Subj : Raspberry Pi
To   : Oli
From : Arelor
Date : Thu May 04 2023 14:01:52

  Re: Raspberry Pi
  By: Oli to Arelor on Thu May 04 2023 08:11 am

 > Arelor wrote (2023-04-29):
 > 
 >  >> Because California has an horrible energy grid, I wanted to run a low
 >  >> energy Fiscally and enviromentally sensible at the same time.
 > 
 >  A> I think making a new energy efficient computer is more resource intensiv
 >  A> than keeping an old energy-inefficient computer working.
 > 
 >  A> Most people who replaces old working computers due to enviromental
 >  A> concerns have not sat down and thought it through.
 > 
 > Have you thought it through? I would be interested in numbers and hard facts
 >  an old energy-inefficient computer is less resource intensive (10W -> 87kWh
 > ould waste much more than 10W.
 > 
 > ---
 >  * Origin: This site requires JavaScript (21:3/102)

I run some numbers every time I intend to upgrade and they are usually not
pretty.

Imagine you have an old computer you are going to withdraw from desktop service
because it is an old brick from 2004 or so. You also happen to need a light NAS
to store pictures of horses or whatever. The decission now is whether get a NAS
anew or repurpose the old computer.

Old desktop computer from 2004 uses 40 W, screen included, when not idle. That
means around 350 kw*h a year. At Spanish prices that is around 60 bucks per
year. If you use it 24/7.

Getting a new SOHO NAS with a single drive is gonna cost you around 150 bucks
(hard drives not included) and might take around 20 W.

Total operation cost of the 2004 computer in the worst case is 240 bucks in 4
years. Total operation cost of the new NAS in its best case is 270 bucks for
the same timeframe.

Typical computers in home scenarios have a 4 year lifecycle. This is the reason
why I use 4 years as the target horizon.

Now, check your power supply company, because this is where it gets extra
funny:

My power supply is 96% renewables aprox, so enviromentalist arguments don't
apply.

Typical Spanish suppliers supply 46% renewable energy. If you upgrade a
computer in order to consume half the energy, your CO2 impact is reduced about
half you would expect because half of the power supply is ecogreen already.

ie. if you spend 150 bucks in a new unit because it consumes half the
electricity (20 instead of 40) you are only saving 10 W of actually "dirty"
energy.

Whether these meagre savings are bigger than the act of building a new machine
or not is a foregone conclussion. 70% of the energy consumed during a
computer's lifecycle is during its MANUFACTURING. "Reuse has the potential to
reduce carbon emissions more than recycling," as per research from Arizona
State University and Rochester Institute of Technology. That fancy NAS that
saves so much energy might take 2000 or 3000 fucking Meja Joules to make (!).
That is the equivalent of running the old computer 24/7 for... 2 years?

How long do you plan to run your new machine? You need nearly 4 years to offset
the enviromental cost of manufacturing the new device (2 if your power supplier
uses ZERO renewables) and nearly 4 to offset the operational cost at European
prices (which SUCK).

This doesn't fly. Get off the consumist wheel and run your hardware into the
ground before you upgrade it if you want to feel ecogreen.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)

.