• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m actually surprised internet takes 3% the amount of energy it takes to get to space just to run some internet wires. I’d have thought it would be much much lower than that.

    But also, starlink completes with geostationary satellite and home cellular connection more than internet over wires. Or even people who didn’t have an option before.

    • Fogle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It also says per subscriber of which I assume there are significantly more regular internet users than Starlink

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did your intuition consider the energy required to dig a trench to bury the cale in? Or putting up posts to lift the cable off the ground? I didn’t consider it at first, but neither is done with climate neutral machinery.

      The operational requirements are probably pretty similar, the satellites are obviously exclusively solar powered, so no contribution there.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah I did, but cities where most of the internet users are have very short runs, and the cabling is usually installed with the building. Also, I think I’ve usually seen internet run with the telephone wires in rural areas rather than in trenches.