|
Thanks for the link. The first assumption that jumps out at me is a one year life for the e-reader (Iliad in this case, see 2.3.2 on pg 32).
That is an awful assumption. It should have been at least two years and possibly three. While they note the desirability of new units, how many of people trade up $300+ readers annually? I'd be willing to bet the center of our distribution is at least two years. They at least consider the possibility of longer life (pg 95).
The other assumption is the environmental impact of specific electrical energy consumption. This one was closer to truth but if we wanted to lower that impact tremendously we could increase nuclear power production. I see that as a necessity anyway to power near-future all-electric cars. Hybrid cars are a stop-gap not an end.
One thing is certain, printed newpaper environmental impact cannot drop by as much as the electronic techniques they are comparing it to. I understand their objective (clear to me) was to point out misconceptions about how "clean" electronic distribution is but I feel they bent too far the other way.
|