The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

photonic69

Pross said:

photonic69 said:

Don't know if anyone has seen this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64641426

That's a pretty poor average speed. Bikes would be way faster in this situation. And this is with maybe 1/5 of people working from home too! Just imagine if everyone was back in the office.
Our neighbour's son in law works for the railway at the local station. He said that train numbers are right down for London-Bath/Bristol commuters compared to pre-pandemic levels. Seems most would prefer to take a car if they are not WFH?

I think you're encroaching into Rick's other hobby horse there in that the rail service is too expensive so people drive as it's cheaper and to have a better chance of getting to work when they need to.

Or rather the above? Rail travel is stupidly expensive compared to car or flying.

Pross

But that was the case pre-pandemic too, the biggest issue since people have returned to the office is the lack of reliability.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

pangolin said:

WS you have said several times you don't care but you do seem to have awfully strong opinions about computer games.

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.

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?

Aside from gaming there's a general move to put everything in the cloud. Which is great, but having your own NAS in the office attached to your own metered supply is a little more obvious than terabytes of stuff stored on a server farm in... who knows where. And that's just for one small SME. One hopes someone is thinking strategically about global data storage and it's energy needs.

rjsterry

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

The point was that kW is a measure of the rate of energy transfer. So 1kW/hr doesn't even make sense unless you are describing the change in demand over an hour.

rjsterry

Pross said:

But that was the case pre-pandemic too, the biggest issue since people have returned to the office is the lack of reliability.

Essentially because the franchise model collapsed when the pandemic hit.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

pangolin said:

WS you have said several times you don't care but you do seem to have awfully strong opinions about computer games.

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.

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?

Aside from gaming there's a general move to put everything in the cloud. Which is great, but having your own NAS in the office attached to your own metered supply is a little more obvious than terabytes of stuff stored on a server farm in... who knows where. And that's just for one small SME. One hopes someone is thinking strategically about global data storage and it's energy needs.

In theory this should allow people to use only what they need, rather than always having loads of stuff on site to cope with occasional demand. Of course there is still plenty of stuff not being built (architected) efficiently.

drhaggis

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

The point was that kW is a measure of the rate of energy transfer. So 1kW/hr doesn't even make sense unless you are describing the change in demand over an hour.

Thank you.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

Indeed.

Although clearly I made an embarrassing typo, my question was how does a 74 W machine use 1kWhr in 1 hr.

Even a chonky 55 OLED isn't contributing the >900 W we need to get to the 1kWhr per hour.

A high spec gaming PC might get you there, but my experience is casual gaming is basically completely dominated by consoles.

Now even if we use this extremely generous rounding, what does this mean in terms of CO2.

Well the carbon intensity of the grid varies, but taking a particularly poor week a few years ago, it was 300g CO2 per kWh.

Average petrol car is 180 g CO2 per km.

So if you make some pretty conservative assumptions, an hours gaming in the evening is less carbon intensive than a 2km drive.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't people game online? Therefore using energy on a server somewhere.

focuszing723

Then you have the routers, switches and whole infrastructure behind that. Not to mention aircon rooms running 24/7.

Wheelspinner

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

Indeed.

Although clearly I made an embarrassing typo, my question was how does a 74 W machine use 1kWhr in 1 hr.

Even a chonky 55 OLED isn't contributing the >900 W we need to get to the 1kWhr per hour.

A high spec gaming PC might get you there, but my experience is casual gaming is basically completely dominated by consoles.

Now even if we use this extremely generous rounding, what does this mean in terms of CO2.

Well the carbon intensity of the grid varies, but taking a particularly poor week a few years ago, it was 300g CO2 per kWh.

Average petrol car is 180 g CO2 per km.

So if you make some pretty conservative assumptions, an hours gaming in the evening is less carbon intensive than a 2km drive.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't people game online? Therefore using energy on a server somewhere.

Correct TBB. Report estimated the power consumption for the online bit - server farm and internet streaming the data to and from it at 300-500W alone for gaming per user, never mind the device in the house and display connected to it. And those things have to be *always on* even if nobody is playing.

But don’t panic, unless it’s actually plugged in at your house, it doesn’t count.

rick_chasey

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

pangolin

All gaming takes place online in the same way that all car journeys are on A roads.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

Said it many, many pages ago. Rick wants a better train service for his commute.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

Said it many, many pages ago. Rick wants a better train service for his commute.

Presumably he has a Nintendo switch and that's valuable gaming time.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

Said it many, many pages ago. Rick wants a better train service for his commute.

Presumably he has a Nintendo switch and that's valuable gaming time.

Gets extra game time waiting for the delayed trains. Don't know why he's complaining.

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

*facepalm*. Wrong.

Which circles back to my original rant.

Why is Drax power station arbitrarily classified as “renewable” and all the emissions it generates are somehow not meaningful, given it burns clear-felled old growth forest from Canada?

If all cars suddenly, magically were able to be made from and then run on a renewable resource overnight, one with unlimited supply because hey, it grows on trees we haven’t yet cut down, would that fix your problem of too many cars on the road? By your logic, since they are now renewable, lets give everyone a couple of extras to be sure they have enough in case of train strikes, and it will be just fine because they are a renewable resource? Will that help traffic, and pollution levels?

Is that seriously how you think this all works? As long as it’s “renewable” you can use as much as you want with no consequences anywhere?

No wonder the planet is f^^ked.

Wheelspinner

pangolin said:

All gaming takes place online in the same way that all car journeys are on A roads.

It’s ok, I quit. None of you - not one except perhaps KG and TBB - read either what I wrote, OR the report.

250 million active users per month for ONLINE GAMING SERVICES.

Not including standalone platforms used at home without internet functionality. Those are not included in the 250 million calculations.

Can’t be any clearer than that. But hey ho, you’re right, I don’t care. 🤷🏼‍♂️

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

Indeed.

Although clearly I made an embarrassing typo, my question was how does a 74 W machine use 1kWhr in 1 hr.

Even a chonky 55 OLED isn't contributing the >900 W we need to get to the 1kWhr per hour.

A high spec gaming PC might get you there, but my experience is casual gaming is basically completely dominated by consoles.

Now even if we use this extremely generous rounding, what does this mean in terms of CO2.

Well the carbon intensity of the grid varies, but taking a particularly poor week a few years ago, it was 300g CO2 per kWh.

Average petrol car is 180 g CO2 per km.

So if you make some pretty conservative assumptions, an hours gaming in the evening is less carbon intensive than a 2km drive.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't people game online? Therefore using energy on a server somewhere.

Correct TBB. Report estimated the power consumption for the online bit - server farm and internet streaming the data to and from it at 300-500W alone for gaming per user, never mind the device in the house and display connected to it. And those things have to be *always on* even if nobody is playing.

But don’t panic, unless it’s actually plugged in at your house, it doesn’t count.

Have looked at the power consumption of our kit serving an office of 15 and it says it uses 500W. Not doing quite the same job as a gaming server, but 500W per user feels a bit high.

Still, regardless of whether it's gaming or shopping or watching Netflix or something far more worthy, it will all add up, and we will need to find ways to do more with less.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

Indeed.

Although clearly I made an embarrassing typo, my question was how does a 74 W machine use 1kWhr in 1 hr.

Even a chonky 55 OLED isn't contributing the >900 W we need to get to the 1kWhr per hour.

A high spec gaming PC might get you there, but my experience is casual gaming is basically completely dominated by consoles.

Now even if we use this extremely generous rounding, what does this mean in terms of CO2.

Well the carbon intensity of the grid varies, but taking a particularly poor week a few years ago, it was 300g CO2 per kWh.

Average petrol car is 180 g CO2 per km.

So if you make some pretty conservative assumptions, an hours gaming in the evening is less carbon intensive than a 2km drive.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't people game online? Therefore using energy on a server somewhere.

Correct TBB. Report estimated the power consumption for the online bit - server farm and internet streaming the data to and from it at 300-500W alone for gaming per user, never mind the device in the house and display connected to it. And those things have to be *always on* even if nobody is playing.

But don’t panic, unless it’s actually plugged in at your house, it doesn’t count.

Have looked at the power consumption of our kit serving an office of 15 and it says it uses 500W. Not doing quite the same job as a gaming server, but 500W per user feels a bit high.

Still, regardless of whether it's gaming or shopping or watching Netflix or something far more worthy, it will all add up, and we will need to find ways to do more with less.

Sorry RJS , I’m all facepalmed out.

You have 15 displays running or does everyone crowd round one?

Try giving all 15 people an account to play online games at work, get them to all log on and start gaming at once and see how long your 500W machine lasts.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

With cars it’s that, for the current number of cars, there’s not enough metals in the world for batteries.

Plus with increasing urbanisation, cars will become less and less effective at getting you where you need to be in a timely way. Because traffic.

And then, while you’re at it, you can then come up with more space efficient and energy efficient ways to travel easily.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

With cars it’s that, for the current number of cars, there’s not enough metals in the world for batteries.

Plus with increasing urbanisation, cars will become less and less effective at getting you where you need to be in a timely way. Because traffic.

And then, while you’re at it, you can then come up with more space efficient and energy efficient ways to travel easily.

Some of your arguments are environmental.
Some are economic.

kingstongraham

Every picture you've ever taken on your phone and have stored on the cloud is using up energy every second of every day.

There was a programme on the BBC about all this the other week.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

Indeed.

Although clearly I made an embarrassing typo, my question was how does a 74 W machine use 1kWhr in 1 hr.

Even a chonky 55 OLED isn't contributing the >900 W we need to get to the 1kWhr per hour.

A high spec gaming PC might get you there, but my experience is casual gaming is basically completely dominated by consoles.

Now even if we use this extremely generous rounding, what does this mean in terms of CO2.

Well the carbon intensity of the grid varies, but taking a particularly poor week a few years ago, it was 300g CO2 per kWh.

Average petrol car is 180 g CO2 per km.

So if you make some pretty conservative assumptions, an hours gaming in the evening is less carbon intensive than a 2km drive.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't people game online? Therefore using energy on a server somewhere.

Correct TBB. Report estimated the power consumption for the online bit - server farm and internet streaming the data to and from it at 300-500W alone for gaming per user, never mind the device in the house and display connected to it. And those things have to be *always on* even if nobody is playing.

But don’t panic, unless it’s actually plugged in at your house, it doesn’t count.

Have looked at the power consumption of our kit serving an office of 15 and it says it uses 500W. Not doing quite the same job as a gaming server, but 500W per user feels a bit high.

Still, regardless of whether it's gaming or shopping or watching Netflix or something far more worthy, it will all add up, and we will need to find ways to do more with less.

Sorry RJS , I’m all facepalmed out.

You have 15 displays running or does everyone crowd round one?

Try giving all 15 people an account to play online games at work, get them to all log on and start gaming at once and see how long your 500W machine lasts.

There's an office full of desktops all working simultaneously on large CAD files stored on a single NAS (500W) over our network. Obviously a vastly smaller overall scale but I wouldn't have thought that dissimilar to gaming on a per person basis. Oddly enough some of our software uses one of the same rendering engines used by games.

Each desktop uses 80W flat out, plus a bit for the router and switch. If I'm really bored I'll dig out our office energy bill and I can add in the ventilation and heating. And even if it's 200W per person, that's still a lot. World of Warcraft* thinks it has roughly a million daily players.

*to pick an online game I have at least heard of.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

What’s the carbon footprint for a bikeradar post?

Anyway, in theory power consumption isn’t the problem if the power generation is renewable, right?

The problems with cars are not really about the carbon footprint.

I can’t repeat myself any more about that.

If its not the carbon footprint, what's the problem?

It's a cyclic discussion.

With cars it’s that, for the current number of cars, there’s not enough metals in the world for batteries.

Plus with increasing urbanisation, cars will become less and less effective at getting you where you need to be in a timely way. Because traffic.

And then, while you’re at it, you can then come up with more space efficient and energy efficient ways to travel easily.

Some of your arguments are environmental.
Some are economic.

Yup.

Wheelspinner

kingstongraham said:

Every picture you've ever taken on your phone and have stored on the cloud is using up energy every second of every day.

There was a programme on the BBC about all this the other week.

Doesn’t matter to Rick as long as the cloud servers run on renewable energy (at 100% efficiency, obviously) then there’s no problem, right ?

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner said:

kingstongraham said:

Every picture you've ever taken on your phone and have stored on the cloud is using up energy every second of every day.

There was a programme on the BBC about all this the other week.

Doesn’t matter to Rick as long as the cloud servers run on renewable energy (at 100% efficiency, obviously) then there’s no problem, right ?

Sure.

I’m making a point about transport systems though, not the sustainability of computing?

I can list a bunch of other things that have an impact on the world I haven’t mentioned if that makes you feel better?

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

Pross said:

drhaggis said:

Jezyboy said:

Do wonder how my 74 Watt xbox uses 1kw an hour.

Let me help:

74 W = 74 Joules every second
1 kWh = The total energy used over 1h by a device requiring a constant 1 kW power = 1000 Watts * 3600 seconds = 3.6 MJ

Your Xbox, without a TV, will use 1 kWh in 3.6e6/74 seconds or about 13h 30 minutes. Also, since the defaults sucked until recently, even just having the Xbox "sleeping" would use 1 kWh in under a week.

In any case, that California study is all wrong. Bioshock an RPG? Super Mario Oddyssey for the Wii U? INVALIDATED.

And obviously if Rick played on an Xbox/PS, he'd reduce his gaming CO2 footprint by a factor of 5 by switching to a, ehem, switch.

I'm not sure that really explained how his XBox uses 1kw in an hour when you seem to have calculated in would take 13.5 hours.

Indeed.

Although clearly I made an embarrassing typo, my question was how does a 74 W machine use 1kWhr in 1 hr.

Even a chonky 55 OLED isn't contributing the >900 W we need to get to the 1kWhr per hour.

A high spec gaming PC might get you there, but my experience is casual gaming is basically completely dominated by consoles.

Now even if we use this extremely generous rounding, what does this mean in terms of CO2.

Well the carbon intensity of the grid varies, but taking a particularly poor week a few years ago, it was 300g CO2 per kWh.

Average petrol car is 180 g CO2 per km.

So if you make some pretty conservative assumptions, an hours gaming in the evening is less carbon intensive than a 2km drive.

Forgive my ignorance, but don't people game online? Therefore using energy on a server somewhere.

Correct TBB. Report estimated the power consumption for the online bit - server farm and internet streaming the data to and from it at 300-500W alone for gaming per user, never mind the device in the house and display connected to it. And those things have to be *always on* even if nobody is playing.

But don’t panic, unless it’s actually plugged in at your house, it doesn’t count.

Have looked at the power consumption of our kit serving an office of 15 and it says it uses 500W. Not doing quite the same job as a gaming server, but 500W per user feels a bit high.

Still, regardless of whether it's gaming or shopping or watching Netflix or something far more worthy, it will all add up, and we will need to find ways to do more with less.

Sorry RJS , I’m all facepalmed out.

You have 15 displays running or does everyone crowd round one?

Try giving all 15 people an account to play online games at work, get them to all log on and start gaming at once and see how long your 500W machine lasts.

There's an office full of desktops all working simultaneously on large CAD files stored on a single NAS (500W) over our network. Obviously a vastly smaller overall scale but I wouldn't have thought that dissimilar to gaming on a per person basis. Oddly enough some of our software uses one of the same rendering engines used by games.

Each desktop uses 80W flat out, plus a bit for the router and switch. If I'm really bored I'll dig out our office energy bill and I can add in the ventilation and heating. And even if it's 200W per person, that's still a lot. World of Warcraft* thinks it has roughly a million daily players.

*to pick an online game I have at least heard of.

Ok, may I suggest you and Jezyboy submit your findings to the California Energy Commission, as they are clearly more rigorously researched and reliable than the report they commissioned, paid for and published.

TIA.

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

kingstongraham said:

Every picture you've ever taken on your phone and have stored on the cloud is using up energy every second of every day.

There was a programme on the BBC about all this the other week.

Doesn’t matter to Rick as long as the cloud servers run on renewable energy (at 100% efficiency, obviously) then there’s no problem, right ?

Sure.

I’m making a point about transport systems though, not the sustainability of computing?

I can list a bunch of other things that have an impact on the world I haven’t mentioned if that makes you feel better?

No, we can all do that, which is kinda relevant when you are arguing for mass behavioural changes.

Back on topic, how do you feel now about your plan to have all of Britain use an e-bike for short journeys to and from PT connections? Does the crash and subsequent broken shoulder give you pause for thought that perhaps it may not work as well as you’d hoped?

I am genuinely not trying to trivialise your injury - I’ve no doubt it’s been painful, and somewhat (ahem) inconvenient. Apologies if it comes across that way, but I’m not famous for tact or subtlety.

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner said:

rick_chasey said:

Wheelspinner said:

kingstongraham said:

Every picture you've ever taken on your phone and have stored on the cloud is using up energy every second of every day.

There was a programme on the BBC about all this the other week.

Doesn’t matter to Rick as long as the cloud servers run on renewable energy (at 100% efficiency, obviously) then there’s no problem, right ?

Sure.

I’m making a point about transport systems though, not the sustainability of computing?

I can list a bunch of other things that have an impact on the world I haven’t mentioned if that makes you feel better?

No, we can all do that, which is kinda relevant when you are arguing for mass behavioural changes.

Back on topic, how do you feel now about your plan to have all of Britain use an e-bike for short journeys to and from PT connections? Does the crash and subsequent broken shoulder give you pause for thought that perhaps it may not work as well as you’d hoped?

I am genuinely not trying to trivialise your injury - I’ve no doubt it’s been painful, and somewhat (ahem) inconvenient. Apologies if it comes across that way, but I’m not famous for tact or subtlety.

As opposed to what, cars?