Thanks for doing the math. I'm not gonna check it, you seem trustworthy enough.
Own your own fucking responsibility
10 months ago by Stamets to c/whitepeopletwitter
AdolfSchmitler 99 points 10 months ago
doughless 33 points 10 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 7 points 10 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.
AdolfSchmitler 2 points 10 months ago
o7 doing the lord's work in the comments
IrateAnteater 32 points 10 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 14 points 10 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.
matsdis 3 points 10 months ago
"closer to realistic" - technically, but 1 kW is just so much power, I find it hard to imagine.
Say I was streaming from my own home server instead (about 20W, which could serve more then just one user), and over a gigabit Ethernet switch (also about 20W) which could serve a 4k streams to 50 users, but let's say it's just me). Then I would use 0.04 kW of electricity for streaming? Maybe I'm streaming from my gaming PC (0.1 kW idle) and have a large inefficient monitor (another 0.1kW). Then it sums up to 0.24 kW. We're still not close to 1 kW and I'm out of ideas.
Granted, you'll have many more switches because this is the internet. But those won't serve just a single user so the power per user is much smaller too. And netflix servers will use more power, but they are also much better optimized for streaming than my home server, and not 90% idle, shared by many users.
And what would you do if you weren't streaming? Would you turn off your gaming PC and monitor? If not, we can't really fully count their consumption. Maybe... ah, I've got it! You're boiling water for coffee at the same time. Yes, that would be 1kW. All the time, while streaming, one cup of water after the other non-stop.
mushroommunk 18 points 10 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 18 points 10 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.
pupbiru 4 points 10 months ago
i’d also say manufacturing the devices probably roughly doubles the carbon footprint (same with the car but we’re trying every trick in the book to figure out where the figure came from)
boonhet 10 points 10 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 6 points 10 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 5 points 10 months ago
No gaming PC should use 400W unless it's under heavy load.
fonix232 5 points 10 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.
SapphironZA 3 points 10 months ago
Excellent calculations!
Dont forget the energy used to extract and transport the fossil fuels. Its purposely never included in the consumer guilt propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby.
Sometimes it takes 20-50% of the energy contained in the fuel to get it to you.
MadMadBunny 3 points 10 months ago
This person maths.
Manticore 2 points 10 months ago
I can only assume they're putting in layers. It's not just Netflix, it's also the cost of your internet, of running your TV, of your AC while at home, of your lights, etc... maybe even the footprint of your food. Maybe the cost of any AI upscaling or framerate generation, if Netflix does that.
They may have looked at everything you might use in that 30 min, then compared it to the rate at an arbitrary car's fuel efficiency. Technically true statistics are very easy to deceive people with, especially if most people don't know how to read them.
Assuming ofc, they didn't just make the shit up, too.
SorryQuick 1 point 10 months ago
I suppose you could also include a sliver of the cost of the show’s production.
Bluescluestoothpaste 1 point 5 months ago
Also you can drive four miles in less than ten minutes so the comparison doesn't even make any sense.
RickyRigatoni 33 points 10 months ago
Yeah but she's the One Good Billionaire™️ for reasons nobody is able to articulate.
canihasaccount 18 points 10 months ago
I thought that was Gabe Newell
village604 3 points 10 months ago
Gabe actually does good, though. Valve has been a major contributor to several open source products
canihasaccount 12 points 10 months ago
Taylor Swift also arguably contributes something of value--music that a lot of people really like. Doesn't mean either of them should be able to amass that much wealth. The tax system in the US is broken. In the US in 1961, for example, stock buybacks were illegal (so stocks paid dividends, which are taxable income), and any income above $32,000/year was taxed at 50%, up to a marginal tax rate of 91% for any income above $400,000/year. In contrast, the highest marginal tax rate in the US in 2024 was 37% for any income above $731,200/year, and companies buy back stocks rather than issuing dividends most of the time. Further, most millionaires and billionaires amass wealth through stocks rather than income, using loans against stocks for cash, meaning they pay almost no taxes and continue to amass personal wealth.
noodlejetski 7 points 10 months ago
and at the same time makes bank from kids gambling with Counter Strike skins, so a bit of a mixed bag there
sleep_deprived 1 point 10 months ago
Does good != does only good
Does good != does good on average
Does good != is good
cassandrafatigue 1 point 10 months ago
I'll fangirl while I place the basket for his head.
TexasDrunk 7 points 10 months ago
Yep. She's not publicly eating babies and being carried on a palanquin by the poors. She ain't good, but her badness is orders of magnitude below some of the mustache twirling villains out here tying people to railroad tracks.
OpenStars 5 points 10 months ago
She's so good (chorus: how good is she?), she's so good... that I don't even know why people think she is bad. (Also relevant is that I don't truly care enough to look it up?🤪)
But in contrast, everyone knows about The Musk, and Bezos, and so on. Taylor Swift, on the other hand, is known to travel in a jet (which considering how she likely goes with a full retinue of 10-50 people each time, and how much she would be absolutely MOBBED even by her adoring fans if she tried to use more public transportation options, definitely is the safest and might even be a very efficient form of travel under those circumstances?).
Not the same at all.
Then there's the guy that was Luigi'd, not even a billionaire but with that mindset. So if one doesn't need to be a billionaire to act like one, then it stands to reason that one could theoretically become one without needing to act like the others. Maybe. Though whether that applies to her I have no idea. Perhaps she simply has a better PR team.
cassandrafatigue 1 point 10 months ago
That's the thing. Swift is one of the good ones
And still needs a turn on the guillotine, so the rest of us can have a future.
PalmTreeIsBestTree 8 points 10 months ago
I do find it funny they use an old 1950s smoky long range bomber as an example
FordBeeblebrox 12 points 10 months ago
If a B-52 is smoking like that it does NOT have a long range anymore
fonix232 91 points 10 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 6 points 10 months ago
2kg of CO2? Atomic weight of CO2 is about 44, of which carbon is 12, so 27% of CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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.
BroBot9000 53 points 10 months ago
Blue checkmarks fund Nazis
BroBot9000 28 points 10 months ago
Top account still has their blue checkmark… and bottom still hasn’t deleted their account.
Funding and participating with Nazis is still supporting them.
KombatWombat 53 points 10 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.
damnedfurry 5 points 10 months ago
The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.
Just a little 90x error, lol
stray 2 points 10 months ago
path: 0 21159120 21160786, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Turns out my choice to not own a TV is green.
Lucidlethargy 53 points 10 months ago
This is just flat out bullshit. Flat out.
mineralfellow 15 points 10 months ago
Exactly! Oil isn't dinosaur juice. They lube up with dead plants. Don't make it seem glamorous.
TrojanRoomCoffeePot 40 points 10 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.
TrojanRoomCoffeePot 6 points 10 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 37 points 10 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 33 points 10 months ago
Yeah this smacks of "but wind turbine blades aren't recyclable"! So? It's still better than what we were doing before.
Rooster326 17 points 10 months ago
Close. We sharpen them to use against the Kaiju.
rbos 13 points 10 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 7 points 10 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.
theneverfox 1 point 10 months ago
Nope, they put them in big graveyards
cassandrafatigue 3 points 10 months ago
Need to figure out a reclamation process, but nobody's trying just yet.
dejected_warp_core 36 points 10 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.
cassandrafatigue 2 points 10 months ago
No, that was twenty years ago, but better late than never!
cassandrafatigue 1 point 10 months ago
Still time to catch happy hour after!
ikidd 1 point 10 months ago
Peter Thiel may be the Antichrist and he's just throwing around all this end-days mumbo jumbo to throw us off. The safe bet would be to execute Peter Thiel just to be safe. If we're wrong, it's not like we're any worse off.
Rooster326 4 points 10 months ago
The millennial industry causing the worst of the devastation.
cassandrafatigue 2 points 10 months ago
And all of them need to at least have a little break while we figure out how to unfuck the process
cassandrafatigue 1 point 10 months ago
Fucking true
RememberTheApollo_ 27 points 10 months ago
Say people flying private jets everywhere.
BeMoreCareful 5 points 10 months ago
Pretty sure we're working on it
Saprophyte 16 points 10 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.
Trainguyrom 4 points 10 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
finitebanjo 21 points 10 months ago
That's bullhonkey of the highest fucking order!
One hour of streaming video typically uses around 0.08 kWh, or 288000 Joules, while an electric car can drive a mile with more or less 0.346 kWh, or 1245600 joules, which is to say driving 4 miles is equivalent to 17.3 hours of Netflix!
Source for streaming Cost: https://www.iea.org/...
Source for electric cars KWH per 100 Mile: https://ecocostsavings.com/...
WizardofFrobozz 10 points 10 months ago
I haven't heard "bullhonkey" since 1991 and am a big fan of what you've done here.
Pollo_Jack 16 points 10 months ago
Remove encryption, let users download more files. Problem solved.
cassandrafatigue 3 points 10 months ago
What problem?
Pollo_Jack 1 point 9 months ago
Emissions concerns.
wildncrazyguy138 16 points 10 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.
U7826391786239 11 points 10 months ago path: 0 21146614, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
cassandrafatigue 10 points 10 months ago
Piracy is the green option
Kill an oil exec and then binge watch your fav series!
Ichiro_kun 2 points 10 months ago
Real.. I myself pirate everything.. 🗿
BarbecueCowboy 3 points 10 months ago
Probably thinking too much into it, but a lot of Instagram influencers out there are running a barely disguised escort service for the rich. One of the things they'll ask if they feel like you might want to hire them is if you want to fly them out. So, maybe burning jet fuel? Yeah, we're stretching things real bad here but we can make it fit rationally as well as figuratively.
biggerbogboy 3 points 10 months ago
I mean, if they’re wanking with maximum force, speed and twist without destroying the cylinder (or adding supports to the cylinder,) as well as adding ferrocerium or magnesium shavings to aid in the ignition process, and if the stroking motion produces enough joules of energy, hence heat, the crude oil could ignite, producing greenhouse emissions in their place of wankage. /s
WanderingThoughts 3 points 10 months ago
They use their private jet to fly in the best people in the business to handle the matter personality in a hands-on fashion.
JackbyDev 8 points 10 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.
SpaceCowboy 4 points 10 months ago
Yup. I think it's fair to say someone driving a gas guzzler SUV needs to make a little more effort to help with global warming... get an EV or better yet, take transit.
But with electrical stuff, there exists green power that's cheaper than the alternatives, it's the industry's fault for not making effort on that. I'm not the fucking power company.
It's gotta be a shared responsibility on this instead of finger pointing. I'm taking transit and fighting tooth and nail against my employer's stupid RTO policies (while looking for a job elsewhere). I'm doing my part on the things I can control and I expect industry to do the same.
DancingBear 1 point 10 months ago path: 0 21153005 21154796 21156015 21157897, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
BradleyUffner 8 points 10 months ago
Ok, I'll binge watch videos on some other streaming platform instead. I'm helping!
Kolanaki 8 points 10 months ago
Is that only if you stream it? What if I download it a d watch it locally? I know damn well my own computer doesn't use that much electricity, and the AIO cooler doesn't need to have the liquid replaced (or at least, not for a long, long time).
FrostyTheDoo 3 points 10 months ago
I'm not a very technical person, but is there really a difference in total power consumed for streaming data in real time vs. downloading it to watch locally later? Like in terms of data and electricity used end to end, I assume it would be the same. But again, I'm somewhat dumb
Kolanaki 7 points 10 months ago
It is the same, assuming it's 1 machine to 1 machine. Streaming is still downloading the thing to your machine, just to a temporary space while you also watch the bits you've already received.
But it generally isn't just 1 machine to 1 machine. Downloading from a torrent isn't 1 machine to 1 machine, either. That's actually kinda the whole point with bittorrent.
Ininewcrow 6 points 10 months ago
Using Shitter to post this probably does way more to negatively affect the environment more than anything.
hodgepodgin 2 points 10 months ago
there many movie torrents on i2p?
13igTyme 3 points 10 months ago
Mega yachts have to be started regularly to keep the engine running smoothly. So even if you aren't going anywhere, you still have to spend thousands in gas each few days just so it performs well when you do actually use it.
MNByChoice 1 point 10 months ago
Remember, our governments are one way to implement collective action, but not the only way.
You negotiate for higher wages. (Including by finding a higher paying job elsewhere.)
Your union negotiates for higher wages.
Your government should negotiate for higher wages.
You do right for the environment.
Your unions, friend groups, and community organizations do right for the environment.
Your government should do right for the environment.
When any level fails, it is time to build up the other levels.
No, I have no idea how to organize a soccer game, let along a union or community organization.
Grandwolf319 1 point 10 months ago
Am I the only one who sees this as an endorsement for self hosting?
I would love to see the numbers for 5 people watching an already downloaded movie off a hard drive.
If the house has solar panels and is net zero, it would make the emissions 0 right?
Edit: while I do agree about economies of scale, what I am doubting is streaming every single time vs playing locally or steaming in a local network. Local play is always more efficient
pupbiru 1 point 10 months ago
self hosting is wildly less efficient… one of the biggest costs in data centres is electricity, and one of the biggest constraints is electrical infrastructure… you have pretty intense power budgets in data centres and DC equipment is pretty well optimised to be efficient
meanwhile a home server doesn’t likely use server hardware (server hardware is far more efficient), is probably about 5-10y or more out of date, and isn’t likely particularly dense: a single 1500w server can probably service ~20 people in a DC… meanwhile an 800w home server could probably handle ~5 people
add the fact that netflix pre-transcodes their vids in many different qualities and formats, whilst home streaming - unless streaming original quality - mostly re-transcodes which is a very energy-hungry process
heck even just the hard drives: if everyone ran their own servers and stored their content that’s thousands if not hundreds of thousands more copies of the data, and all that data is probably on spinning disks
Trainguyrom 5 points 10 months ago
a single 1500w server can probably service ~20 people in a DC
I'm guessing you dropped a zero or two on the user count, also added an extra zero to the wattage (most traditional colocation datacenters max out at around 2,000 concurrent watts per 48U rack, so each server is going to target around 50-75w per rack unit of average load)
Netflix is going to be direct-playing pre-transcoded streams, so the main constraint would be bandwidth. If we average out all streams to 5mb/s, that's about 200 streams per gigabit of network bandwidth. Chances are that server has at least 10 gigabit networking, probably more like 50 gigabit if they have SSDs storing the data (especially with modern memory caching). That's between 2,000 and 10,000 active clients per server
Back of the envelope math says that's around 0.075 watts per individual stream for a 150w 2U server serving 2000 clients, which looks pretty realistic to my eyes as a Sysadmin.
Granted for a service the size of Netflix we aren't talking about individual servers we're looking at a big orchestrated cluster of servers, but most of that is handling basic web server tasks that are a completely solved problem and each individual server is probably serving a few million clients thanks to modern caching and acceleration features. The real cost and energy hit is going to be in the content distribution which I covered above.
pupbiru 2 points 10 months ago
I'm guessing you dropped a zero or two on the user count
i was being pretty pessimistic because tbh i’m not entirely sure of the requirements of streaming video… i guess yeah 200-500 is pretty realistic for netflix since all their content is pre-transcoded… i kinda had in my head live transcoding here, but also i said somewhere else that netflix pre-transcodes, so yeah… just brain things :p
also added an extra zero to the wattage
absolutely right again! i had in my head the TDP eg threadripper at ~1500w - it’s 350w or lower
Trainguyrom 2 points 10 months ago
Hey if you were thinking live-transcode I can definitely see why you'd think around 20 clients per server for CPU transcode and I can also see where such a high wattage would come from!
Edit: fun bonus fact! Netflix offers caching servers to ISPs that they can place on their side of the interconnect to mutually reduce bandwidth costs. By memory from a teardown I saw on reddit like a decade ago, it was a pretty standard 1U single socket server (probably a supermicro whitebox if we're being real)with 4-6 HDDs to serve the media files
Grandwolf319 3 points 10 months ago
My home server used 5w at idle and 9w while streaming. Add another 10w for the hard drive.
According to your example, using Netflix a single user would uses 75w.
That doesn’t include the internet cost which I bet is significant as well.
There is a reason paying for Netflix is like $20 a month and internet cost is like $50-100 whereas it costs close to $1/month of electricity for self hosting and no internet cost during usage.
pupbiru -2 points 10 months ago
an n150 mini pc - largely considered a very efficient package for home servers - consumes ~15w max without the gpu, and ~9w idle
a raspberry pi consumes 3-4w idle
none of that is supporting more than a couple of people streaming 4k like we’re talking about in the case of netflix
and a single hard drive isn’t even close to what we’re talking about… you’re looking at ~30w at least for the disks alone
as for internet cost, it’s likely tiny… my 24 port gigabit switch from 15 years ago sips < 6w… i can only imagine that’s pretty inefficient compared to today’s standards (and 24 port is pretty tiny for a DC, and port power consumption doesn’t scale linearly)
data centres are just straight up way more efficient per unit of processing than your home anything; it pretty much doesn’t matter how efficient your home gear is, or what the workload is unless you switch it off most of the time - which doesn’t happen in a DC
Grandwolf319 2 points 10 months ago
Idk where your getting your numbers from.
Here is an article that talks about HDD read power usage being less than 10w:
https://www.solved.scality.com/...
Even with 30w, it’s still lower than the 75w you mentioned.
Also, that hard drive can serve multiple purposes whereas Netflix is only for steaming movies and tv shows (not music, so you got to add Spotify usage to be fully fair).
MousePotatoDoesStuff 1 point 5 months ago
Save the planet by pirating instead :P
doingthestuff 1 point 10 months ago
Man out in the wilds we can cover 10 times that distance in that time and not even have to worry about the law man.
whitepeopletwitter
@sh.itjust.works
10485
2062
4752
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician
- https://www.sotwe.com/
- https://twitterviewer.net/Note: Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement (see rule 6)
go to feed...
whitepeopletwitter
@sh.itjust.works
10485
2062
4752
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician
- https://www.sotwe.com/
- https://twitterviewer.net/Note: Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement (see rule 6)
go to feed...
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.
save