New "clean" telephone switch in US to save 7 TRILLION tons of carbon/year!

[wtmusic]

Considering about 2 billion tons of CO2 are generated annually by all sources, this is quite an accomplishment. :crazy:

"We are investors in Aztek Networks, a company that makes replacements for the TDM switches that handle much of the phone traffic from standard landline phones. Telecom companies are excited about Aztek’s product because it enables them, for the first time, to incrementally switch out their old TDM switches rather than doing an extremely expensive complete system overlay. Aztek’s technology also enables them to provide IP-based functionality. Aztek’s switches are IP-based but can co-exist in the network architecture with both IP-based and “old world” GR303-based switches. Our cleantech company, Aztek, is enabling telecom companies to accelerate their entry into modern IP-based technology.

Eyebrows raised yet? Now, for the rest of the story…

Aztek’s switches also reduce energy consumption by 90%. How big of a deal is that? The roughly 16,000 TDM switches in the U.S. and Canada alone consume about 15,000 gigawatt-hours each year – roughly 0.4% of all electricity used in those two countries. Given that these switches run 24/7/365, they are a base load draw. That means that burning fossil fuels produces the vast majority of electricity utilized by them. The result is over 8 trillion tons of carbon emitted every year."

http://theenergycollective.com/davidgold/49774/you-call-cleantech#comment-8893

Just one eyebrow is raised.

[kestrel91316]

1. Some fool of a journalist failed math. Decimal points - they're such a bother. LOL

[phantom power]

2. indeed...

[RobertSeattle]

3. I don't have time to investigate, but something seeems off

7,000,000,000,000 TONS of Carbon? That seems off by a few factors. Journalists often confuse million/billion/trillion.

[joshcryer]

7. I dunno where they're even getting their number from, nuclear also provides baseload...

...and so does hydro. I think they just calculated from fossil sources only, but you should always extropolate the overall CO2 contribution from all energy sources when you do this sort of thing. Some switches might be powered by only coal, but others might be powered by natural gas, and still others might be powered by nuclear. A few might be powered by wind and solar for half of their life. It's a silly estimate, but it's certainly not beyond 5 million tonnes.

[joshcryer]

19. I was wrong, it's about 8.5 million tonnes of CO2 saved:

2,359,000,000 tonnes of CO2 were released in 2008: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

In 2008 we produced 4,119,388 gigawatt hours: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

That's 573 tonnes of CO2 per GWh in 2008

Assuming 15,000 GWh saved by this move, we will save 8,595,000 tonnes of CO2 from being created. Certainly significant.

However, that is 0.36% of the entire CO2 emissions from electricity alone. Less than 1 percent. Still, significant on the scale of civilization, but it shows how much further we must go to achieve strides in emission reduction.

Note: I use 2008 for emissions because 2008 is the earliest year with which we have solid CO2 emission data, we have better electricity stats beyond that, of course.

[On the Road]

4. As Far as Replacing the Nation's Phone Switches

power use is certainly a factor, but getting significant numbers in the network is going to take years if it ever happens.

The issue is not whether they function -- it's whether the local phone companies will buy them. Former Bell Companies, which have the bulk of US phone lines, used 100% AT&T (Lucent) switches in in late 80s, then to create competition gradually brought on a second vendor such as Northern Telecom. Even established companies such as ITT and Siemens had great difficulty getting a foothold in the US market.

Phone switches are very complex, need a very large set of features to be attractive to buyers, and take years of testing, training, and acceptance. Given the decline of the local phone market, I can't see any large local telco making the investment in bringing on an additional vendor, especially a newer company named Aztek.

If they have patents on some great energy-saving technology, it might be wiser for them to collect royalties from the established providers.

[IDemo]

17. US West was well underway with a cutover to Ericsson at that time

And was still doing so when I left in the mid 90's.

[joshcryer]

5. Average emissions for UK was 125 tonnes CO2 per gwh, that's closer to 1,875,000 tonnes...

[joshcryer]

6. But humanity generates about 30 billion tonnes annually, not 2 billion tonnes.

[wtmusic]

8. 2 billion tons was a back-of-napkin estimate for US power generation

and rounded up considerably (assuming that all 2010 power generation came from coal).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_2.html

I went over the figures several times knowing jc would bust me if I wasn't careful :D

[joshcryer]

9. Ahh, you meant US/Canada, gotcha. But the US alone (including non-energy) is 5 billion tonnes:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec12_3.pdf

[wtmusic]

10. I was just looking at electrical power generation nt

[joshcryer]

11. Read the link I posted.

[wtmusic]

12. I won't quibble.

The article was about half a million times off from either of our figures.

And don't come back with it being "480,000 times off". :spank:

[joshcryer]

13. Hehe, sorry, yes, the article is a classic example of confirmation bias.

Basically he saw the number was huge, believes strongly in energy efficiency, and pow, mistake.

I believe strongly in energy efficiency but I recognize that it's going to take a fuckton more than just some telephone switches to make a dent. We're talking about bulldozing down hundreds of thousands of houses here.

[wtmusic]

14. Don't get me wrong

I appreciate being held accountable, and the number would not have jumped out at me before I became mired in the morass we know as E/E.

:thumbsup:

[joshcryer]

20. BTW, I found a link so the only napkin calculation you have to do is multiply by a million:

Approximately 2,359,000,000 tonnes of CO2 were released in 2008 from electrical generation: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Sorry for any big misunderstanding there, as I think I did overlook the importance of an electricity vs all sources comparison.

But in the end I think we should throw all sources back into the equation just so people appreciate how small these sorts of efforts are.

[wtmusic]

21. Nice, and I saw your post at the link.

A top-down calculation using the numbers you provided shows only about half a tonne of CO2 per GWH from all sources. Which makes sense when you throw in nuclear, renewables, and gas.

I hope the author didn't mortgage his house based on those numbers :scared:

[toddwv]

15. Based on the info given in the OP

and a wiki article that says that coal produces 2249 tons of Co2 per MWh we get a total of about 33 735 000 000.

90% of that would be 30,361,500,000 lbs of CO2 year. Still a significant savings.

[joshcryer]

18. Yes, but the assumptions are faulty at best, should be averaged over all electricity CO2 emissions.

2,359,000,000 tonnes of CO2 were released in 2008: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

In 2008 we produced 4,119,388 gigawatt hours: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

That's 573 tonnes of CO2 per GWh in 2008

Assuming 15,000 GWh saved by this move, we will save 8,595,000 tonnes of CO2 from being created. Certainly significant.

However, that is 0.36% of the entire CO2 emissions from electricity alone. Less than 1 percent. Still, significant on the scale of civilization, but it shows how much further we must go to achieve strides in emission reduction.

[toddwv]

16. Based on the info given in the OP

and a wiki article that says that coal produces 2249 tons of Co2 per MWh we get a total of about 33 735 000 000.

90% of that would be 30,361,500,000 lbs of CO2 year. Still a significant savings. However, this assumes, incorrectly, that all the power would come from coal.