Quote:
Originally Posted by Penforhire
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.
|
No kidding! Considering people still use PC's they've had for 8-10 years, it's a foolhardy assumption to even suggest people would be dumping their eInk device in a year for an upgrade. I still know people who use VHS tapes, though not too many use cassette tapes. Secondly, when people do upgrade these devices, they won't be going into landfills but will be handed down to children, grandparents or possibly donated to the needy.
It's a good study in that it places the environmental impact quite low, but I don't agree with some of the premises. In the end eInk will be probably surpass dead tree books, though if you consider that the physical media this stuff will be stored on will last ages more than paper, I could be wrong. Thanks for the review Steve!
<rant>It kinda reminds me of a recent study done in England that suggests shift or night-shift workers are more susceptible to cancer than day workers. They failed to produce enough info on this to indicate their test base, jobs interviewed, work conditions, hereditary conditions, etc. Guess you prove any point you like if you load it with only the facts you want to consider and ignore the rest.</rant>