email energy waste

[kwalker2 at gte.net]

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?'

<snort>

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.

kelley

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 panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
>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.
>
>Doug
>
>--
>
>/  dave  /
>