\u201cThere are currently no comprehensive data on the energy use of all data centre operators globally, so this estimated range is based on bottom-up models.\u201d<\/em><\/h3>\nThis is remarkable given that we have been able to estimate quite accurately phenomena that are much more complex. In this case, we would only need quantitative information \u2013 the electrical energy and the amount of data used \u2013 that can be determined with great accuracy. The current situation is not acceptable and should be addressed soon by policymakers.<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nTalking of tons of CO2<\/sub> emitted, kilowatt-hours for electricity, cubic metres for gas, litres of gasoline and cars\u2019 horsepower creates confusion in many, including academics. Most people would not be able to say how much energy they use daily nor what level of emissions these activities cause. But they would be able to tell you right away their salary or monthly rent. The ease of talking about money lies in the fact that we humans long ago decided that a commonly held currency was the best way to trade disparate things. We don\u2019t do this for our energy use, hence the difficulty.<\/p>\nThere is no reason not to change the situation, however: the beauty of the concept of \u201cenergy\u201d is that nature gave it to us as a number that is mysteriously conserved<\/a> even when we change its form \u2013 for example, from electrical to thermal. Hence, we can always convert it into a single, convenient unit, which would make it easy for us to understand the impact of our activities on the planet, including digital ones.<\/p>\nApples to Apples<\/h2>\n
Let\u2019s see how this could work by spelling out some examples. We choose the energy unit to be the kilowatt-hour (kWh). This proposal was made by David MacKay in his 2008 book Sustainable Energy, Without the Hot\u00a0Air<\/em><\/a>. Why the amount of energy used rather than the CO2<\/sub> emitted? On the global level, the two concepts are equivalent, given that CO2<\/sub> emissions are proportional to the amount of non-renewable energy produced. But almost none of us has an intuitive idea of what a ton of CO2<\/sub> is, let alone its global scale values or how it is generated. On the contrary, almost all of us can read an energy bill and relate it to what was done at home.<\/p>\nHere are three examples:<\/p>\n
\n- A 10W light bulb kept on for an hour will consume 0.01\u00a0kWh of energy (1\u00a0kWh = 1,000\u00a0Wh).<\/li>\n
- A car driven in a city for one hour using an average power of 10\u00a0kW (approximately 13\u00a0horsepower) will consume 10\u00a0kWh.<\/li>\n
- In Northern Italy during winter, heating an apartment using 10\u00a0cubic metres of gas requires approximately 100\u00a0kWh per day or 4\u00a0kWh for each hour.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
When these activities are compared with the same units, it is clear that there are some (driving, heating) that would have a much broader impact than others (lighting) if their use is curtailed.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/TOV-Dashboard-Billboard_Wilderness-Porn.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA Two-Hour Film Pollutes as Much as a 45-Minute Car Drive<\/h2>\n
With this in mind, let\u2019s try to estimate the use of Internet in the same units. What we are after now is the amount of energy for a given amount of data transferred, expressed in gigabytes (GB). As mentioned, there are surprisingly no consistent numbers available. Estimates range from 0.1\u00a0kWh per GB (Andrae<\/a>, Huwaei) to 10\u00a0kWh per GB (Adamson<\/a>, Stanford Magazine<\/em>) \u2013 100\u00a0times more. The lower number seems to assume an unrealistic amount of data, almost 10\u00a0times the one reported by the World Bank, and implying an average worldwide data usage which is still uncommon even for the Western world (3,000\u00a0GB per year rather than 300). On the other hand, the higher estimate seems to have not considered the latest developments in energy efficiency due to new technologies.<\/p>\nIt seems that a value of 1\u00a0kWh per GB could be a reasonable approximation of the current energy cost of data. Using that estimate, we can now more easily compare the energy use of data with other human activities. For instance, a two-hour movie in 4K\u00a0resolution is about 7\u00a0GB, or approximately 7\u00a0kWh of energy, comparable to a 45-minute car drive. This is mind-boggling for something that we perceive as immaterial. Similar estimates would make you figure out that 300\u00a0Google searches use approximately 0.1\u00a0kWh, which is the same energy required to boil one litre of water starting from 20\u00a0degree Celsius, another mind-boggling realisation.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Link-meet-RJ-Rivian.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt is possible and plausible that technology will make the Internet more energy efficient \u2013 that is what many of us physicists try to help with while studying novel materials and approaches to store and manipulate data. However, if we keep increasing data usage, we will not decrease our energy use. For instance, movies in 8K resolution require four times more data than in 4K resolution.<\/p>\n
Consumption on the Rise<\/h2>\n![\"Global](\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/497040\/original\/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip\")
<\/a>In 2002, global Internet usage was just 156 GB. Twenty years later, traffic is approximately 150,000 GB per second, nearly a thousand-fold increase.<\/span>
\nWDR 2021, Cisco Visual Networking Index, 2017\u20132022<\/a>, CC BY<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe proof is that for several years now, the annual energy consumption of information and communication technology infrastructure is constantly at least 2,000 TWh, 5% of the global electricity use. Projections suggest that we will reach 10% by 2030<\/a>, indicating that technology may not keep up unless we introduce fundamental new approaches.<\/p>\nThere is no doubt that the Internet and a more digital life offer an incredible opportunity to decrease our energy use and reduce our carbon footprint. For example, a single person on a fully loaded long-range round-trip plane flight \u2013 say from Venice, Italy, to Los Angeles, California \u2013 to attend an in-person meeting has an energy cost of 10 000 kWh. Using the estimates above, it would take eight months of 12-hour-long video meetings in 4K\u00a0resolution for that person to consume the same energy. In this case, there is no doubt that streaming, not flying, is the best choice.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Everest-Queues-ad.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAs with all technology, however, Internet use has an energy cost. It is proportional to the amount of data transferred, and use is highest with images and especially video. When heavily used, its impact becomes comparable to one of the activities that we already recognise as energy-hungry, such as driving a car. We clearly need more precise numbers to take the appropriate measures at the political level.<\/p>\n![\"Two](\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/497041\/original\/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C224%2C5760%2C3474&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip\")
Watching a movie online can seem like an energy-smart choice, but research shows that the carbon emissions can be significant.<\/span>
\nChristina Morillo\/Pexels<\/a>, CC BY<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn advance of having them, we as private individuals can use data in a considerate manner:<\/p>\n
\n- Turn off the camera when not needed in a video call.<\/li>\n
- Decrease the video resolution when possible, particularly on small screens.<\/li>\n
- Watch movies when they are broadcast rather than using on-demand services, which require dedicated computational power and data for each viewer.<\/li>\n
- Finally, let\u2019s start thinking in kWh about everything we do, and do our part to help the implementation of such a standard. In this way, we will talk with the same energy currency, as we do with money.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To help make this happen, write to your gas company, car manufacturer, grocery store and any manufacturers to get them to provide numbers in kWh of everything they sell. This would allow us to set up individual \u201cenergy wallets\u201d and decide how to spend what we have in a sustainable way and thus reach our climate goals. Once these goals are defined in a clear and concrete way, it will much easier for individuals, companies and governments to take a sensible course of action every day, in all things large and small.<\/p>\n
Talking of tons of CO2<\/sub> emitted, kilowatt-hours for electricity, cubic metres for gas, litres of gasoline and cars\u2019 horsepower creates confusion in many, including academics. Most people would not be able to say how much energy they use daily nor what level of emissions these activities cause. But they would be able to tell you right away their salary or monthly rent. The ease of talking about money lies in the fact that we humans long ago decided that a commonly held currency was the best way to trade disparate things. We don\u2019t do this for our energy use, hence the difficulty.<\/p>\n There is no reason not to change the situation, however: the beauty of the concept of \u201cenergy\u201d is that nature gave it to us as a number that is mysteriously conserved<\/a> even when we change its form \u2013 for example, from electrical to thermal. Hence, we can always convert it into a single, convenient unit, which would make it easy for us to understand the impact of our activities on the planet, including digital ones.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s see how this could work by spelling out some examples. We choose the energy unit to be the kilowatt-hour (kWh). This proposal was made by David MacKay in his 2008 book Sustainable Energy, Without the Hot\u00a0Air<\/em><\/a>. Why the amount of energy used rather than the CO2<\/sub> emitted? On the global level, the two concepts are equivalent, given that CO2<\/sub> emissions are proportional to the amount of non-renewable energy produced. But almost none of us has an intuitive idea of what a ton of CO2<\/sub> is, let alone its global scale values or how it is generated. On the contrary, almost all of us can read an energy bill and relate it to what was done at home.<\/p>\n Here are three examples:<\/p>\n When these activities are compared with the same units, it is clear that there are some (driving, heating) that would have a much broader impact than others (lighting) if their use is curtailed.<\/p>\n With this in mind, let\u2019s try to estimate the use of Internet in the same units. What we are after now is the amount of energy for a given amount of data transferred, expressed in gigabytes (GB). As mentioned, there are surprisingly no consistent numbers available. Estimates range from 0.1\u00a0kWh per GB (Andrae<\/a>, Huwaei) to 10\u00a0kWh per GB (Adamson<\/a>, Stanford Magazine<\/em>) \u2013 100\u00a0times more. The lower number seems to assume an unrealistic amount of data, almost 10\u00a0times the one reported by the World Bank, and implying an average worldwide data usage which is still uncommon even for the Western world (3,000\u00a0GB per year rather than 300). On the other hand, the higher estimate seems to have not considered the latest developments in energy efficiency due to new technologies.<\/p>\n It seems that a value of 1\u00a0kWh per GB could be a reasonable approximation of the current energy cost of data. Using that estimate, we can now more easily compare the energy use of data with other human activities. For instance, a two-hour movie in 4K\u00a0resolution is about 7\u00a0GB, or approximately 7\u00a0kWh of energy, comparable to a 45-minute car drive. This is mind-boggling for something that we perceive as immaterial. Similar estimates would make you figure out that 300\u00a0Google searches use approximately 0.1\u00a0kWh, which is the same energy required to boil one litre of water starting from 20\u00a0degree Celsius, another mind-boggling realisation.<\/p>\n It is possible and plausible that technology will make the Internet more energy efficient \u2013 that is what many of us physicists try to help with while studying novel materials and approaches to store and manipulate data. However, if we keep increasing data usage, we will not decrease our energy use. For instance, movies in 8K resolution require four times more data than in 4K resolution.<\/p>\n The proof is that for several years now, the annual energy consumption of information and communication technology infrastructure is constantly at least 2,000 TWh, 5% of the global electricity use. Projections suggest that we will reach 10% by 2030<\/a>, indicating that technology may not keep up unless we introduce fundamental new approaches.<\/p>\n There is no doubt that the Internet and a more digital life offer an incredible opportunity to decrease our energy use and reduce our carbon footprint. For example, a single person on a fully loaded long-range round-trip plane flight \u2013 say from Venice, Italy, to Los Angeles, California \u2013 to attend an in-person meeting has an energy cost of 10 000 kWh. Using the estimates above, it would take eight months of 12-hour-long video meetings in 4K\u00a0resolution for that person to consume the same energy. In this case, there is no doubt that streaming, not flying, is the best choice.<\/p>\n As with all technology, however, Internet use has an energy cost. It is proportional to the amount of data transferred, and use is highest with images and especially video. When heavily used, its impact becomes comparable to one of the activities that we already recognise as energy-hungry, such as driving a car. We clearly need more precise numbers to take the appropriate measures at the political level.<\/p>\n In advance of having them, we as private individuals can use data in a considerate manner:<\/p>\n To help make this happen, write to your gas company, car manufacturer, grocery store and any manufacturers to get them to provide numbers in kWh of everything they sell. This would allow us to set up individual \u201cenergy wallets\u201d and decide how to spend what we have in a sustainable way and thus reach our climate goals. Once these goals are defined in a clear and concrete way, it will much easier for individuals, companies and governments to take a sensible course of action every day, in all things large and small.<\/p>\nApples to Apples<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\nA Two-Hour Film Pollutes as Much as a 45-Minute Car Drive<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nConsumption on the Rise<\/h2>\n
<\/a>
\nWDR 2021, Cisco Visual Networking Index, 2017\u20132022<\/a>, CC BY<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nChristina Morillo\/Pexels<\/a>, CC BY<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorjournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Link-Imagine-Honnold-Rivian.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/194558\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic\")
<\/p>\n