Innumeracy

From today's Observer:

"The energy used by downloads is about 7kWh per megabyte (the
average album will be in the region of 100MB),"

How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?

-- Richard

On 2010-11-07, Richard Tobin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> From today's Observer:
>
> "The energy used by downloads is about 7kWh per megabyte (the
> average album will be in the region of 100MB),"
>
> How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?

Because it's in the Observer. Numeracy is the province of dead
white middle-class men, so is to be eschewed.

--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 19th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3176
“I never thought I was wasted, but I probably was.�

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:59 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> From today's Observer:
>
> "The energy used by downloads is about 7kWh per megabyte (the
> average album will be in the region of 100MB),"
>
> How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?

That's exceedingly bad science!
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:59:04 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (Richard
Tobin) wrote this:

>From today's Observer:
>
> "The energy used by downloads is about 7kWh per megabyte (the
> average album will be in the region of 100MB),"

Well! I dunno what the hell they are talking about.
Totally baffled.

>How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?

I could. I have read it three times and still don't see where"ludicrous"
comes in!

Baffled!!

In article <ib6bb8$g83$(E-Mail Removed)>, I wrote:

>How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?

I found an article by Kate Craig-Wood, who is referenced as the source
for the numbers:

http://www.katescomment.com/carbon-cost-download-vs-cd/

It concludes that the energy used in downloading an album - excluding
that used by your PC, as in the Observer article - is 5.1Wh. The
Observer has contrived to multiply that by more than 100,000.

-- Richard

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Java Jive <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In the light of the above explanation, can you now? As most of the
>energy used by computers eventually ends up as heat, does the room
>containing your computer get as hot as it would be if heated by 7
>one-bar electric fires for an hour, every time you download as little
>as 1MB of data?

To be fair, they're considering the energy used by the servers,
including manufacture. But look at it this way: if downloading an
album used 700kWh, that would be about 70 pounds' worth of
electricity. Who would be paying for it all?

-- Richard

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:28:19 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> They're saying that the energy used in downloading one megabyte of data
> is approximately equivalent to that used by 7 one-bar electric fires
> running simultaneously for an hour.
>
>> >How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?
>>
>> I could. I have read it three times and still don't see
>> where"ludicrous" comes in!
>
> In the light of the above explanation, can you now? As most of the
> energy used by computers eventually ends up as heat, does the room
> containing your computer get as hot as it would be if heated by 7
> one-bar electric fires for an hour, every time you download as little as
> 1MB of data?

You didn't look at the article. The figure they give is for all the
energy used *excluding* the PC (and that's a few Wh only).

They're saying that the 7 kWh is used by the servers. Totally ridiculous
in any case...!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:36:25 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Java Jive
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In the light of the above explanation, can you now? As most of the
>>energy used by computers eventually ends up as heat, does the room
>>containing your computer get as hot as it would be if heated by 7
>>one-bar electric fires for an hour, every time you download as little as
>>1MB of data?
>
> To be fair, they're considering the energy used by the servers,
> including manufacture. But look at it this way: if downloading an album
> used 700kWh, that would be about 70 pounds' worth of electricity. Who
> would be paying for it all?
>
> -- Richard

She's got it out by a factor of about a million. Have a look at Kate's
original article. Even the cup of tea bit is out by a factor of 12, even
allowing for the PC.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Richard Tobin wrote:
> From today's Observer:
>
> "The energy used by downloads is about 7kWh per megabyte (the
> average album will be in the region of 100MB),"
>
> How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?
>
> -- Richard
>
which article?

Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <ib6bb8$g83$(E-Mail Removed)>, I wrote:
>
>> How could anyone write that without seeing how ludicrous it is?
>
> I found an article by Kate Craig-Wood, who is referenced as the source
> for the numbers:
>
> http://www.katescomment.com/carbon-cost-download-vs-cd/
>
> It concludes that the energy used in downloading an album - excluding
> that used by your PC, as in the Observer article - is 5.1Wh. The
> Observer has contrived to multiply that by more than 100,000.
>
so, about 50p.


> -- Richard