Not to say that netfix isn’t horrible, but how much did Netflix save in CO2 buy gutting the movie theater and video rental industry? Surely it’s better to stream than it is to drive to a physical location, pick up a crystalized block of oil, drive it home and shove it into our VCR.
Hell, when they were doing disc delivery, it was coming through the mail who was already driving through the hood in most places.
Hell, I wonder how much co2 it cost to make the DVD/VHS tapes in the first place.
Yeah this smacks of “but wind turbine blades aren’t recyclable”! So? It’s still better than what we were doing before.
wind turbine blades aren’t recyclable
I didn’t even know about that.
Wonder if they could crush them up and use them as concrete aggregate.
“made mainly of carbon fiber, fiberglass, and balsa wood” from some random source. Doesn’t sound like anything particularly toxic or difficult to source. I can’t imagine putting them in landfill is a serious problem. So my response is “so what”.
Why not?
Carbon fiber and fiberglass in concrete foundations would limit microplastics and add strength to the product. Throwing a never-decomposing product into a landfill is just taking up space for something that can decompose over a couple of hundred years. Reuse it at least once it there’s a viable solution.
Sure. I mean, you could. Probably there are better sources, like construction waste, that you’d want to exhaust first, but I obviously haven’t done a serious cost-benefit analysis, nor am I really qualified. My intuition is that you could do it but there are better uses of the time and money.
Relatively inert stuff in a landfill doesn’t seem like the highest-priority use of the time and money. The resources used to scrap and recycle a wind turbine blade could probably be much better used for more consequential purposes.
Nothing you do will ever come close to the devastation caused by commercial fishing industry.
There are several industries that can make that claim
I’m sure that’s true but I hate the commercial fishing industry the most 💜
Stamets, it’s cool, I know you’re putting this out there to illustrate some obviously bad takes.
<rant>
Personally, I’ve kind of had it with these think-tank, astro-turfing, menaces to social media and society writ-large. I think it’s high time that we all start getting a little louder about who’s behind these things when we spot them here, and elsewhere. Lex (in the post) has the right take, but it’s probably even better to get the word out about the source of this blame-shifting crap.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/big-think/
The Big Think is privately owned through Freethink Media. Some of the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel from PayPal, Tom Scott of Nantucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. Revenue is generated through advertising, sponsored content, and subscriptions to the website’s E-learning platform.
If that isn’t enough to get really fucking mad about this slow-creeping horseshit, I don’t know what is.
It’s time to execute Peter Thiel
Also, that number is utter bullshit.
Netflix, like all major streaming platforms, has an incredibly optimised system for providing the media. A 4 mile drive emits ~1.6-2kg of CO2, whereas one hour of streaming from Netflix emits up to 100g per hour as per Netflix themselves (and even that study is being questioned now, with newer ones putting this value around 30-40g). Meaning you’d need to stream for well over two days to even get near the emissions of a 4 mile drive.
Real talk, Big Think can cram this bullshit up their asses.
I’m so sick and tired of having to humour these asinine Malthusian-rooted arguments against simply being alive in society, as if everyday people doing anything more than pulling air into their faces were an unwelcome imposition on the Earth - this, especially, given the scale of unchecked industrial/commercial pollution while industries continuously resist and derail efforts to regulate and sanction it.
Granted, this kind of talk doesn’t crop up every single day IRL, but it’s starting to feel that way in online communities. Why the fuck are people allowing these hacks to make them feel guilty just for going about their lives, as though having a coffee or driving to see their family 500 miles away were equivalent to festooning themselves with skinned baby seals or crushing endangered leopard cubs underfoot? If global resources hadn’t been so willfully, purposely mismanaged for 200+ years, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. Now media talking heads want me to feel guilty for watching TV? They can fuck themselves with BR40 light bulbs.
I just want to commend your dedication to using flared bases, even when speaking about people you don’t agree with.
The numbers are are also clearly fictive. Driving a car for 4 miles uses about half a liter of fuel. A liter of gasoline contains about 9kwh of energy meaning, that you would use about 4.5 kwh per half hour of streaming. So the servers would have to draw about 9 KW to serve a single person? That would be like 10 gaming PCs running at full power to serve one person. Are they animating the shows in real time? No compression algorithm is that inefficient and no hard drive uses that much energy.
edit: also they could never be profitable like that. Let’s say you watch three hours per day. That would be 9kWx3hrsx30days=810kwh per month. Even if they only pay 5 cents a kWh that would still be over $40 per month just in electricity cost for one user.
Don’t forget that the grids that power these servers are mixed too, not 100% fossil fuels. And even if they were coal-fired, power generation is more efficient than internal combustion engines.
Likely it’d have to be at LEAST 30-40 kW to serve a single person for it to be equivalent, but I can’t be arsed to do the math.
Thanks for doing the math. I’m not gonna check it, you seem trustworthy enough.
I’m not gonna check the numbers either. Because I have no idea how. And I don’t even understand them.
So obviously he’s right!
The numbers aren’t too difficult to verify.
I found this Canadian government web page that says it’s roughly 8.9 kWh, so that checks out.
Looking at the fuel efficiency table on that same website, it looks like OP used a reasonable average fuel efficiency of 30 mpg or slightly under 8L/100km: 4 miles / 30mpg = 0.13 gallons, or 0.492 liters, so their claim of half a liter of gas also checks out.
The cheapest commercial energy in the US appears to be in North Dakota at $0.0741/kWh, so using $0.05/kWh was very generous.
The average Netflix user watches about 2 hours per day, or 60 hours per month.
Just in an attempt to be a bit more accurate, let’s assume the individual user’s television and internet router use about 900W, so we’ll use a final number of 8kW for Netflix’s power use per user.
8 kW * 60 hours= 480 kWh
And the cost of all of those kWh at $0.05: 480 kWh * $0.05 = $24.00
Or, the cost in the least expensive state in the US: 480 kWh * $0.0741 = $35.57
National average is $0.14/kWh, so unless Netflix was serving everyone out of North Dakota and Texas, their average cost per user would be much closer to $70 per user.
OP’s numbers were definitely already accurate enough for the point. Basically, there’s no possible way Netflix needs that much electricity to serve their users.
I checked them Adolf, the numbers are accurate.
o7 doing the lord’s work in the comments
I prefer to think that this post is unrealistically optimistic. If you drive an electric car and live in Quebec, this could very well be true. For reference, Quebec’s electric grid is just about 100% hydroelectric power, so your driving emissions would be close to 0.
I only looked at power consumption, not emissions. If the electricity produced is emissions free than the emissions for both driving and streaming would be zero. So the original statement would be true, but meaningless. But lets compare the energy consumption with an EV. At 15kwh/100km(4.14mi/kWh) the EV would need 15kwh/100km*6,44km=0.966kwh for 4 miles. That still leaves us with a power draw of 1.932KW. That is closer to a realistic but I still don’t think the power consumption of streaming is that high.
“closer to realistic” - technically, but 1 kW is just so much power, I find it hard to imagine.
Say I was streaming from my own home server instead (about 20W, which could serve more then just one user), and over a gigabit Ethernet switch (also about 20W) which could serve a 4k streams to 50 users, but let’s say it’s just me). Then I would use 0.04 kW of electricity for streaming? Maybe I’m streaming from my gaming PC (0.1 kW idle) and have a large inefficient monitor (another 0.1kW). Then it sums up to 0.24 kW. We’re still not close to 1 kW and I’m out of ideas.
Granted, you’ll have many more switches because this is the internet. But those won’t serve just a single user so the power per user is much smaller too. And netflix servers will use more power, but they are also much better optimized for streaming than my home server, and not 90% idle, shared by many users.
And what would you do if you weren’t streaming? Would you turn off your gaming PC and monitor? If not, we can’t really fully count their consumption. Maybe… ah, I’ve got it! You’re boiling water for coffee at the same time. Yes, that would be 1kW. All the time, while streaming, one cup of water after the other non-stop.
Streaming also doesn’t emit microplastics all over the road via tyre wear. Streaming doesn’t emit brake dust. Streaming doesn’t require paving vast quantities of land in tarmac.
I’m not saying their numbers are correct but you are missing: Routers ( four minimum, Netflix data center, backbone isp, local isp, your house), TV, for many a streaming device which can range from the TV itself to a PS5 or gaming PC, and for many a soundbar or amp and speakers.
They probably took max load for all those devices and lumped that all together which, yeah max load isn’t right and the routers should actually be split amongst many many houses but it is all part of streaming.
reminds me of when they use to calculate financial losses from a hack, they would add in the full cost of any hardware touched, and the full price to develop any of the software touched…
ending up at dozens of millions of dollars, just because some looked at a thing
like if you spray painted a wall on building and they charged you with the entire cost of building the entire structure.i’d also say manufacturing the devices probably roughly doubles the carbon footprint (same with the car but we’re trying every trick in the book to figure out where the figure came from)
Trying the close to best scenario I can think of for the tweet to be correct
4 miles is about 6.5 km (rounding up)
Ford fiesta takes uses 6 litres over 100 km (tiny car also rounded down)
0.39l of gasoline is about 3.5 kwh (rounded down)
Well the next step would be apply loved trick: Engine only pases around 1/5 of gasoline energy to useful energy, so that number can be used to make it more possible We get 0.7kwh
Half an hour would give us 0.35kwh
Beffy Gaming PC uses around 400w (my gaming pc uses less) when doing light tasks, so that gives around 0.2kwh
Since I love drinking tea, that leaves me 0.15kwh for a whole litre of tea to chug down every 30 minutes
So with my average binge session I would have consume around 12 litres of tea for the tweet to be viable
No gaming PC should use 400W unless it’s under heavy load.
Heh, just did the same but with CO2 emissions. And even considering those, the numbers were wildly off - about 2 days of constant streaming (nearly 48 hours!) equates a standard gas car’s 4 mile drive in emissions.
This person maths.
total mathhead
probably has a math lab
Mega yachts have to be started regularly to keep the engine running smoothly. So even if you aren’t going anywhere, you still have to spend thousands in gas each few days just so it performs well when you do actually use it.
Honestly, if jets left trails that looked like this then nobody would want to fly so much, and public outcry would be a lot louder.
Yeah but she’s the One Good Billionaire™️ for reasons nobody is able to articulate.
That might have more to do with how bad the others are than whatever she does herself…
Yep. She’s not publicly eating babies and being carried on a palanquin by the poors. She ain’t good, but her badness is orders of magnitude below some of the mustache twirling villains out here tying people to railroad tracks.
I thought that was Gabe Newell
Gabe actually does good, though. Valve has been a major contributor to several open source products
Taylor Swift also arguably contributes something of value–music that a lot of people really like. Doesn’t mean either of them should be able to amass that much wealth. The tax system in the US is broken. In the US in 1961, for example, stock buybacks were illegal (so stocks paid dividends, which are taxable income), and any income above $32,000/year was taxed at 50%, up to a marginal tax rate of 91% for any income above $400,000/year. In contrast, the highest marginal tax rate in the US in 2024 was 37% for any income above $731,200/year, and companies buy back stocks rather than issuing dividends most of the time. Further, most millionaires and billionaires amass wealth through stocks rather than income, using loans against stocks for cash, meaning they pay almost no taxes and continue to amass personal wealth.
I do find it funny they use an old 1950s smoky long range bomber as an example
If a B-52 is smoking like that it does NOT have a long range anymore
Blue checkmarks fund Nazis
This screenshot is from before twitter was aquired.
Top account still has their blue checkmark… and bottom still hasn’t deleted their account.
Funding and participating with Nazis is still supporting them.
Using Shitter to post this probably does way more to negatively affect the environment more than anything.
Asking the right questions here!!!
Aarrrr, that’s why we do the work ourselves!
No it’s cool. Just cancel your Netflix and pirate your media. Thanks Big Think!
Better yet - boycott Big Media so they have even less of a reason to keep gigantic data centers to begin with.
Now try saying this about AI
Using the words thank you to respond to Alexa uses the same amount of gasoline a wood chipper takes to consume eleven spotted owls.
Unleaded, though!
The funny thing is, with AI each individual token is surprisingly efficient, but each query is burning 10s or 100s of tokens, and a single interaction can lead to 10s or 100s of queries. Factor in that there’s forced AI integrations into things that don’t need it on top of the millions of active users, the near constant training of new models, and suddenly its ballooned into an amount of energy that’s noticable on a global scale
Here’s a Big Think. I used to drive 4 miles to blockbuster then pick out a plastic coated VHS, then play it on my plastic coated VCR on my TV that was at least 10x the width of current TVs.
Then, 3 days later, drive like a mad racer with no brakes to get back to the Blockbuster 2 minutes before they closed.
And that’s just like the other 80% of America who don’t have trains, buses or decent bike lanes. So kindly FO on guilt tripping us for our streaming habits, TYVM.
you exist. and i can’t help but notice that you don’t feel bad enough about that
