The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
You could do your own research, but then I hear most addicts don’t want to know the real cost of their addiction. 😀rick_chasey said:
So what proportion of emissions is gaming?Wheelspinner said:rick_chasey said:First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...
Meh. Since when has ignorance been a defence?
Plenty of info available if you cared to look. As per RJS above, what do you think supports the platform - hamsters on wheels?
Seen a few articles estimating variously up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now, which equates to approx 4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Why do you think Microsoft bought Activision for 68 billion? Sh1ts and giggles?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Think of it as a tax on people who like to drive their bikes over here to use our fantastic MTB trails because they live in boring flat placesStevo_666 said:
There was also the weird arrangement where you had to pay a toll on the Severn Bridge to get into Wales but its free in the other direction. Should be the other way round, surely?mully79 said:
In reality it's just a plan to keep the English out of Wales by making all travel in and out unattractive.briantrumpet said:This is the right kind of noise, from Wales:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/14/welsh-road-building-projects-stopped-failing-climate-review“Our approach for the last 70 years is not working. The bypass that was demanded to relieve congestion often ends up leading to extra traffic, which in time brings further demands for extra lanes, wider junctions and more roads.
“Round and round we go, emitting more and more carbon as we do it, and we will not get to net zero unless we stop doing the same thing over and over.”
“We will still invest in roads. We are building new roads but we are raising the bar for where new roads are the right response to transport problems. We are also investing in real alternatives, including investment in rail, bus, walking and cycling projects."
I suspect that @Stevo_666 won't be moving to Wales any time soon.
I'm pretty sure the spoof "difficult driving conditions" between Cardiff and Port Talbot or the silly escort vans at roadworks in mid Wales are part of the same plot.0 -
15% of all power consumption for games? Lol I’m struggling to believe that.Wheelspinner said:
You could do your own research, but then I hear most addicts don’t want to know the real cost of their addiction. 😀rick_chasey said:
So what proportion of emissions is gaming?Wheelspinner said:rick_chasey said:First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...
Meh. Since when has ignorance been a defence?
Plenty of info available if you cared to look. As per RJS above, what do you think supports the platform - hamsters on wheels?
Seen a few articles estimating variously up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now, which equates to approx 4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Why do you think Microsoft bought Activision for 68 billion? Sh1ts and giggles?
Microsoft bought Activision because of its worth, not its power consumption.
The internet in general is about 2%0 -
I'm not sure California is entirely representative, what with it being known as a centre for that kind thing. Statista has these figures from 2016:Wheelspinner said:
You could do your own research, but then I hear most addicts don’t want to know the real cost of their addiction. 😀rick_chasey said:
So what proportion of emissions is gaming?Wheelspinner said:rick_chasey said:First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...
Meh. Since when has ignorance been a defence?
Plenty of info available if you cared to look. As per RJS above, what do you think supports the platform - hamsters on wheels?
Seen a few articles estimating variously up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now, which equates to approx 4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Why do you think Microsoft bought Activision for 68 billion? Sh1ts and giggles?
Commercial 36.9%
Residential 32.1%
Industrial 14.6%
Agriculture 7.5%
Commercial other 5.4%
Other* 3.5%
So even allowing for some significant growth, 12% for one part of one industry seems high. That's not to say that server use in general shouldn't be looked at. And the wider point that we each need to think more carefully about our overall footprint is also very true.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Could be, but you need the tourist income so best encourage it rather than deter it.Pross said:
Think of it as a tax on people who like to drive their bikes over here to use our fantastic MTB trails because they live in boring flat placesStevo_666 said:
There was also the weird arrangement where you had to pay a toll on the Severn Bridge to get into Wales but its free in the other direction. Should be the other way round, surely?mully79 said:
In reality it's just a plan to keep the English out of Wales by making all travel in and out unattractive.briantrumpet said:This is the right kind of noise, from Wales:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/14/welsh-road-building-projects-stopped-failing-climate-review“Our approach for the last 70 years is not working. The bypass that was demanded to relieve congestion often ends up leading to extra traffic, which in time brings further demands for extra lanes, wider junctions and more roads.
“Round and round we go, emitting more and more carbon as we do it, and we will not get to net zero unless we stop doing the same thing over and over.”
“We will still invest in roads. We are building new roads but we are raising the bar for where new roads are the right response to transport problems. We are also investing in real alternatives, including investment in rail, bus, walking and cycling projects."
I suspect that @Stevo_666 won't be moving to Wales any time soon.
I'm pretty sure the spoof "difficult driving conditions" between Cardiff and Port Talbot or the silly escort vans at roadworks in mid Wales are part of the same plot."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No? It's WS's claim to have "seen a few articles".pblakeney said:
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I suspect some back of envelope calculations would give a better feel for the numbers.pblakeney said:
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.
Either way, more CO2 than Ethiopia sounds impressive, but looking at the power generation profiles of the two places, one is nearly all hydroelectric and the other dominated by gas.
Honestly, despite the attitude of some on the thread, I think many people are happy to look at changing at least some aspects of their behavior. Whether that be eating less meat, putting a jumper on rather than reaching for the thermostat or so on. They understand that it's a minor difference, but if you add it up across lots of people, it can start making a reasonable difference.
0 -
pangolin said:
No? It's WS's claim to have "seen a few articles".pblakeney said:
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.
Maybe, just maybe, a 2 minute JFGI might give you some insight.. assuming you care, which I gather you don't. Whatever.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019-042.pdf
From the initial summary, bullet point 1:
• Aggregate energy demand places gaming among the top plug loads in California, with gaming representing one-fifth of the state’s total miscellaneous residential energy use.
Then scroll - if you can be bothered - to page 10/11 where this report discusses the classification of what's included in what. Note that the "miscellaneous" category appears to specifically exclude what is identifiable as a computer gaming use as well.
So, add a fifth of the top line of miscellaneous use, which would be about 5.5 TWh, to the actual computer gaming stat in line 6 which is about 4, and you get a number that's roughly 9.5 out of a total of about ~70 on that bar chart. That's about 13%. Maybe I'm wrong. I care more than you perhaps, but I still don't care much.
That data is a few years old too, and the expectation was that given the move to cloud based gaming and higher res/more graphics intensive software the power usage of devices for gaming would get *worse* rather than better...
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Pay more attention to that word miscellaneous.Wheelspinner said:pangolin said:
No? It's WS's claim to have "seen a few articles".pblakeney said:
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.
Maybe, just maybe, a 2 minute JFGI might give you some insight.. assuming you care, which I gather you don't. Whatever.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019-042.pdf
From the initial summary, bullet point 1:
• Aggregate energy demand places gaming among the top plug loads in California, with gaming representing one-fifth of the state’s total miscellaneous residential energy use.
Then scroll - if you can be bothered - to page 10/11 where this report discusses the classification of what's included in what. Note that the "miscellaneous" category appears to specifically exclude what is identifiable as a computer gaming use as well.
So, add a fifth of the top line of miscellaneous use, which would be about 5.5 TWh, to the actual computer gaming stat in line 6 which is about 4, and you get a number that's roughly 9.5 out of a total of about ~70 on that bar chart. That's about 13%. Maybe I'm wrong. I care more than you perhaps, but I still don't care much.
That data is a few years old too, and the expectation was that given the move to cloud based gaming and higher res/more graphics intensive software the power usage of devices for gaming would get *worse* rather than better...
From page 10:
Household electric plug loads are loosely defined as the residual segment of energy use that remains aside from core uses such as space conditioning, water heating, cooking, laundry, and lighting. Depending on the definition, miscellaneous plug loads represent almost a third of household energy use in California today, and a far larger proportion of energy use in otherwise highly energy efficient homes.
So I think you are talking about a fifth of about 30%, or around 6% of residential energy use.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Well, it's gone now having done what it was intended for - paying for a new route into Wales.Stevo_666 said:
Could be, but you need the tourist income so best encourage it rather than deter it.Pross said:
Think of it as a tax on people who like to drive their bikes over here to use our fantastic MTB trails because they live in boring flat placesStevo_666 said:
There was also the weird arrangement where you had to pay a toll on the Severn Bridge to get into Wales but its free in the other direction. Should be the other way round, surely?mully79 said:
In reality it's just a plan to keep the English out of Wales by making all travel in and out unattractive.briantrumpet said:This is the right kind of noise, from Wales:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/14/welsh-road-building-projects-stopped-failing-climate-review“Our approach for the last 70 years is not working. The bypass that was demanded to relieve congestion often ends up leading to extra traffic, which in time brings further demands for extra lanes, wider junctions and more roads.
“Round and round we go, emitting more and more carbon as we do it, and we will not get to net zero unless we stop doing the same thing over and over.”
“We will still invest in roads. We are building new roads but we are raising the bar for where new roads are the right response to transport problems. We are also investing in real alternatives, including investment in rail, bus, walking and cycling projects."
I suspect that @Stevo_666 won't be moving to Wales any time soon.
I'm pretty sure the spoof "difficult driving conditions" between Cardiff and Port Talbot or the silly escort vans at roadworks in mid Wales are part of the same plot.0 -
Which is about a third of overall consumption.pangolin said:
Pay more attention to that word miscellaneous.Wheelspinner said:pangolin said:
No? It's WS's claim to have "seen a few articles".pblakeney said:
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.
Maybe, just maybe, a 2 minute JFGI might give you some insight.. assuming you care, which I gather you don't. Whatever.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019-042.pdf
From the initial summary, bullet point 1:
• Aggregate energy demand places gaming among the top plug loads in California, with gaming representing one-fifth of the state’s total miscellaneous residential energy use.
Then scroll - if you can be bothered - to page 10/11 where this report discusses the classification of what's included in what. Note that the "miscellaneous" category appears to specifically exclude what is identifiable as a computer gaming use as well.
So, add a fifth of the top line of miscellaneous use, which would be about 5.5 TWh, to the actual computer gaming stat in line 6 which is about 4, and you get a number that's roughly 9.5 out of a total of about ~70 on that bar chart. That's about 13%. Maybe I'm wrong. I care more than you perhaps, but I still don't care much.
That data is a few years old too, and the expectation was that given the move to cloud based gaming and higher res/more graphics intensive software the power usage of devices for gaming would get *worse* rather than better...
From page 10:
Household electric plug loads are loosely defined as the residual segment of energy use that remains aside from core uses such as space conditioning, water heating, cooking, laundry, and lighting. Depending on the definition, miscellaneous plug loads represent almost a third of household energy use in California today, and a far larger proportion of energy use in otherwise highly energy efficient homes.
So I think you are talking about a fifth of about 30%, or around 6% of residential energy use.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Percentages are hard.0
-
First.Aspect said:
Percentages are hard.
Only 36.4% of them are hard.0 -
and the other 88.7% are made upbriantrumpet said:0 -
Honestly, the stats do look bizarre. Who knows? It's was California after all, and that's a long way from reality I know.rick_chasey said:
15% of all power consumption for games? Lol I’m struggling to believe that.Wheelspinner said:
You could do your own research, but then I hear most addicts don’t want to know the real cost of their addiction. 😀rick_chasey said:
So what proportion of emissions is gaming?Wheelspinner said:rick_chasey said:First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...
Meh. Since when has ignorance been a defence?
Plenty of info available if you cared to look. As per RJS above, what do you think supports the platform - hamsters on wheels?
Seen a few articles estimating variously up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now, which equates to approx 4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Why do you think Microsoft bought Activision for 68 billion? Sh1ts and giggles?
Microsoft bought Activision because of its worth, not its power consumption.
The internet in general is about 2%
But, re: Microsoft acquisition. Correct! You clearly passed Business 101.
Utter fail on Technology 101, or even basic Join-The-Dots-Thinking class though.
What is the product? Software for gaming.
How do I use it? You may need a subscriber account at Microsoft, which means you pay us a monthly fee ( describer hereafter as "Subscription") to use it. This is f^^king awesome for our cash flow! (You can use it "standalone" but where's the fun in that?)
Is there anything else I need to use it? Yes. A computer or gaming console device.
Cool! Will that cost me anything to buy? Yes. They are expensive, and you need really good hi-tech ones to get the best out of your product.
Are there any ongoing costs? Yes. Electricity. You have to plug your "computer" into a "wall socket". This is where the electricity comes from. We hope this is not too complex for you to understand. The Utility company will bill you periodically (or perhaps your parents) for any electricity you have consumed while using your gaming product on your computer. NB: it's not cheap, and it is not going to get any cheaper.
Microsoft with XBOX Online, Sony with Playstation and Nintendo Switch platforms are the three major gaming ones I think? (DILLIGAF?) Between them they report a current user base of over a quarter BILLION active users each month - these are the ones that actually use the online services, not counting the standalone devices at home. Checking the sales statistics for the consoles alone says approx 1.5 billion units across all platforms sold in 2021.
Are you getting the picture yet @rick_chasey ?
The statistics are vague, but "gamers" apparently average somewhere between 8 and 14 hours a week. So, between 35 and 60 hours a month, multiplied by 250 million users average = 8.75 to 15 BILLION user hours per month online platforms. Every one of those device hours uses roughly 1 kw/h at a minimum. Considerably more on some devices. And that's *not* counting the servers at HQ, or the infrastructure connecting the two.
Big range, who know what's real? You're a gamer. How much time do you spend on it?
I'm bored. Can you tell? I really don't give a toss whether you care or not about the actual statistics. I also don't care whether you continue to use the games.
Facts are - never mind the variable statistics reporting - that gaming really does have a monumentally big carbon footprint, and you are a contributor. Does that matter?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
So what you're saying is that Rick needs to save the planet by getting off his XBOX? Actually thinking about it, using this forum all day every day must use a fair bit of juice as wellWheelspinner said:
Honestly, the stats do look bizarre. Who knows? It's was California after all, and that's a long way from reality I know.rick_chasey said:
15% of all power consumption for games? Lol I’m struggling to believe that.Wheelspinner said:
You could do your own research, but then I hear most addicts don’t want to know the real cost of their addiction. 😀rick_chasey said:
So what proportion of emissions is gaming?Wheelspinner said:rick_chasey said:First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...
Meh. Since when has ignorance been a defence?
Plenty of info available if you cared to look. As per RJS above, what do you think supports the platform - hamsters on wheels?
Seen a few articles estimating variously up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now, which equates to approx 4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Why do you think Microsoft bought Activision for 68 billion? Sh1ts and giggles?
Microsoft bought Activision because of its worth, not its power consumption.
The internet in general is about 2%
But, re: Microsoft acquisition. Correct! You clearly passed Business 101.
Utter fail on Technology 101, or even basic Join-The-Dots-Thinking class though.
What is the product? Software for gaming.
How do I use it? You may need a subscriber account at Microsoft, which means you pay us a monthly fee ( describer hereafter as "Subscription") to use it. This is f^^king awesome for our cash flow! (You can use it "standalone" but where's the fun in that?)
Is there anything else I need to use it? Yes. A computer or gaming console device.
Cool! Will that cost me anything to buy? Yes. They are expensive, and you need really good hi-tech ones to get the best out of your product.
Are there any ongoing costs? Yes. Electricity. You have to plug your "computer" into a "wall socket". This is where the electricity comes from. We hope this is not too complex for you to understand. The Utility company will bill you periodically (or perhaps your parents) for any electricity you have consumed while using your gaming product on your computer. NB: it's not cheap, and it is not going to get any cheaper.
Microsoft with XBOX Online, Sony with Playstation and Nintendo Switch platforms are the three major gaming ones I think? (DILLIGAF?) Between them they report a current user base of over a quarter BILLION active users each month - these are the ones that actually use the online services, not counting the standalone devices at home. Checking the sales statistics for the consoles alone says approx 1.5 billion units across all platforms sold in 2021.
Are you getting the picture yet @rick_chasey ?
The statistics are vague, but "gamers" apparently average somewhere between 8 and 14 hours a week. So, between 35 and 60 hours a month, multiplied by 250 million users average = 8.75 to 15 BILLION user hours per month online platforms. Every one of those device hours uses roughly 1 kw/h at a minimum. Considerably more on some devices. And that's *not* counting the servers at HQ, or the infrastructure connecting the two.
Big range, who know what's real? You're a gamer. How much time do you spend on it?
I'm bored. Can you tell? I really don't give a toss whether you care or not about the actual statistics. I also don't care whether you continue to use the games.
Facts are - never mind the variable statistics reporting - that gaming really does have a monumentally big carbon footprint, and you are a contributor. Does that matter?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
WS you have said several times you don't care but you do seem to have awfully strong opinions about computer games.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Oh FFS. Yeah I got some math wrong.pangolin said:
Pay more attention to that word miscellaneous.Wheelspinner said:pangolin said:
No? It's WS's claim to have "seen a few articles".pblakeney said:
Doesn't mean it is not true. DYOR.pangolin said:
...pblakeney said:People getting carried away with statistics. "...up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now."
Probably includes TVs, soundbars, stations, PCs, internet, etc, etc.
The servers are another issue.
It's hard to believe gaming in California takes up the same proportion of energy as all lighting and appliances in the EU.
Maybe, just maybe, a 2 minute JFGI might give you some insight.. assuming you care, which I gather you don't. Whatever.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2019-042.pdf
From the initial summary, bullet point 1:
• Aggregate energy demand places gaming among the top plug loads in California, with gaming representing one-fifth of the state’s total miscellaneous residential energy use.
Then scroll - if you can be bothered - to page 10/11 where this report discusses the classification of what's included in what. Note that the "miscellaneous" category appears to specifically exclude what is identifiable as a computer gaming use as well.
So, add a fifth of the top line of miscellaneous use, which would be about 5.5 TWh, to the actual computer gaming stat in line 6 which is about 4, and you get a number that's roughly 9.5 out of a total of about ~70 on that bar chart. That's about 13%. Maybe I'm wrong. I care more than you perhaps, but I still don't care much.
That data is a few years old too, and the expectation was that given the move to cloud based gaming and higher res/more graphics intensive software the power usage of devices for gaming would get *worse* rather than better...
From page 10:
Household electric plug loads are loosely defined as the residual segment of energy use that remains aside from core uses such as space conditioning, water heating, cooking, laundry, and lighting. Depending on the definition, miscellaneous plug loads represent almost a third of household energy use in California today, and a far larger proportion of energy use in otherwise highly energy efficient homes.
So I think you are talking about a fifth of about 30%, or around 6% of residential energy use.
Here's the chart.
Line 1 is "Miscellaneous". Actual value of that bar looks to be maybe 18?
Line 6 is "Computer Gaming". Actual value ~ 4?
Note that Gaming is separated, but the report notes that a significant chunk (estimated 1/5th) of the "Miscellaneous" line is ALSO attributed to gaming usage.
Take 1/5 of line 1 and ADD IT TO LINE 6.
Which is what I wrote in the other post. Might be incorrect, did I interpret the report wrongly? Always possible!
So, 1/5 of 18 is 3.6. Line 6 is about 4? If I add those two together, I get... 7.6 total.
If Miscellaneous is 30% of the total for the whole lot, then total should be, lemme see, 100/30*18 = 60
Now... a bit of complex maths... what is 7.6/60 expressed as a "percentage"?
Approx, 12.7% Well, faaaaark me. Apologies, should have looked again. Huuuuge difference isn't it?
Still seems stupidly high. I don't care if it's 8 or 20%. It's still a really big chunk of the total.
BTW, why are you so upset about the decimal point accuracy of the figures, but DGAF about the overall picture?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Colour TV still more than gaming. Wonder what the energy usage of black and white TV is?0
-
A quick google shows there are approx 53.4m adults in the UK in 2022 and approx. 32.8m cars. We can both do the maths on that, Mr. Minorityrjsterry said:
Just how the stats are generally reported. Still some way from proving that majority.Stevo_666 said:
And BTW I see why you mentioned households. As more than half of all adults have a car. As you were...rjsterry said:
Yes, that was the 1978 figure. That'll teach me for skim reading the Google summary while trying to do something else at the same time.TheBigBean said:
I thought this stat was pretty amazing, so did some research. Sadly you are wrong.rjsterry said:
We've done this one already. Half of households don't even own a car. This majority of yours doesn't exist.Stevo_666 said:
Just going on what he posted...sounds like you think like Rick as well, but it's OK to be in the minorityrjsterry said:
Lol.Stevo_666 said:
The error is assuming that the majority of UK people think anything like him and will both willingly give up their personal transport and make large swathes of Scotland, Wales and the North effectively uninhabitable.pblakeney said:
IMO the error is thinking that mass transport will be required in 80 years time.rick_chasey said:
...
Eventually, they will have to be some give from people if we collectively decide that cars are unsustainable as a mass transport solution that means some of you in very remote areas may not be able to live there in 80 years time.
Should focus on society & automation. I'd place a bet but won't be around to collect. 😉
I mean totally missed the point anyway, but just a teensy bit of hyperbole there.
45% have one car, but 33% have two or more. Only 22% are enlightened.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2021/national-travel-survey-2021-household-car-availability-and-trends-in-car-trips "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A what now?Wheelspinner said:
Honestly, the stats do look bizarre. Who knows? It's was California after all, and that's a long way from reality I know.rick_chasey said:
15% of all power consumption for games? Lol I’m struggling to believe that.Wheelspinner said:
You could do your own research, but then I hear most addicts don’t want to know the real cost of their addiction. 😀rick_chasey said:
So what proportion of emissions is gaming?Wheelspinner said:rick_chasey said:First I've heard of the carbon footprint perils of gaming...
Meh. Since when has ignorance been a defence?
Plenty of info available if you cared to look. As per RJS above, what do you think supports the platform - hamsters on wheels?
Seen a few articles estimating variously up to 15% of domestic power consumption in California now, which equates to approx 4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Why do you think Microsoft bought Activision for 68 billion? Sh1ts and giggles?
Microsoft bought Activision because of its worth, not its power consumption.
The internet in general is about 2%
But, re: Microsoft acquisition. Correct! You clearly passed Business 101.
Utter fail on Technology 101, or even basic Join-The-Dots-Thinking class though.
What is the product? Software for gaming.
How do I use it? You may need a subscriber account at Microsoft, which means you pay us a monthly fee ( describer hereafter as "Subscription") to use it. This is f^^king awesome for our cash flow! (You can use it "standalone" but where's the fun in that?)
Is there anything else I need to use it? Yes. A computer or gaming console device.
Cool! Will that cost me anything to buy? Yes. They are expensive, and you need really good hi-tech ones to get the best out of your product.
Are there any ongoing costs? Yes. Electricity. You have to plug your "computer" into a "wall socket". This is where the electricity comes from. We hope this is not too complex for you to understand. The Utility company will bill you periodically (or perhaps your parents) for any electricity you have consumed while using your gaming product on your computer. NB: it's not cheap, and it is not going to get any cheaper.
Microsoft with XBOX Online, Sony with Playstation and Nintendo Switch platforms are the three major gaming ones I think? (DILLIGAF?) Between them they report a current user base of over a quarter BILLION active users each month - these are the ones that actually use the online services, not counting the standalone devices at home. Checking the sales statistics for the consoles alone says approx 1.5 billion units across all platforms sold in 2021.
Are you getting the picture yet @rick_chasey ?
The statistics are vague, but "gamers" apparently average somewhere between 8 and 14 hours a week. So, between 35 and 60 hours a month, multiplied by 250 million users average = 8.75 to 15 BILLION user hours per month online platforms. Every one of those device hours uses roughly 1 kw/h at a minimum. Considerably more on some devices. And that's *not* counting the servers at HQ, or the infrastructure connecting the two.
Big range, who know what's real? You're a gamer. How much time do you spend on it?
I'm bored. Can you tell? I really don't give a toss whether you care or not about the actual statistics. I also don't care whether you continue to use the games.
Facts are - never mind the variable statistics reporting - that gaming really does have a monumentally big carbon footprint, and you are a contributor. Does that matter?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.
0 -
Nope, I don't care about them, or if you use them, write them, sell them or anything else. They are an example I was using to try and make a point. Clearly I failed.pangolin said:WS you have said several times you don't care but you do seem to have awfully strong opinions about computer games.
The point of this thread was (I think) that Rick and others think cars should be phased out, or people's usage curtailed because - amongst other things - environmentally they are bad. I don't disagree with that, incidentally.
I was trying to make the case that perhaps the arguments against cars might be more persuasive if it came from someone clearly committed to environmental causes in general. To me, anyone who is a keen/regular/committed computer gamer (that'll be Rick in this example) is... not that.
FWIW it's not intended as a personal thing against Rick either.
Gaming has a big carbon footprint. That's it. How big? Dunno exactly.
Does the precise number matter? If yes to you, why?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS1 -
Just seems like tedious whataboutism coupled with a dislike for a particular hobby.Wheelspinner said:
Nope, I don't care about them, or if you use them, write them, sell them or anything else. They are an example I was using to try and make a point. Clearly I failed.pangolin said:WS you have said several times you don't care but you do seem to have awfully strong opinions about computer games.
The point of this thread was (I think) that Rick and others think cars should be phased out, or people's usage curtailed because - amongst other things - environmentally they are bad. I don't disagree with that, incidentally.
I was trying to make the case that perhaps the arguments against cars might be more persuasive if it came from someone clearly committed to environmental causes in general. To me, anyone who is a keen/regular/committed computer gamer (that'll be Rick in this example) is... not that.
FWIW it's not intended as a personal thing against Rick either.
Gaming has a big carbon footprint. That's it. How big? Dunno exactly.
Does the precise number matter? If yes to you, why?
There will always be something else producing emissions, that's no reason not to aim for better in any given field.
Otherwise we should just give up.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Let's face it, people being alive causes emissions, so to save ourselves..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Pretending that everyone's lifestyle has a similar impact on the planet, so what's the point of *me* making any hard choices (or even the quite easy choices) *now* will doom the entire planet to oblivion.
0 -
People who live off sailing boats are pretty eco friendly. Wind power, solar for electricity, deescalate the water, minimal storage space so their home isn't a shrine to China. Best of all they can live around the World.0
