The amount of energy spent cooling datacenters is jaw dropping.
Microsoft is testing underwater datacenters… The sea off the Orkney coast is nice and cold for cooling purposes…
The security surrounding data centers is also jaw dropping - and I not talking about cyber security, I’m talking about human security, as in people with guns.
@Geoff_Coupe Better still, if a datacenter was located off the Orkney Islands, one could slake their thirst with a dram of Highland Park at Scotland’s northernmost distillery of single malt whisky! 
4 Likes
If the calculations in the article are accurate, streaming consumes 72.3kWh more per year. To put things in perspective, that’s the energy in about 2 gallons of gasoline. How far does that get you in an average automobile? Many people burn that much gas in a single day!
I’m not sure if the figures quoted are accurate as most streaming apps do cache frequently played tracks.
If audio streaming is harming the planet, then what about video which takes a lot more bandwidth? I guess we should all stop using Netflix, YouTube, etc.!
2 Likes
Somebody at Google had calculated that cat videos alone use more energy than Belgium. 
4 Likes
Quite right. These calculations are difficult.
I’m a big customer of Amazon which offers free home delivery. “But what about the carbon footprint of the trucks?” I believe a truck driving around systematically is a lot better than hordes of people driving their own vehicles hither and yon. For example, UPS each morning calculates a route for each truck that avoids left turns, saving a lot of fuel and pollution.
You would think, but, in my area Amazon utilizes independent 3rd party delivery as well as UPS. Just last week had a guy drive up in a VW bug to deliver an amazon box.
What does the Guardian have to do with this? It’s a BBC article.
I never said it did - but the original (now amended) posting incorrectly attributed this article to the Guardian. It is exactly the sort of article, I would expect from the Guardian, but it doesn’t surprise me the slightest that the BBC licence payers are being forced to pay for this guff!
I was referring to your reply: “Of course reading the Guardian newspaper is also harming the planet - particularly in the newsprint version.” I didn’t realize the original post had been altered.
Just think of the huge benefit to the environment if everyone accepted MQA. All the reduced storage and data center requirements from just one file for CD and High Res and much reduced streaming rates over all those large completely lossless high resolution files. 
(ducking very quickly!)
2 Likes
Ah, but it’s local energy, from the solar panels on my roof, as opposed to imported energy, which requires expensive power distribution networks the construction of which disrupts local ecologies.
You just had to, didn’t you! 
Yes - but supported by imported energy when the sun is not shining - and then imported energy is made more expensive as it has take into account minute to minute fluctuations of energy generation imposed on it by the renewables so that you can get a continuous energy supply.
You must be kidding me, the large amount of data comes from streaming video, like Netflix, YouTube and other social media, digital downloads and upload for various sectors. Streaming of music is nothing compared to the above. Besides, the carbon footprint for keeping the data centres running 24/7 is enormously high.
I always find the Cisco forecast of networking trends to be both interesting and slightly alarming…
1 Like
The revenues for streaming music are no where near that of the likes of Netflix. Bandwidth needs to be paid for and that is revenue driven so it pays to compare apples with apples in this instance. I am not saying that the point isn’t valid but the real comparison will be Qobuz vs. Tidal rather than Tidal vs. a Netflix or Prime type scenario.
Oh, and don’t look too closely at what the video streaming industry needs to do to get HD or UHD to their end customers. If you do it isn’t hard to see the model MQA are trying to pursue.
The optimist in me would argue that the extra amount of data and energy would also make us less leliant on travel and transportation. I already work 20% from home and around 50% with colleges in another city or country.
And as energy gets more sustainable, less transportation for things that can be digitally delivered will lead to greater environment over all.
—
But right now it’s good for people to know that streaming does infact consume a lot of energy. No matter if some consider it “guff” or not. A comparison with playing from CD (with production roughly estimated) is not a bad idea in my mind.
2 Likes
Well I am making my environmental contribution by giving up on the free champagne when I next fly first class on my next holiday. Just imagine the amount of carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere by champagne drinkers! And I will continue to enjoy my streamed music!
2 Likes