Today is Earth Day!

I thought I’d re-post the results of an analysis I did last year that compared the manufacturing energy needs versus the operating energy needs of a computer.  The upshot: unless you currently hardly ever use your computer, you’ll save more energy by upgrading your current computer (instead of replacing it) than you will by switching it off more often.

Our goal, as it was presented to us, was to save energy by convincing computer users to switch off (or enable power managmenet on) their computers when not in use.  However, we found that the worst offenders — those users with multiple computers switched on almost all of the time — typically were already aware of the energy cost of their actions. They knew about power-saving strategies and behaviors, but they had made conscious decisions that convenience trumped waste for always-on computing.  The light users — those who turned on their computers only occasionally — were already conserving energy, so there was no behavior to change. We went back to the drawing board and started kicking around new ideas.  Eventually, we formed a new hypothesis: perhaps we could save energy not by turning computers off but by reducing their production.  I set out to bring data to the discussion.

Using data from an IEEE article and a CodingHorror post, I found that it takes about 2000 kWh of energy to manufacture a computer and about 193 kWh of electricity to operate that computer continuously for a year.  Moreover, the data show that a computer is typically replaced after 3.0 years of use. I dug deeper.

What if, instead of replacing that computer after 3.0 years, the user were to add more RAM and (assuming it’s a laptop) give it a new battery?  That upgrade should give the computer another year of useful life, a total of 4.0 years, which means that 25% fewer computers would be purchased.  In energy terms, that means that 2000 kWh* 25% = 500 kWh would be saved.  Subtract the 85 kWh that would be required to manufacture the replacement RAM and battery, and there’s a 500 kWh – 85 kWh = 415 kWh savings.  That’s the same amount of energy as it would take to run the computer for 415 kWh / 193 kWh/yr = 2.2 years!

The user would need to go from running his computer 100% of the time to about 25% of the time to save the same amount of energy, which is a change that we found users were unwilling or unable to make. In contrast, we found users to be very receptive to the idea of delaying new computer purchases for a year via upgrading existing machines. The delayed-purchase approach also has the advantage of effecting real savings for both heavy computer users and light computer users.  The users also liked the fact that they would save money and reduce landfill waste by upgrading their existing systems instead of purchasing new ones.  Clearly, delayed purchases are a better energy-savings strategy than promoting power-savings modes to consumers.

A problem with our approach was that it was for a project sponsored by Climate Savers Computing, which receives financial support from major PC manufacturers.  Although the Climate Savers reps at our presentation seemed to like our idea, I imagine the managers might be skittish about recommending actions that would decrease sales for their patrons.

You all probably remember the video we made to advocate upgrading PCs instead of replacing them, but I thought I’d post it again.  Marilyn and Dan are the actors, and I was the director:

All things are born, live a little while, and eventually die.  Countless of these cycles pass us with indifference, but a precious few draw our attention.  For my family, one ended today: Cotton, our 16-year-old maltipoo, died peacefully this morning.

We were lucky to enjoy her cheerful demeanor in our house since the mid 1990s.  She will be missed.

(Note: This is almost certain to come across as vain seeing as how I play goalie.  Know that it was written with lighthearted intent 🙂 )

Some people are more attractive than others.  I know, big surprise: like wealth, beauty is a relative measure.  The great news?  On sports teams, goalies are the lookers!

Yes, there is a correlation between positions played in sports and the attractiveness of the players.  A well-written 2007 study (“Does the Face Reveal Athletic Flair? Positions in Team Sports and Facial Attractiveness” by Park, Buunk, and Wieling) took up this issue.

In the study, the researchers had women rate the attractiveness of faces of male soccer and ice hockey players.  The hypothesis was that certain positions in team sports depend more on heritable traits than others, and those preferential traits would manifest as improved attractiveness.

The study authors showed female students at the University of Groningen photos of faces of professional soccer and ice hockey players, which were selected to provide samples from the various positions in those sports (i.e., goalies/goalkeepers, defensemen/defenders, midfielders, and forwards/strikers).

The results were clear: of the soccer players, the goalkeepers and strikers were rated as significantly more attractive than the midfielders and defenders.  Similarly, of the hockey players, the goalies were rated as significantly more attractive than the forwards, who in turn were rated as significantly more attractive than the defensemen.

The authors went on to hypothesize that physical and psychological demands placed on goalies/goalkeepers and forwards/strikers depend on traits that are associated with heritable fitness.  However, they were unable to establish a causal relationship: are good-looking people pushed into more prestigious positions, or is it the natural talent that drives them there?

As much as we like to think of ourselves as rational, objective beings, emotion and subjectivity still drive many of our choices.  It’s hardly surprising that we should base some of our decisions on looks given the ubiquity of such behavior in non-human species.  If lions, peacocks, and banana slugs all use looks as proxies for virility and athletic prowess, why not humans?  If certain positions on sporting teams require more of those traits, it seems intuitive that selection should occur based on them.

Reference:

Justin Park, Bram Buunk and Martijn Wieling (2007). Does the face reveal athletic flair? Positions in team sports and facial attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1960 – 1965.