Carbon Fingerprints
Over the last few months I’ve been migrating a massive amount of courses from WebCT 3.7 to Blackboard CE6. This involves a lot of setting up of processes, and then a lot of waiting for those processes to finish. I usually multi-task when doing these, either answering any technical support calls or doing systems maintenance. As it’s getting towards the end of the week, I’m watching the progress bar and thinking odd thoughts… such as this one, which I emailed to my husband:
Chris,
What would be the energy usage comparison if say, a person is halfway through typing a word, then realises they’ve made a typo. How much energy (computational, power, human, atmospheric) is used to delete the word and type it again, as opposed to mousing around to the mistake, fixing the typo, then mousing to the end of the word to continue typing, or using the spellchecker?
Just wondering, as you do :)
Kate
I expected him to just tell me I was an idiot (in a nice way of course!) but I received a surprisingly detailed response, prompting me to want to blog this weird exchange:
OK, standard definitions are that a word is 5 characters (secretarial).
To realise half way, delete then retype, that’s 2.5 characters typed, 2.5 backspace, 5 typed for a total of 10 key strokes using pretty small muscles which would consume very little energy. There might be a slight increase in CO2 emissions due to the sigh, depending on how many errors have been made (usually dependent on keyboard quality).
To mouse around, fix the type and mouse to end, well, that’s now only 2 more characters, so 7 typed, but I’d suggest that the muscles used to move the heavy arm are vastly more energy consuming than the fingers. Overall, more movement is made, and it is probably slower, during which time the power supply has consumed another 50-200 Watts of energy over the extra second or two (which makes the muscle movements seem irrelevant). Of course, this depends entirely on the speed of keyboard vs mouse for a particular user. The key output is how many seconds pass for each method.
As for the spellchecker, that is just as bad as number 2 plus you’re now making the disk spin and perform indexical lookups. Disk access consumes a lot of energy and you have to think about the suggested changes. Overall, that’s going to make the footprint of the two actions above seem insignificant. In addition, there is additional CO2 output due to the grunts of the user as it applies american spelling to everything even though the document is in Australian English and screws the pagination, which requires more time, effort and energy. This can’t be accurately measured….
So if you want to save the planet one word at a time, don’t use the spellchecker and don’t take your keys off the keyboard…
Satisfied ?
Chris
So there you go folks, how to measure our Carbon Fingerprints and as Chris says, “save the planet one word at a time”.
:)
[Edit: Chris says:
And I made a typo . . Don’t take your keys off the keyboard . . Hands that should be ! :-)
]
Comments(0)



