Man out in the wilds we can cover 10 times that distance in that time and not even have to worry about the law man.
Is that only if you stream it? What if I download it a d watch it locally? I know damn well my own computer doesn’t use that much electricity, and the AIO cooler doesn’t need to have the liquid replaced (or at least, not for a long, long time).
I’m not a very technical person, but is there really a difference in total power consumed for streaming data in real time vs. downloading it to watch locally later? Like in terms of data and electricity used end to end, I assume it would be the same. But again, I’m somewhat dumb
It is the same, assuming it’s 1 machine to 1 machine. Streaming is still downloading the thing to your machine, just to a temporary space while you also watch the bits you’ve already received.
But it generally isn’t just 1 machine to 1 machine. Downloading from a torrent isn’t 1 machine to 1 machine, either. That’s actually kinda the whole point with bittorrent.
“Let’s create a system that slowly destroys the planet but, and here me out, we blame it on the users of the system!”
The users vote for democracy and market economy. We need kings if somebody else should be responsible.
Pretty sure we’re working on it
The original tweet’s claim is false.
TLDR: It referenced an oral interview from a French think tank called The Shift Project. They have since acknowledged it as an error after a fact check from the International Energy Agency. BigThink originally tweeted this in 2019 along with a corresponding article. They have since issued a correction on the article and deleted the tweet. The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.
And they call themselves BigThink… .They really ought to change their name, it does not suit them. As they clearly don’t think before they scream.
The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.
Just a little 90x error, lol
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines
Turns out my choice to not own a TV is green.
watching Netflix is a skill issue anyway. learn to use xdcc or i2p torrents or something
there many movie torrents on i2p?
oh, yes
That’s bullhonkey of the highest fucking order!
One hour of streaming video typically uses around 0.08 kWh, or 288000 Joules, while an electric car can drive a mile with more or less 0.346 kWh, or 1245600 joules, which is to say driving 4 miles is equivalent to 17.3 hours of Netflix!
Source for streaming Cost: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines
Source for electric cars KWH per 100 Mile: https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-car-kwh-per-mile-list/
I haven’t heard “bullhonkey” since 1991 and am a big fan of what you’ve done here.
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.
Excellent calculations!
Dont forget the energy used to extract and transport the fossil fuels. Its purposely never included in the consumer guilt propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby.
Sometimes it takes 20-50% of the energy contained in the fuel to get it to you.
Thanks for doing the math. I’m not gonna check it, you seem trustworthy enough.
He shows his working though:
That would be 9kWx3hrsx30days=810kwh per month
That alone is enough evidence to prove it was a lie.
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.
Just in an attempt to be a bit more accurate, let’s assume the individual user’s television and internet router use about 900W
An average router uses between 5 and 20w, and modern LED televisions use between 30 and 180w (on the high end). Even a worst case scenario, like an uncommonly large 60" older Plasma TV would only use around 600w.
Yeah, I almost added “and they most certainly do not” to the end of that sentence, but I was trying to underestimate a little as well.
I like to verify so I asked a LLM, it confirmed the math but also determined he is a sentient banana.
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.
Not with that attitude it doesn’t. Whenever I stream Netflix I’m always doing burnouts in my car
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)
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.
I can only assume they’re putting in layers. It’s not just Netflix, it’s also the cost of your internet, of running your TV, of your AC while at home, of your lights, etc… maybe even the footprint of your food. Maybe the cost of any AI upscaling or framerate generation, if Netflix does that.
They may have looked at everything you might use in that 30 min, then compared it to the rate at an arbitrary car’s fuel efficiency. Technically true statistics are very easy to deceive people with, especially if most people don’t know how to read them.
Assuming ofc, they didn’t just make the shit up, too.
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.
Yeah, you’re right. I tried my best to make the numbers work and still couldn’t reach the bullshit tweet
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.
I suppose you could also include a sliver of the cost of the show’s production.
This person maths.
total mathhead
probably has a math lab
Piracy is the green option
Kill an oil exec and then binge watch your fav series!
Real… I myself pirate everything… 🗿
This is just flat out bullshit. Flat out.
Exactly! Oil isn’t dinosaur juice. They lube up with dead plants. Don’t make it seem glamorous.
Say people flying private jets everywhere.
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.
2kg of CO2? Atomic weight of CO2 is about 44, of which carbon is 12, so 27% of CO2 is the carbon from the gasoline. I know that gasoline contains more than just hydrocarbon chains, and that the chains also contain hydrogen. But for the sake of this back of the envelope calculation I’ll disregard both.
27% of 2kg is 0.54kg, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline a liter of gasoline is 0.755kg. Aka 2kg of CO2 is the result of burning 0.72L of gasoline. Driving 4miles, or 6.44km on 0.72L is 9km/L, or 21.2mpg. 1.6kg of CO2 would be 0.57L and 11.3km/L or 26.6mpg.
Maybe I shouldn’t have disregarded the additives and the hydrogen, but unless they account for about 50% of the weight of the gasoline, then those 4 miles were driven in a something very uneconomic.
Well the average I found was for the US, and you guys do love your SUVs even in completely unreasonable areas/spaces. And SUVs do get around 15-20MPG when used properly.
Yeah but she’s the One Good Billionaire™️ for reasons nobody is able to articulate.
I thought that was Gabe Newell
I’ll fangirl while I place the basket for his head.
Gabe actually does good, though. Valve has been a major contributor to several open source products
Does good != does only good
Does good != does good on average
Does good != is good
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.
and at the same time makes bank from kids gambling with Counter Strike skins, so a bit of a mixed bag there
I would hazard a guess that Gabe rarely leaves the house. He’s probably more carbon-neutral than 90% of the self-congratulatory twats on this platform.
The man owns six (6) yachts.
Carbon-neutral my fucking ass.
To be fair they did say more neutral. I’m not sure the carbon math on yachts vs jets, but he is a gamer, and that’s a relatively green hobby for a billionaire.
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.
That’s the thing. Swift is one of the good ones
And still needs a turn on the guillotine, so the rest of us can have a future.
She’s so good (chorus: how good is she?), she’s so good… that I don’t even know why people think she is bad. (Also relevant is that I don’t truly care enough to look it up?🤪)
But in contrast, everyone knows about The Musk, and Bezos, and so on. Taylor Swift, on the other hand, is known to travel in a jet (which considering how she likely goes with a full retinue of 10-50 people each time, and how much she would be absolutely MOBBED even by her adoring fans if she tried to use more public transportation options, definitely is the safest and might even be a very efficient form of travel under those circumstances?).
Not the same at all.
Then there’s the guy that was Luigi’d, not even a billionaire but with that mindset. So if one doesn’t need to be a billionaire to act like one, then it stands to reason that one could theoretically become one without needing to act like the others. Maybe. Though whether that applies to her I have no idea. Perhaps she simply has a better PR team.
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.
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
That’s why God invented the Pirate Bay.
Remove encryption, let users download more files. Problem solved.
What problem?
Wise fucking words. Aside from boycotting certain businesses we have almost no ability to control the environmental side of things.
