Hey Hannah. I have feedback on the Netflix/Youtube figures. My team's research was used by the IEA for the article you reference, and is also used by Netflix and other digital services to estimate their footprints. The figures you use are not appropriate in this context for two main reasons:
1. (The main one) Your other figures are the marginal increase in energy use for the activity, not the total energy attributed to it - so your AI doesn't include training, your laptop doesnt include manufacture, etc. The Netflix/Youtube figures you quote are attributional, and are not the *increase* in energy from an additional stream. The reason is that networking equipment doesnt change energy use significantly with data quantity transmitted. You can observe this on your home router/wifi. Our network infrastructure is always on, and provides us with access to many digital services. The marginal increase of streaming using it is minimal.
Hence it is misleading to attribute a share of energy from the network to an activity (eg streaming) in a way which implies that carrying out the activity increases energy use, and not doing it reduces energy use.
It is obvious in other activities - eg if the carbon footprint of an average swim at a public swimming pool is 3Kg, we dont believe that additional swimmers using it increase the overall footprint.
This error in reasoning was used to create scare figures that 'data networks will use large quantities of energy globally' by extrapolating increase data traffic and assuming that energy use increases linearly with it. Including in academic publications, and on R4s 'Rare Earth'
This argument also applies to the myth that you reduce emissions by making the size of websites smaller. It doesnt, and consultancies that claim otherwise in the services they offer are greenwashing.
(From memory - but can check later if you want:) I recall a figure from Netflix that the power use by the CDN equipment averages at 0.1W per stream. This is the only equipment which is additional - and so comparable to (eg) the AI figure.
2. The IEA report is old, and we send a lot more data through the internet now so networking equipment is used far more efficiently. As a result, the attributional figure is now far lower than what you have quoted.
I wonder if for context the average daily kW usage can be added? I guess it'll greatly vary by number of people but also split by US/other high/middle/low income countries? Because honestly otherwise, I struggle to know if 800kW is a lot of not, but maybe it's just my ignorance
Quick test. Nice tool to have. Strange assumptions. Modern Macbook idling will not consume 60W as assumed. 10W doing non demanding tasks, with occasional bursts could be much more realistic assumption. 60W would mean running some sorts of high load tasks all the time- rather rare case, while the power supply may be rated for it.
Boil of water is also quite enigmatic- enough for one cup of tea (250ml-ish) vs 2l for several people (or wasted power if boiling so much and using just a fraction of water).
This is exactly the sort of clear presentation people need to help them make good decisions - BUT we only make good decisions if we include the energy used in the manufacture, servicing and repair of each item. Broad brush "whole life" emission factors could be added based on manufacture and lifespan for each item so that people can make good choices about - for example - when to replace an old item with a new one. The absence of whole life emissions including embodied carbon is one of the reasons so many 'emissions reductions' programmes have had unintended consequences to increase emissions.
Useful tool. On the washing section, you might consider adding a de-humidifier (with a clothes drying function). We have ditched our tumble dryer in favour of one of these, and it uses far less energy to dry a load, as well as avoiding condensation in the house.
Would it be worth/possible adding an optional energy efficiency rating for domestic appliances as an approximation for the levels of energy savings achievable by buying/having a more energy efficient device?
As I randomly compared an electric car with an e bike and a macbook, I had the following thoughts.
How many times more power was the car vs macbook? The bar gives some idea, but maybe a number would be clearer in some situations ( ie Car uses 40 times more than a macbook)
Second thought was that this comparison favoured the car because it defaulted to 10 miles. Arguably in an hour of use a car would travel 40 miles. Could everything default to figure approximating to one hour of use?
One issue that I ran into. I can't click on the checkbox to check/uncheck it, I have to click on the word/title next to the checkbox. Can you make the checkbox clickable as well? I am on Chrome on Mac. Thanks.
I Love it! I am tempted to use this in the classroom due to the streamlined efficiency and clarity.
Feedback
1) Bug: On Mobile, when I select many items the text for the bar chart wraps to 2 lines but there is only space for one line of text next to the bar and two lines of text are on top of each other. Solution: make the bar chart taller on mobile
2) A sense of time is sometimes missing: for charging a phone there is a set number of Wh, presumably for a normal full charge. For a Fridge, there is a set number of Wh, is this per day? per hour? Can the time 'denominator' be included, especially for defaults?
3) Is it intentional that the big items are near the bottom? People may have lost interest by then, or they may remember some early surprise (lighting is more than TV use for them) and miss the important thing that driving and HVAC are huge energy users. (The following is not the best reference for dealing with misconceptions in education, but it is an explanation of the 'Truth Sandwich" explaining that you want the 'wrong' information in the middle, surrounded by correct idea formation. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/how-to-serve-up-a-tasty-truth-sandwich/
Looks like the makings of a useful tool, Hannah. However, on my AVG Secure Browser (Chrome-based) on Windows 11, none of the tick boxes work - a tick doesn't appear with a click. The search box worked, but then froze the window. A bit more coding to sort out.
Hey Hannah. I have feedback on the Netflix/Youtube figures. My team's research was used by the IEA for the article you reference, and is also used by Netflix and other digital services to estimate their footprints. The figures you use are not appropriate in this context for two main reasons:
1. (The main one) Your other figures are the marginal increase in energy use for the activity, not the total energy attributed to it - so your AI doesn't include training, your laptop doesnt include manufacture, etc. The Netflix/Youtube figures you quote are attributional, and are not the *increase* in energy from an additional stream. The reason is that networking equipment doesnt change energy use significantly with data quantity transmitted. You can observe this on your home router/wifi. Our network infrastructure is always on, and provides us with access to many digital services. The marginal increase of streaming using it is minimal.
Hence it is misleading to attribute a share of energy from the network to an activity (eg streaming) in a way which implies that carrying out the activity increases energy use, and not doing it reduces energy use.
It is obvious in other activities - eg if the carbon footprint of an average swim at a public swimming pool is 3Kg, we dont believe that additional swimmers using it increase the overall footprint.
This error in reasoning was used to create scare figures that 'data networks will use large quantities of energy globally' by extrapolating increase data traffic and assuming that energy use increases linearly with it. Including in academic publications, and on R4s 'Rare Earth'
This argument also applies to the myth that you reduce emissions by making the size of websites smaller. It doesnt, and consultancies that claim otherwise in the services they offer are greenwashing.
(From memory - but can check later if you want:) I recall a figure from Netflix that the power use by the CDN equipment averages at 0.1W per stream. This is the only equipment which is additional - and so comparable to (eg) the AI figure.
2. The IEA report is old, and we send a lot more data through the internet now so networking equipment is used far more efficiently. As a result, the attributional figure is now far lower than what you have quoted.
If you want more info, best to email me: chris.preist@bristol.ac.uk
@andymasley - I messaged you before about this a few months ago, in response to a draft post you made. Here are a few more details to the argument.
Thank you for this really useful clarification written in an accessible way.
Thank you for creating it.
I wonder if for context the average daily kW usage can be added? I guess it'll greatly vary by number of people but also split by US/other high/middle/low income countries? Because honestly otherwise, I struggle to know if 800kW is a lot of not, but maybe it's just my ignorance
Quick test. Nice tool to have. Strange assumptions. Modern Macbook idling will not consume 60W as assumed. 10W doing non demanding tasks, with occasional bursts could be much more realistic assumption. 60W would mean running some sorts of high load tasks all the time- rather rare case, while the power supply may be rated for it.
Boil of water is also quite enigmatic- enough for one cup of tea (250ml-ish) vs 2l for several people (or wasted power if boiling so much and using just a fraction of water).
This is exactly the sort of clear presentation people need to help them make good decisions - BUT we only make good decisions if we include the energy used in the manufacture, servicing and repair of each item. Broad brush "whole life" emission factors could be added based on manufacture and lifespan for each item so that people can make good choices about - for example - when to replace an old item with a new one. The absence of whole life emissions including embodied carbon is one of the reasons so many 'emissions reductions' programmes have had unintended consequences to increase emissions.
Useful tool. On the washing section, you might consider adding a de-humidifier (with a clothes drying function). We have ditched our tumble dryer in favour of one of these, and it uses far less energy to dry a load, as well as avoiding condensation in the house.
Would it be worth/possible adding an optional energy efficiency rating for domestic appliances as an approximation for the levels of energy savings achievable by buying/having a more energy efficient device?
As I randomly compared an electric car with an e bike and a macbook, I had the following thoughts.
How many times more power was the car vs macbook? The bar gives some idea, but maybe a number would be clearer in some situations ( ie Car uses 40 times more than a macbook)
Second thought was that this comparison favoured the car because it defaulted to 10 miles. Arguably in an hour of use a car would travel 40 miles. Could everything default to figure approximating to one hour of use?
Hope this is helpful
Unfortunately, in a congested urban area 10 miles in an hour is not such a bad approximation 😂
Great! I will have a look on it and share with my customers. If I have valuable feedback and I will write you!
Also when I looked at Energy consumption graph below, on my IPhone, I couldn’t fully read what the item was on the left (e.g ….bile phone)
Thanks! Will try to improve this.
Great tool!
One issue that I ran into. I can't click on the checkbox to check/uncheck it, I have to click on the word/title next to the checkbox. Can you make the checkbox clickable as well? I am on Chrome on Mac. Thanks.
Thanks! This should hopefully be fixed now. Let me know if you're still having issues.
I had the same issue. Safari on Mac.
Yeah it was awkward on chrome android too
Microwave power rating is not electricity consumed eg. My 800w microwave consumes
… (continued) consumes about 1.3kW I.e. much less than 100% efficient
Really useful and needed. It helps having these orders of magnitude in mind!
This is so cool. Thank you!!
Awesome, thank you! Pretty good approximations.
I Love it! I am tempted to use this in the classroom due to the streamlined efficiency and clarity.
Feedback
1) Bug: On Mobile, when I select many items the text for the bar chart wraps to 2 lines but there is only space for one line of text next to the bar and two lines of text are on top of each other. Solution: make the bar chart taller on mobile
2) A sense of time is sometimes missing: for charging a phone there is a set number of Wh, presumably for a normal full charge. For a Fridge, there is a set number of Wh, is this per day? per hour? Can the time 'denominator' be included, especially for defaults?
3) Is it intentional that the big items are near the bottom? People may have lost interest by then, or they may remember some early surprise (lighting is more than TV use for them) and miss the important thing that driving and HVAC are huge energy users. (The following is not the best reference for dealing with misconceptions in education, but it is an explanation of the 'Truth Sandwich" explaining that you want the 'wrong' information in the middle, surrounded by correct idea formation. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/how-to-serve-up-a-tasty-truth-sandwich/
Looks like the makings of a useful tool, Hannah. However, on my AVG Secure Browser (Chrome-based) on Windows 11, none of the tick boxes work - a tick doesn't appear with a click. The search box worked, but then froze the window. A bit more coding to sort out.
Thanks, Harry. This should hopefully be fixed now. Let me know if you're still having issues.
Nah, sorry. Only 3 tick boxes work: Streaming YT, Charging mobile and Vacuum cleaner.