs taxes that are eqvivalent to the cost differnece between coal power and alternatives + costs to remove carbon dioxide from the air eqvuivalent to what a carbon powerplant produce.
Close all coal powerplants all over the world in a decade or suffer the economic consequenses. I would like to start a web site where people could sign a petition to be handed over to each government.
I’am tired of all stupid enviromental hunts that don’t bring a significant punsh.
Obnoxious mode: On
Caveat: Nothing personal
1 email has the same energy consumption as a physical letter. (Yeah, you’ll have too google that yourself, I’m in obnoxious mode).
Costs for depressed people? Not that TV prevents depression. But maybe TV is a bit archaic of an example. Throw in something more contemporary and compare. No, natural environment is not an option, it is a luxury today.
And that life style supports a population of about 10 million people (again, obnoxious mode, I’m not providing sources find them or just don’t bother reading this ). Saying this as a person that very much believes in the adaptation of our species to that lifestyle. Tough shit…
Yeah. Try carry 1000 books without any “artifical” aid.
And how is that working out for ye down under? I think those aborigines had it better, continuously burning down lands, and not letting forests and materials build up.
I feel you. And agree.
But then it is the material consumption. Phosphorus for crops. Peaks. Lithium for batteries. Peaks. Etc.etc.etc.
And the fishes. The sea is dead, or dying.
Obnoxious mode: Off
Why? Are you going to be READING an entire library in a short amount of time? People carry and exchange the books they are reading. They keep handy the books that are valuable to them. But there is no reason to carry with you 1,000 hardcopy books. Simply because you can carry with you 1,000 or 10,000 or 1M books on a digital device doesn’t mean that amount of data is practical when it comes to actually absorbing it through reading it. Have you never heard of a book exchange?
That’s ridiculous. There’s nature all around you. Even in the heart of a city there is nature. You are a part of nature not separate from it. And anywhere there is air, water, sun and soil things can grow. Anywhere there is carbon rich material you can compost and make soil. Just stop mowing your lawns and you’ll be surrounded by meadows. Look at the sidewalks in spring and you’ll see flowers creeping up between the cracks. There are animal species living right beside you. And if you want more nature you can help it along by building gardens and more green spaces. Nature is not a luxury nature is life. And if we start thinking of it as a luxury then we’re quickly on the road to devaluing it and our own biosphere. And that road leads to a quick death.
Why just coal? Why not all fossil fuel based power production and nuclear as well? But I guerentee you it wouldn’t fly. People, not just governments, value their jobs and economic, or at least perceived, prosperity more than they do the environment. Also a lot of them get very twitchy when you use things like government force. Right now it’s hard to convince anyone that there are alternatives to oil pipelines because the oil pipeline construction provide jobs for people and there are many people working in the oil fields who would otherwise be unemployed. It’s hard to convince people when their job depends on you being wrong to paraphrase the old adage. As long as people’s economic security depends on fossil fuel production AND as long as your solution involves government force I’d predict the people would not vote the way you want them to, or at least not as many as you’d want. And even if you got the laws you want passed what is to ensure anything would change? Corporations could simply pass the cost of production of said products onto the consumers. Food and product prices would rise. But there is no guarentee business models would actually change. If energy production from fossil fuels is outlawed or sanctioned do you think that will only affect the tech industry? What about someone with a wood stove? Does your policy cover them? Or are they exempt? (In point of fact there are government plans to ban woods stoves which is insane given the number of poor people that still rely on them.) Just saying have you thought about the far reaching implications of what banning or sanctioning carbon fuels actually means? It’s one thing to rail against big coal power plants needlessly pumping toxins out into the atmosphere when we have much better tech available. Or oil when fracking and pipelines cause massive environmental damage. But carbon fuels are not limited to such things.
Even 10 books start to get impractical. I don’t think I need to say more than that.
I don’t disagree. That was a well written and beautiful piece of text.
Impractical for what? What’s the context? And again I don’t see what point you are trying to make. I have a whole bookshelf of books. My mom has even more. We have a small library and deal regularly in hard copy books. So what exactly is your point? If you mean physically carrying more than 10 books that would depend on size and weight but yes more than 10 can get a bit heavy generally speaking. But as I said people don’t usually read 10 books at a time, they usually focus on one or two unless they are doing research in which case you’d want to have a couple handy in one place. And in that case you’d just get them all, put them on a table or whatever, and use them. So I’m not quite sure what your point is here.
/restrained mode on
You deserve to be blasted for that remark. Really blasted.
The forests I talked of are managed ones with no dead fuel. They are not the forests that are burning. It is the natural forests which “do gooder” groups convinced the government to not do preventive back burning each year.
People lose lives, property and you use it to try and make a point and failed at that even. Shame on you and I do not care if you claim Obnoxious mode or not.
Not needed in any forum.
Well, good then, if that is the case, and my apologies. I perceived it as you were talking about the forests in general, and it is not clear that these would be distinct from those burning (also after rereading, that stands).
So, no need to blast back, as that was more or less what I was doing. But, by all means go ahead, I’ll take it, if you feel it justified.
I think that people need to be educated and maybe also be told a nice compelling story, then they probably won’t mind a change to something different.
My experiences in the past with trying to tell people the truth, logical and rational thinking, have made me come to a hypothesies that in the short/medium term a good story will have the best impact, logic/truth maybe work well in the long term.
“Truth is like poetry, and most people f***in hate poetry”(The Big Short).
Right now I believe wealthy guns/fossil fuel companies tell the nice stories people in the US and other countries want to believe and accept. For example when companies fully automate factories you don’t hear people get away with, no they can’t do that because people will lose their jobs, but with coal/gas/petrol you here these arguments as truths, because big money makes it that way. Same I believe is true for US gun laws. Without big money US gun producing corporations making alot of guns, I don’t believe that the gun laws would be as liberal as they are today in the US. People like to hear a nice story that they want to believe, truths and logic is hard to get through, for good results it just matters who tells the story.
Let’s say in a decade, countries that export goods and have coal power plants will face for example 50% added tax to the countries they export to, and then it is just a matter of telling people a nice story and don’t complicate things with truths, facts, logic and so on, tell them a nice story and most will believe it.
It might be a little cynical but I can’t change how people function but maybe future bad results can be changed tomorrow with new rules and a good story.
My two cents.
I agree stories can make a tremendous difference. Our Gods and mythologies that have shaped entire cultures were born from stories told around the campfire. I’m not against guns and believe people should have the right to bear arms but I am against war. And I do believe that if we did away with war and decentralized gun production, or at least made it local, rather than an international corporate affair, there would be less demand. I don’t believe we should be focusing on gun control. I believe we should be focusing on peace. Having gun control but still promoting wars and conflict will solve nothing. Conversely being allowed to have a weapon but not wanting to fight will make the issue moot.
The environmental issue is much the same. People believe their livelihood is at stake because they believe their prosperity is dependent on fossil fuels and war. Trying to outlaw or restrict such things will not go over well unless you change that story. At one time people lived in the forest and off of the land, they knew explicitly that their life was tied to the natural world, that they were in fact part of nature. But since we have moved into cities and developed so much artificial tech we’ve lost that sense of connection. Before we can push to restore the earth we need to restore that understanding that we are part of the earth and that our lives literally depend on it. It’s not just a social justice movement but rather a matter of immediate survival. Moreover we need to illistrate that it’s possible and not just a fantasy which means demonstrating concrete plans and scenarios on how things can realistically be accomplished.
It’s not just a matter of educating people. The poor and working class are not stupid or even ignorant. Many of them see the “educated” class as simply being disconnected from reality. This includes those pushing the environmental movement since they are the one’s siding with “science” against the practical labour workforce. This means if one wants the environmental story to make sense it needs to make practical on the ground sense. Lots of details and examples. Yes I totally agree with you that stories would be an excellent tool to illistrate how this all could be possible but they need to have details and examples in them. They need to show people how things could work in their real lives and on realistic budgets. They need to have those “Wait… I could do that!” moments. The power of stories is that the reader connects and empathizes with the protagonist. If the story doesn’t make sense your audience, in this case the unconvinced oil and gas user, is not going to buy it.
Yes, and CO2 = plant food. More plant food = more plants. More plants = more fish. My Netflix and youtube binge last week helped heal the oceans and improve the biosphere!
Is this true? I heard this was the case in the US forest fires a year or so ago. Something along the lines of them putting out every fire, when they should have let the small ones burn out naturally (as they had for millennia). Do you have any sources for this as I would appreciate reading it.