1379
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] yobasari@feddit.org 269 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The numbers are are also clearly fictive. Driving a car for 4 miles uses about half a liter of fuel. A liter of gasoline contains about 9kwh of energy meaning, that you would use about 4.5 kwh per half hour of streaming. So the servers would have to draw about 9 KW to serve a single person? That would be like 10 gaming PCs running at full power to serve one person. Are they animating the shows in real time? No compression algorithm is that inefficient and no hard drive uses that much energy.

edit: also they could never be profitable like that. Let's say you watch three hours per day. That would be 9kWx3hrsx30days=810kwh per month. Even if they only pay 5 cents a kWh that would still be over $40 per month just in electricity cost for one user.

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 96 points 5 months ago

Thanks for doing the math. I'm not gonna check it, you seem trustworthy enough.

[-] Nusm@peachpie.theatl.social 33 points 5 months ago

I’m not gonna check the numbers either. Because I have no idea how. And I don’t even understand them.

So obviously he’s right!

[-] doughless@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The numbers aren't too difficult to verify.

I found this Canadian government web page that says it's roughly 8.9 kWh, so that checks out.

Looking at the fuel efficiency table on that same website, it looks like OP used a reasonable average fuel efficiency of 30 mpg or slightly under 8L/100km: 4 miles / 30mpg = 0.13 gallons, or 0.492 liters, so their claim of half a liter of gas also checks out.

The cheapest commercial energy in the US appears to be in North Dakota at $0.0741/kWh, so using $0.05/kWh was very generous.

The average Netflix user watches about 2 hours per day, or 60 hours per month.

Just in an attempt to be a bit more accurate, let's assume the individual user's television and internet router use about 900W, so we'll use a final number of 8kW for Netflix's power use per user.

8 kW * 60 hours= 480 kWh

And the cost of all of those kWh at $0.05: 480 kWh * $0.05 = $24.00

Or, the cost in the least expensive state in the US: 480 kWh * $0.0741 = $35.57

National average is $0.14/kWh, so unless Netflix was serving everyone out of North Dakota and Texas, their average cost per user would be much closer to $70 per user.

OP's numbers were definitely already accurate enough for the point. Basically, there's no possible way Netflix needs that much electricity to serve their users.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Just in an attempt to be a bit more accurate, let's assume the individual user's television and internet router use about 900W

An average router uses between 5 and 20w, and modern LED televisions use between 30 and 180w (on the high end). Even a worst case scenario, like an uncommonly large 60" older Plasma TV would only use around 600w.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

I like to verify so I asked a LLM, it confirmed the math but also determined he is a sentient banana.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 32 points 5 months ago

I prefer to think that this post is unrealistically optimistic. If you drive an electric car and live in Quebec, this could very well be true. For reference, Quebec's electric grid is just about 100% hydroelectric power, so your driving emissions would be close to 0.

[-] yobasari@feddit.org 14 points 5 months ago

I only looked at power consumption, not emissions. If the electricity produced is emissions free than the emissions for both driving and streaming would be zero. So the original statement would be true, but meaningless. But lets compare the energy consumption with an EV. At 15kwh/100km(4.14mi/kWh) the EV would need 15kwh/100km*6,44km=0.966kwh for 4 miles. That still leaves us with a power draw of 1.932KW. That is closer to a realistic but I still don't think the power consumption of streaming is that high.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 17 points 5 months ago

I'm not saying their numbers are correct but you are missing: Routers ( four minimum, Netflix data center, backbone isp, local isp, your house), TV, for many a streaming device which can range from the TV itself to a PS5 or gaming PC, and for many a soundbar or amp and speakers.

They probably took max load for all those devices and lumped that all together which, yeah max load isn't right and the routers should actually be split amongst many many houses but it is all part of streaming.

[-] ozymandias@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 months ago

reminds me of when they use to calculate financial losses from a hack, they would add in the full cost of any hardware touched, and the full price to develop any of the software touched…
ending up at dozens of millions of dollars, just because some looked at a thing
like if you spray painted a wall on building and they charged you with the entire cost of building the entire structure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 5 months ago

Don't forget that the grids that power these servers are mixed too, not 100% fossil fuels. And even if they were coal-fired, power generation is more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Likely it'd have to be at LEAST 30-40 kW to serve a single person for it to be equivalent, but I can't be arsed to do the math.

[-] hitwright@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Trying the close to best scenario I can think of for the tweet to be correct

4 miles is about 6.5 km (rounding up)

Ford fiesta takes uses 6 litres over 100 km (tiny car also rounded down)

0.39l of gasoline is about 3.5 kwh (rounded down)

Well the next step would be apply loved trick: Engine only pases around 1/5 of gasoline energy to useful energy, so that number can be used to make it more possible We get 0.7kwh

Half an hour would give us 0.35kwh

Beffy Gaming PC uses around 400w (my gaming pc uses less) when doing light tasks, so that gives around 0.2kwh

Since I love drinking tea, that leaves me 0.15kwh for a whole litre of tea to chug down every 30 minutes

So with my average binge session I would have consume around 12 litres of tea for the tweet to be viable

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 5 months ago

No gaming PC should use 400W unless it's under heavy load.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fonix232@fedia.io 5 points 5 months ago

Heh, just did the same but with CO2 emissions. And even considering those, the numbers were wildly off - about 2 days of constant streaming (nearly 48 hours!) equates a standard gas car's 4 mile drive in emissions.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] fonix232@fedia.io 90 points 5 months ago

Also, that number is utter bullshit.

Netflix, like all major streaming platforms, has an incredibly optimised system for providing the media. A 4 mile drive emits ~1.6-2kg of CO2, whereas one hour of streaming from Netflix emits up to 100g per hour as per Netflix themselves (and even that study is being questioned now, with newer ones putting this value around 30-40g). Meaning you'd need to stream for well over two days to even get near the emissions of a 4 mile drive.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago

2kg of CO~2~? Atomic weight of CO~2~ is about 44, of which carbon is 12, so 27% of CO~2~ is the carbon from the gasoline. I know that gasoline contains more than just hydrocarbon chains, and that the chains also contain hydrogen. But for the sake of this back of the envelope calculation I'll disregard both.

27% of 2kg is 0.54kg, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline a liter of gasoline is 0.755kg. Aka 2kg of CO~2~ is the result of burning 0.72L of gasoline. Driving 4miles, or 6.44km on 0.72L is 9km/L, or 21.2mpg. 1.6kg of CO~2~ would be 0.57L and 11.3km/L or 26.6mpg.

Maybe I shouldn't have disregarded the additives and the hydrogen, but unless they account for about 50% of the weight of the gasoline, then those 4 miles were driven in a something very uneconomic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago

The original tweet's claim is false.

TLDR: It referenced an oral interview from a French think tank called The Shift Project. They have since acknowledged it as an error after a fact check from the International Energy Agency. BigThink originally tweeted this in 2019 along with a corresponding article. They have since issued a correction on the article and deleted the tweet. The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 50 points 5 months ago

This is just flat out bullshit. Flat out.

[-] mineralfellow@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Exactly! Oil isn't dinosaur juice. They lube up with dead plants. Don't make it seem glamorous.

[-] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago

Real talk, Big Think can cram this bullshit up their asses.

I'm so sick and tired of having to humour these asinine Malthusian-rooted arguments against simply being alive in society, as if everyday people doing anything more than pulling air into their faces were an unwelcome imposition on the Earth - this, especially, given the scale of unchecked industrial/commercial pollution while industries continuously resist and derail efforts to regulate and sanction it.

Granted, this kind of talk doesn't crop up every single day IRL, but it's starting to feel that way in online communities. Why the fuck are people allowing these hacks to make them feel guilty just for going about their lives, as though having a coffee or driving to see their family 500 miles away were equivalent to festooning themselves with skinned baby seals or crushing endangered leopard cubs underfoot? If global resources hadn't been so willfully, purposely mismanaged for 200+ years, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. Now media talking heads want me to feel guilty for watching TV? They can fuck themselves with BR40 light bulbs.

[-] Tower@lemmy.zip 7 points 5 months ago

I just want to commend your dedication to using flared bases, even when speaking about people you don't agree with.

[-] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

After the spiel, believe it or not, I feel kind of guilty accepting that compliment given that I meant flared-end-first when suggesting they fuck themselves with the BR40's...

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 36 points 5 months ago

Not to say that netfix isn't horrible, but how much did Netflix save in CO2 buy gutting the movie theater and video rental industry? Surely it's better to stream than it is to drive to a physical location, pick up a crystalized block of oil, drive it home and shove it into our VCR.

Hell, when they were doing disc delivery, it was coming through the mail who was already driving through the hood in most places.

Hell, I wonder how much co2 it cost to make the DVD/VHS tapes in the first place.

[-] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 32 points 5 months ago

Yeah this smacks of "but wind turbine blades aren't recyclable"! So? It's still better than what we were doing before.

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago

wind turbine blades aren’t recyclable

I didn't even know about that.

Wonder if they could crush them up and use them as concrete aggregate.

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Close. We sharpen them to use against the Kaiju.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

"made mainly of carbon fiber, fiberglass, and balsa wood" from some random source. Doesn't sound like anything particularly toxic or difficult to source. I can't imagine putting them in landfill is a serious problem. So my response is "so what".

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 7 points 5 months ago

Why not?

Carbon fiber and fiberglass in concrete foundations would limit microplastics and add strength to the product. Throwing a never-decomposing product into a landfill is just taking up space for something that can decompose over a couple of hundred years. Reuse it at least once it there's a viable solution.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago

Sure. I mean, you could. Probably there are better sources, like construction waste, that you'd want to exhaust first, but I obviously haven't done a serious cost-benefit analysis, nor am I really qualified. My intuition is that you could do it but there are better uses of the time and money.

Relatively inert stuff in a landfill doesn't seem like the highest-priority use of the time and money. The resources used to scrap and recycle a wind turbine blade could probably be much better used for more consequential purposes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 34 points 5 months ago

Stamets, it's cool, I know you're putting this out there to illustrate some obviously bad takes.

Personally, I've kind of had it with these think-tank, astro-turfing, menaces to social media and society writ-large. I think it's high time that we all start getting a little louder about who's behind these things when we spot them here, and elsewhere. Lex (in the post) has the right take, but it's probably even better to get the word out about the source of this blame-shifting crap.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/big-think/

The Big Think is privately owned through Freethink Media. Some of the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel from PayPal, Tom Scott of Nantucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. Revenue is generated through advertising, sponsored content, and subscriptions to the website’s E-learning platform.

If that isn't enough to get really fucking mad about this slow-creeping horseshit, I don't know what is.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

Say people flying private jets everywhere.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.zip 24 points 5 months ago

No it’s cool. Just cancel your Netflix and pirate your media. Thanks Big Think!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 23 points 5 months ago

Now try saying this about AI

[-] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

Using the words thank you to respond to Alexa uses the same amount of gasoline a wood chipper takes to consume eleven spotted owls.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 points 5 months ago

The funny thing is, with AI each individual token is surprisingly efficient, but each query is burning 10s or 100s of tokens, and a single interaction can lead to 10s or 100s of queries. Factor in that there's forced AI integrations into things that don't need it on top of the millions of active users, the near constant training of new models, and suddenly its ballooned into an amount of energy that's noticable on a global scale

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 22 points 5 months ago

"Let's create a system that slowly destroys the planet but, and here me out, we blame it on the users of the system!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 18 points 5 months ago

Here’s a Big Think. I used to drive 4 miles to blockbuster then pick out a plastic coated VHS, then play it on my plastic coated VCR on my TV that was at least 10x the width of current TVs.

Then, 3 days later, drive like a mad racer with no brakes to get back to the Blockbuster 2 minutes before they closed.

And that’s just like the other 80% of America who don’t have trains, buses or decent bike lanes. So kindly FO on guilt tripping us for our streaming habits, TYVM.

[-] Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

Remove encryption, let users download more files. Problem solved.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago

Piracy is the green option

Kill an oil exec and then binge watch your fav series!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Ok, I'll binge watch videos on some other streaming platform instead. I'm helping!

[-] Wilco@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago

Wise fucking words. Aside from boycotting certain businesses we have almost no ability to control the environmental side of things.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 8 points 5 months ago

This reminds me of that article someone shared here (I think) about your Spotify streaming's carbon footprint. It was a very odd article. I think it was likely factually correct, but it even said something like "streaming all year produces as much CO2 as (incredibly small task)". It seemed AI generated, like the dumped in data and told it the conclusion it should come to. Because I don't think anyone reasonable would've read it and thought that streaming music for a while year was in any way comparable to the other thing. Again, something minor, like driving a few miles. Something a huge amount of people do every day.

[-] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago

Even if it was a ridiculous amount, it makes no sense to blame the end users of the service instead of the service itself

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 5 months ago

Well ackshuallllyyyy they're not burning it if they're just wanking 🤓

.../s

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago

watching Netflix is a skill issue anyway. learn to use xdcc or i2p torrents or something

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ininewcrow@piefed.ca 6 points 5 months ago

Using Shitter to post this probably does way more to negatively affect the environment more than anything.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Avicenna@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago

lol good thinking, take away the one thing that keeps people sedated and watch the world burn

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
1379 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

9995 readers
2288 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS