Hacker News Reader

It would also imply that it costs Google ~7¢ in only energy cost to deliver that file to you (using average EU energy costs), which is clearly non-sensical given the rates hyperscalers charge for network egress.

Additionally, the cited number also conflates wired internet (low power consumption) with mobile internet (higher), even though this model is only being downloaded to Chrome Desktop AFAICT.

I'd guess there is some offset power needed for keeping a "line" open. Like, 200 kB/s is not twice the power of 100?

When looking at the power consumption across the whole network path and not just a single link, most of the power draw is probably baseline static power costs of keeping all the routers and switches running. Which means that judging the impact of a download in terms of Watts per MB/s is a pretty bad way of analyzing this.

Clearly you're charging an EV to drive a jar of microsd cards with your data back and forth

1.8 to 4.5 kW.

This was my math:

0.1 kWh * 3600s/hr = 360 kJ

360 kJ / 8s (time for 1 GB) = 45 kW

Or, slightly more direct: .1kW*h/GB * .125GB/s * 3600s/h = 45kW

Those are some goofy numbers. Obviously incorrect.

Oops