Who Is Being Excluded by Museums' Wholesale Adoption of Digital Technology?
amuseumfornow.com
amuseumfornow.com
Ok. I need to see the math on this, or else my phone and computer is capable of some sort of physics defying magic. I can send an email with a large attachment on my modest "homelab" a few raspberry pis in, lets be absurdly generous, 10 seconds.
So 10 seconds of raspberry pi time, maxed out, 270 watt seconds (probably close to 1/10th that since it isn't maxed out). Reading it on my phone, takes a similar amount of power, realistically less. My phone is perfectly happy to charge off of 2.5 watts so lets say that receiving it takes another 10 seconds. So, being absurdly generous I'm using 295 watt-seconds. If I convert that to kWh I get 0.00008194444444 KWh.
I get all my electricity from hydro, but lets say that I was down the road from a coal plant. A coal plant emits 800g CO2 per KWh. That means that the devices that I used to send and receive a large email consumed a whopping 0.06555555556 grams of CO2.
I understand that there will be server farms handling my email in the real world, but those server farms are handling billions of other emails, and live and die on power costs, so I don't really think that my email is sucking down power there?
Where in the world is it 50g CO2 to send an email (or 62Wh if we convert it back)? What in the world makes you think that a paper ticket, which is literally several grams of carbon and oxygen, has less of an impact?
I'm willing to hear that there are people impacted by technology adoption. I'm more than willing to learn about carbon impact. But please don't put together an argument that anyone with any knowledge about the domain can see right through in a blink.
Of course it does? The handful of CPU cycles the server spends on it draws power, so will the tiny amount of additional heat generated that has to be moved by the HVAC, repeat that for all the MTAs, proxies, gateways, routers, switches, cell base stations, etc that are involved in the exchange and I can see how the overall consumed power might add up.
Of course in reality, it's hard to impossible to trace the total power consumption and CO2 emissions of a single transaction, so I suppose, you'd rather measure in aggregate - e.g. some data center that does nothing but email routing processes x million emails and consumes y kWh per day, so assume a power draw of y/(x*1 mio) kWh per email for that data center -, then multiply by the average number of hops per email, add routing on the lower layers to that, etc etc, and I see how you could feasibly arrive at sure a value.
To put it into context, 50g of carbon is more than all of the carbon that will be emitted by a disposable lighter if you burn it until the butane is gone. That is an incredible amount of energy to claim that sending an email costs. Especially when you consider that in the same breath they claim that sending an email without an attached e-ticket uses 1/250th the energy.
I just refuse to believe that sending a QR code in a PDF is somehow polluting more than burning all of the butane in a light.
of course the real answer is that power isn't free, and emitting carbon costs power. If sending an email cost that much power, each email would cost more than $.01 to send in energy costs. Given the number of emails I can arbitrarily send and receive I wouldn't expect email sending to be so cheap, and I would expect large attachments to be extra.
I've dug into a few like these and found that maybe they were valid 20 years ago, and nobody bothered to update the data point. Why? Because that would be inconvenient to their agenda.
One that particularly annoys me is some right-wing pundits that keep insisting that solar panels can't recoup the cost of the energy invested into making them.
That was true for the panels used to power portable calculators back in the 1980s! Some Ronald Reagan voters got this stuck in their brains and now they are unable to dislodge this factoid without surgical intervention.
If you stop and think about it for ten seconds, it would be obviously absurd that there are huge industrial-scale solar power plants springing up by the hundreds globally if they were making a financial loss by selling less power than it took to make the panels! Not to mention that in all forms of power generation (fossil, nuclear, or renewable) the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EREI) is a key metric that industrialists have been seeking to optimise for over a century now.
I’m also thinking about the carbon emissions that go into getting that piece of paper in your hand. The lost carbon capturing capacity of the felled tree, the machinery used to fell, transport and process it, the production of the chemicals used to process the pulp, and finally moving around the finished product. And probably quite a few steps I am missing. Maybe the cars everyone drives to work at the paper plant each day? I’m sure the amortized amount is still small for a tiny piece of paper, but it’s not nothing.
I agree with you that the provided example is stupid, but I think there is an argument to be made that going digital can lead to more waste.
Take for example digital signage. All those signs, billboards, advertisements, and more that used to be just cardstock paper in ye olde days are now bright, huge LCD screens. I don't want to be the guy signing off on the electric bill, nor consider the geopolitiecological side of where the screens came from.
The museum wrote back asking me to cease and desist. So I did, and the trend continues. The buggers also lost a family donation in their "raiders of the lost ark" warehouse. (Early computing parts from imperial college, possibly the 5th computer in britain) they do have an archive problem. And, a lot of science trash is kind of boring. Their real live radioactive stuff, the gear used by Watson & Crick, that's not boring.
Arts et Metier in Paris is better. Lavoisiers entire gas research rig, bits of Fred Juliot-Curie's cavity accelerator magnet, the original jacquard loom, a room of 200 bizarre clockwork cog and wheel mechanisms.
Or the Rutter museum in Philadelphia, or the Teylers museum in Haarlem: lethal scale Leyden jar and van de graaf generator.
The real shit is much better than didactic panels and QR codes. I'm glad the deltic loco and V2 rocket are still on display in London, and Babbage bits and pieces, and the calculator made from meccano.
Particularly as a child who doesn't have such a passionate parent as yourself to explain all the equipment.
As such it's hard for people like us to have an objective opinion because it's always framed through our experiences of loving science: 'It worked for us, why change it?'
The huge risk of course is misunderstanding. Every autodidact gets hit by that. So the didactic panels are necessary, the pathways, but the sheer amount of tidying up and simplifying is (badly) stunning: they took shitloads of materials off display, to contextualise what's left better (in their eyes)
Contrast with the BM. Last visit: "do you want to hold a real Celtic bronze axehead" from an archeologist on the floor. (Detectorists probably helped motivate them to socialise the stacks of finds which arent holotypes) They're bloody heavy, amazing things. Beautifully crafted Lovely chap, spoke about the casting techniques, preserving the binding in surrounding soil when removing, all kinds of stuff. I think the BM and Sir John Soanes house have kept the spirit alive, the Science Museum hasn't.