Hacker News Reader

Comment by didgetmaster | Hacker News Reader

Get the climate change activists involved. How many of these videos have to play before the wasted electricity is equivalent to a car running for a year?

View on HN

In my business area (ISP), when doing carbon accounting, we have "scope 3" which includes the electric consumption we incur the electric consumption of our devices at user's home.

A first step towards reducing those externalities [1] is mandating that they power consumption Youtube incurs is accounted for. -- Another Youtube thing that made my computer screams is "theater mode", eating so much CPU for eye candy on so many devices ought to be at least declared.

[1] To explain the externality: Google probably does that because they make maybe +0.5% revenues by click to video, at almost 0 cost for them. Since the whole extra cost is paid for by the user (by requiring a bigger computer, by consuming more electricity). The price for the user to view a page without the embed and with it can be something like +20% at no gain for them. It's so small than no sane user make those computations, but if you start accounting like a company, you would see the difference. (Plus obviously all the ecological externalities)

> Another Youtube thing that made my computer screams is "theater mode", eating so much CPU for eye candy on so many devices ought to be at least declared.

Do you mean ambient mode, that adds the faded light around the video (which looks awful, but is supposed to mimic behind-screen synced backlighting)? Theater mode mainly just makes the video bigger and moves other stuff lower down on the page, so I can't imagine how it "eats CPU" any more than simply making the window bigger would.

This must be intentionally hyperbolic or you have no concept of how much energy is needed to run a car.

I have an electric car and was not trying to be hyperbolic. The article is about wasting resources (and electricity is one of them) because the embedded videos are not tuned to be efficient.

Certainly, one person would never be able to download enough videos to waste a car's worth of electricity; but across several million people doing it, it would add up.

You're technically correct, it would add up to be equivalent with enough scale. However, given the stats I've seen from solar panel owners about how much electricity their computers/phones actually use compared to charging up their car (with the former basically being a surprisingly tiny drop in the bucket compared to the latter), the number you're looking for to make a comparison might still be at least an order of magnitude higher than you expect.

My point really was about scale. Put some wasteful code in some rarely used application and it means nothing (the proverbial drop in the bucket). Put the same thing in a very popular app or library which is used by millions (or even billions); then it is a whole different story. It seems YouTube fits this bill. But because the collective cost is spread across all the users; no one is pressed to fix it.

The carbon footprint of streaming video: fact-checking the headlines

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-str...

    Another recent claim [..] estimated that 7bn YouTube views of  “Despacito” [..] had consumed 900 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity, or 1.66 kWh per viewing hour.

    At this rate, YouTube – with over 1 billion viewing hours a day – would consume over 600 TWh a year (2.5% of global electricity use), which would be more than the electricity used globally by all data centres (~200 TWh) and data transmission networks (~250 TWh).

    It is clear that these figures are too high – but by how much?

It should be perfectly clear that the client-side impact of this transfer is not important, since a mobile device still loads YouTube embeds instantly, but does not burst into flames while doing so, as it necessarily would if the energy cost was as high as the other person is suggesting.

Sure, TBH I was inspired by your comment that "there is a person whose full-time job is to consider the energy usage of YouTube in all its aspects" and figured I'd throw in an IEA commentary from someone who watches the watchers.

It's a big picture look at youtube energy use, but hopefully of tangential interest.

This is not one of those things where a long tail dominates. You could transfer a megabyte of data over Wi-Fi to a portable device 20 million times with the same energy that you need to charge a standard range Tesla once. Furthermore, I can assure you that there is a person whose full-time job is to consider the energy usage of YouTube in all its aspects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com