"Yes, The Internet Saves Energy"

[phantom power]

I'm allergic to the "technology will save us" meme. However, my view of technologies is that they do provide options. Ways to react. Another way to look at it is, they provide ecological niches. And diversity == resilience.

Anyway, I think the Intertubes will be used as one avenue for adapting to peak fossil, and perhaps also climate change.

That is, assuming we can continue to produce the electricity to run them, and maintain their infrastructure.

The just-released study commissioned by the CEA and conducted by TIAX LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that using electronics to telecommute saves the equivalent of 9 to 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year – the same amount of energy used by roughly 1 million US households every year.

(Roughly speaking that’s also the equivalent of building one million, off-grid all-solar homes. They, too, save or displace electricity ordinarily delivered from the power grid.)

The study, The Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of Telecommuting and e-Commerce, also claims that the estimated 3.9 million telecommuters in the United States have reduced gasoline consumption by about 840 million gallons while curbing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by nearly 14 million tons, That’s equal to removing 2 million vehicles from the road every year.

Though energy is consumed while staying at home to telecommute or shop, the energy consumed to commute and drive is greater. Telecommuting saves 1.4 gallons of gasoline and reduces CO2 emissions by 17 to 23 kilograms per day. In energy consumption terms that’s up to 12 hours of an average US household’s electricity use.

[unpossibles]

1. do you have a link so I can send this to my boss?

She lets me telecommute sometimes, but... what the heck. It's worth a shot.

[phantom power]

2. Oops, link is below:

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/commentary/23312

[madokie]

3. of course it does. think of the energy it would take to mail a letter to my Senator

as to what it takes for me to email the sorry sob, oops sorry 'bout that, it just slipped out. quite a difference seems to me like.

[silverweb]

4. Of course it does!

Because I don't have to commute to work, I don't need a car or gasoline or motor oil.

Because I work from home, I don't need a "business wardrobe" and can minimize clothing/shoe/accessory purchases.

Because I do all my banking and bill paying on line, I don't receive paper bank statements or paper bills, and I don't have to buy paper checks or envelopes, so I'm helping save trees.

Because I watch the few TV shows I like on line (albeit a little late), and because I listen to radio and CDs on my computer, I don't need separate appliances for information and entertainment.

Because I read all the newspapers and magazines I want on line, I don't need to buy paper editions, saving more trees. (Because I still like holding a physical book in my hands to read, I don't read many books on line... but I do buy the vast majority of them used.)

And finally, because I shut down my entire system's power strip at night and when I'm not home, I minimize even the electricity it takes to run my computer.

How can the internet NOT help save substantial energy?

[mopinko]

5. how the intertubes might be wasting energy-

although shopping online seems energy efficient, think about all those items brought to your home, one at a time, in a giant brown truck. i know that is not what the article is about. just wanted to reply to the "how could it not?" comments. i am not positing that this is wasteful. just tossing it out as some of the things that could be in the equation.

[phantom power]

6. FWIW, the study claimed to take online shopping into account.

I think it's pretty easy for any individual to use the internet and waste more energy than they were before. Since each individual's usage will be different, a study attempting to measure the net effect across a population is the only way to answer the question pragmatically.

Of course, this is just one study, so hopefully other people will conduct other studies to verify.

I use the internet for telecommuting full time, so I'm pretty sure I'm saving energy in my case.

[silverweb]

7. "...all those items brought to your home, one at a time"

Actually, I think shopping in person or on line is really a toss up. The main consideration is how much stuff a person buys, not necessarily how she gets it home.

If I don't own a car and occasionally have an item delivered by USPS or UPS (whose trucks make their regular rounds to my delivery box with or without me, by the way), overall I'm saving energy.

If I had a car and drove to the store or the mall every time I needed something, I'd be using a lot more energy.

In my case, on-line shopping (which I actually don't do much of, since there's very little I can't pick up locally) is energy efficient. For a shopaholic, that might not be the case.

So shopping on line or in person may not make the difference, but how much a person shops.

Further, I would submit that a person who shops excessively is not conservation minded to begin with and really wouldn't give a damn how much energy is involved.