email energy waste

kwalker2 at kwalker2 at
Sat Mar 11 19:42:05 PST 2000

friggin hell / dave / good thing i'm checking my facts for this article i'm writing. coz i had *that* particular message waaaaaay wrong -- and here not too long ago you commented that i had a great memory. looks like i'm losing it to age! heh. btw, i saw that the walker art center has a cool web site E.A.T --Art, Entertainment, Technology. When you first get there, a pop up says "tired of ontologizing hermeneutics?'


thanks to michael and dave for the help. it wasn't in the archives and i couldn't recall enough detail or exact biz mag to get a search engine to turn up anything i was looking for.


At 08:55 PM 3/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
>> last year doug posted a quip from Business week or Fortune about how much
>> k-wattage is burned on email. the piece showed what amt of k-wattage
>> burned the equivalent of a ton of coal or somesuch. apparently, doug
>> discovered that in one month alone lbo had burned a ton of coal. anyone
>> still have that email or know of the source of that ref?
>> thanks,
>> k
>Subject: tonnage
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:35:18 -0400
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at
>To: lbo-talk at
>A couple of weeks ago, Ted Byfield posted a link to a Forbes magazine
>article on how energy-intensive computers are. The article claimed that
>every megabyte of data transferred on the net burned about half a pound of
>coal. This list transferred 1,855 megabytes last month, or almost half a
>ton of coal. Gee whiz.
>/ dave /

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list