answered question
0
Votes
Votes
3
Answers
Answers
M$1.10
What uses more energy, reading this book online or acquiring and reading a physical copy?
I highly recommend this book: Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air. In fact the book will most likely help you answer this question, or at least understand how to think about questions like this sensibly.
So the question is: What uses more energy, reading the book online, or acquiring a physical copy to read?
You can read online or download the complete book for free here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
You can buy a physical copy in many places, and I would guess also borrow it from libaries. The Amazon links for the US, UK and Canadian Amazon stores are given on the site here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/order.html
I'm expecting that it in order to answer this question at all, you're going to have to make some intelligent assumptions, and like the author you'll just be able to come up with approximate figures that are nevertheless eye-opening.
So the best answer is probably going to go to whoever has the best and most illuminating reasoning, rather than for fancy calculations.
So the question is: What uses more energy, reading the book online, or acquiring a physical copy to read?
You can read online or download the complete book for free here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
You can buy a physical copy in many places, and I would guess also borrow it from libaries. The Amazon links for the US, UK and Canadian Amazon stores are given on the site here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/order.html
I'm expecting that it in order to answer this question at all, you're going to have to make some intelligent assumptions, and like the author you'll just be able to come up with approximate figures that are nevertheless eye-opening.
So the best answer is probably going to go to whoever has the best and most illuminating reasoning, rather than for fancy calculations.
|
Report
answers (3)
It definitely takes less energy to read it online. I'll try to explain this intuitively rather than just through calculations.
The only significant energy cost if you read the book online is the operation of your computer. The power this uses is dependent on the size of your computer and the type of monitor you use. I have a 500W power supply and a 19" CRT monitor, so I draw about 650W maximum (this is very approximate). The national average for electricity costs is $0.058/kWh, so it costs me about 3.75 cents to run my computer for an hour.
The energy involved in producing a physical copy of the book and getting it to you is much higher.
- Logs must be cut and transported to a paper mill. Logging equipment uses large amounts of gasoline, and paper mills are notorious for their consumption of fresh water.
- Finished paper must be transported to the publishing company.
- Ink must be produced separately and transported from its factory as well.
- The book must be printed, trimmed and bound (whether it's a small printshop or a large factory, it's still another step in the process).
- The book is shipped to a bookstore, and then you need to buy gas to go buy it and bring it home. The bookstore (like every building in the chain of production) has utility bills and other overhead.
When you look at how many different stages there are in making a book, and how much energy is used at each stage, it's amazing that a physical book doesn't cost $100 or more (I realize textbooks do, but that's not because of the energy costs).
The good news is that once you get the book home, you can read it by the light of a 60W bulb, which uses 1/10 the energy of a computer.
Edit: Silverhammer has a very good answer, and I'm giving him a "helpful" vote. I encourage you to do the same.
The only significant energy cost if you read the book online is the operation of your computer. The power this uses is dependent on the size of your computer and the type of monitor you use. I have a 500W power supply and a 19" CRT monitor, so I draw about 650W maximum (this is very approximate). The national average for electricity costs is $0.058/kWh, so it costs me about 3.75 cents to run my computer for an hour.
The energy involved in producing a physical copy of the book and getting it to you is much higher.
- Logs must be cut and transported to a paper mill. Logging equipment uses large amounts of gasoline, and paper mills are notorious for their consumption of fresh water.
- Finished paper must be transported to the publishing company.
- Ink must be produced separately and transported from its factory as well.
- The book must be printed, trimmed and bound (whether it's a small printshop or a large factory, it's still another step in the process).
- The book is shipped to a bookstore, and then you need to buy gas to go buy it and bring it home. The bookstore (like every building in the chain of production) has utility bills and other overhead.
When you look at how many different stages there are in making a book, and how much energy is used at each stage, it's amazing that a physical book doesn't cost $100 or more (I realize textbooks do, but that's not because of the energy costs).
The good news is that once you get the book home, you can read it by the light of a 60W bulb, which uses 1/10 the energy of a computer.
Edit: Silverhammer has a very good answer, and I'm giving him a "helpful" vote. I encourage you to do the same.
| Asker's rating: |
None of the answers are really satisfactory. Analysis is not like-for-like on the two sides of the equation, and there isn't the remotest attempt to figure what portion of a big infrastructure cost to allocate to a single use. Maybe people didn't think M$1 was enough of a tip to answer the question properly, or maybe they don't have a good understanding of what it would take to actually come to a plausible answer to questions like this. The only reason I'm not selecting "no best answer" is that people did put in a fair bit of effort into answering, which deserves some reward for trying.
By "energy" you don't mean calories I take it.
To put (and consequently read) a book online the infrastructure (cable lines, webhosting companies, computers, devices) has to be manufactured, shipped and installed. Not to mention the electricity used to run them and the impact on the environment when machines break down, batteries die, and are thrown away/recycled (yes, recycling consumes more energy than recovered resources). Most of what we experience today started years ago but daily improvements and changes are being made worldwide (presuming a global reading audience).
A lot of heavy metals and petroleum products (including plastics and oil for gasoline and other non-renewable resources) are consumed in the making of these infrastructures Including the computer you're using to read this now.
While a single book run uses materials that are renewable. The shipping of said books leans a little more onto the non-renewable side (gas, vehicles to move them). But overall a physical copy consumes less energy unless you then incorporate online advertising and sales into the energy costs. Yet the same could be true if you printed information about your online book - then the lines begin to blur.
But if you restrict the numbers to "reading" alone, a printed book always wins. No matter how hard you try to limit the energy impact of an online book you can only go so far. Someone who prints a book can go so retro that the impact on the environment is practically non-existent. Even to the point of hand delivering copies, using pulp from downed trees, hemp for binding made by hand, natural inks and reading them using sunlight.
I've even seen flower seeds pressed into the printed page so that when a book is lost, nature reclaims the resources and plants a garden in the process. That would actually put energy back into the environment, leaving an inverse impact on the Earth! :)
NOTE: I chose not to read the resources you provided so that my answer wasn't influenced. Only personal reasoning and without fancy calculations.
To put (and consequently read) a book online the infrastructure (cable lines, webhosting companies, computers, devices) has to be manufactured, shipped and installed. Not to mention the electricity used to run them and the impact on the environment when machines break down, batteries die, and are thrown away/recycled (yes, recycling consumes more energy than recovered resources). Most of what we experience today started years ago but daily improvements and changes are being made worldwide (presuming a global reading audience).
A lot of heavy metals and petroleum products (including plastics and oil for gasoline and other non-renewable resources) are consumed in the making of these infrastructures Including the computer you're using to read this now.
While a single book run uses materials that are renewable. The shipping of said books leans a little more onto the non-renewable side (gas, vehicles to move them). But overall a physical copy consumes less energy unless you then incorporate online advertising and sales into the energy costs. Yet the same could be true if you printed information about your online book - then the lines begin to blur.
But if you restrict the numbers to "reading" alone, a printed book always wins. No matter how hard you try to limit the energy impact of an online book you can only go so far. Someone who prints a book can go so retro that the impact on the environment is practically non-existent. Even to the point of hand delivering copies, using pulp from downed trees, hemp for binding made by hand, natural inks and reading them using sunlight.
I've even seen flower seeds pressed into the printed page so that when a book is lost, nature reclaims the resources and plants a garden in the process. That would actually put energy back into the environment, leaving an inverse impact on the Earth! :)
NOTE: I chose not to read the resources you provided so that my answer wasn't influenced. Only personal reasoning and without fancy calculations.
Well the only problem with saying getting the book online and naming what you did is that when you think about what it takes to make the book, print the millions of copies there are....you get into higher numbers, not to mention all of the trees that get taken down from printing all the copies (compared to those who would rather save it to their computer and read and those who actually print them).
Then you have to factor in how much damage is created by destroying the tree that would have eliminated some CO2 then add in all the machines used to cut the trees and so on and so forth. I figure in the long run a electronic copy would save more energy because of the fact that most of the cables lines batteries ect last a good while before they need replace in comparison to the tree cutting machines that need to have a PM (preventitive maintenance), and parts replaced on a daily basis and the fact if they break a hyd line (which isnt to uncommon) it also has to be cleaned up then you have the books that are thrown away.
Then you have to factor in how much damage is created by destroying the tree that would have eliminated some CO2 then add in all the machines used to cut the trees and so on and so forth. I figure in the long run a electronic copy would save more energy because of the fact that most of the cables lines batteries ect last a good while before they need replace in comparison to the tree cutting machines that need to have a PM (preventitive maintenance), and parts replaced on a daily basis and the fact if they break a hyd line (which isnt to uncommon) it also has to be cleaned up then you have the books that are thrown away.
More people have computers than would read the online book.
I didn't mention print run sizes since it was more about the reading than the publishing but even with a million prints, there are millions more computers and infrastructures that impacts the environment over time than books made from trees that are grown and harvested for just such a purpose.
Books printing uses renewable resources. Computers and their infrastructures aren't. When you say that they last a good while before needing to be replaced, think back how not so long ago (in our lifetime) that we went from telephone wires to DSL, to Satellite (let's not even begin to factor in the cost of the Space Program compared to a tree farm), cable, FIOS, wireless.
I've had to replace and upgrade my systems every 6 years just to keep up. But I own a book that is over 150 years old.
Also an online copy requires someone to buy and install the mechanisms to read it (consider underdeveloped countries or locations that are off the grid) where they may not have had it before. A book just requires a person.
I didn't mention print run sizes since it was more about the reading than the publishing but even with a million prints, there are millions more computers and infrastructures that impacts the environment over time than books made from trees that are grown and harvested for just such a purpose.
Books printing uses renewable resources. Computers and their infrastructures aren't. When you say that they last a good while before needing to be replaced, think back how not so long ago (in our lifetime) that we went from telephone wires to DSL, to Satellite (let's not even begin to factor in the cost of the Space Program compared to a tree farm), cable, FIOS, wireless.
I've had to replace and upgrade my systems every 6 years just to keep up. But I own a book that is over 150 years old.
Also an online copy requires someone to buy and install the mechanisms to read it (consider underdeveloped countries or locations that are off the grid) where they may not have had it before. A book just requires a person.
My question was very specific - which uses more energy?
You were welcome to consider the energy used in building the infrastructure involved and how to allocate a portion of that to a single action, but you didn't really do that.
Shame you didn't look at the site I mentioned because it would have helped you think about all these issues a lot more clearly.
You were welcome to consider the energy used in building the infrastructure involved and how to allocate a portion of that to a single action, but you didn't really do that.
Shame you didn't look at the site I mentioned because it would have helped you think about all these issues a lot more clearly.
I don't think I'm having trouble thinking clearly, but clearly I didn't come to the same conclusion as your author. I chose to draw my own conclusions (as I noted in my response) so that any revelations from your author (or any other poster) would be enlightening in it's own right.
That's the tough part about asking a question you already feel you have the answer to. When someone provides a different answer than expected it appears "wrong".
I feel my points are valid even if it doesn't match your authors point of view. I'm okay if your author comes to different conclusions. I'm guessing that their focus is on something very specific that my answer didn't address. I'm okay with that. I'm sure Mahalo would be very boring if everyone had the same answers. :)
That's the tough part about asking a question you already feel you have the answer to. When someone provides a different answer than expected it appears "wrong".
I feel my points are valid even if it doesn't match your authors point of view. I'm okay if your author comes to different conclusions. I'm guessing that their focus is on something very specific that my answer didn't address. I'm okay with that. I'm sure Mahalo would be very boring if everyone had the same answers. :)
@silverhammer I didn't feel I had an answer to it, and that book doesn't particularly address that exact question.
It's not the answer you came to but the rigor and completeness of your thinking that I have a problem with.
It's not the answer you came to but the rigor and completeness of your thinking that I have a problem with.
i guess reading online would be spend less enegry , since you are sitting there and ...stuff...
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
