Energy Efficiency no spam

Published on April 20th, 2009 | by Timothy B. Hurst

3

Spam Wasted 33 Billion Kilowatt-Hours of Electricity in 2008

April 20th, 2009 by  

no spamConservationists have long been uncomfortable with the environmental impact of the mountains of catalogs, credit card offers, coupons, and other direct mailings that accumulate daily in their mailbox, or on the floor near the front door.

Sure, we can recycle all that junk mail, but that process creates an additional layer of energy inputs from collection, sorting, processing and repurposing, to say nothing of the energy and resources needed to make the mail in the first place. Fortunately—in the United States at least—there are several new services that allow people to take back their mailboxes by blocking catalogs and other junk mail from being delivered.

But when it comes to junk mail in your email inbox, even the best “spam” filters will let a few slip by on occasion. But not everyone uses a spam filter and the environmental impact of all that virtual junk mail is now rivaling that of its papery cousin, according to a new study by McAfee (pdf).

The study, commissioned by anti-virus software maker, McAfee, and produced by the consulting firm ICF International, found that spam emails worldwide wasted 33 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2008, an amount equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million American homes.

At the individual level, a single spam email emits only 0.3 grams of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but with an estimated 62 trillion spam emails sent worldwide in 2008, the cumulative emissions of spam are approximately 17 million metric tons of CO2 — a number equivalent to the emissions from approximately 1.5 million American homes.

The report attributes the vast majority of spam’s greenhouse gas emissions to energy used in the process of viewing and deleting spam or searching for legitimate email erroneously trapped in spam filters.

Obviously McAfee has a horse in this race and it would behoove them to emphasize the energy wasted by spam emails; the company’s SpamKiller software has long been a core part of their suite of security software. As such, the McAfee report finds that effective spam filtering saves 135 terawatt-hours of electricity per year.

While the McAfee report concedes that spam filters themselves account for about 16 percent of the total energy required by PCs to deal with spam, it concludes that, “compared to the energy users consume searching for false positives and viewing and deleting spam messages, the energy expenditure of spam filtering seems like a small price to pay.”

Image: hegarty_david 
 
Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.”
 
Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

 

Tags: , , , , ,


About the Author

is the founder of ecopolitology and the executive editor at LiveOAK Media, a media network about the politics of energy and the environment, green business, cleantech, and green living. When not reading, writing, thinking or talking about environmental politics with anyone who will listen, Tim spends his time skiing in Colorado's high country, hiking with his dog, and getting dirty in his vegetable garden.



  • Pingback: Spammers Wasted 33 Billion Kilowatt-Hours of Electricity in 2008 | SpammyBlogger()

  • russ

    Timothy this would be more meaningful if put into the context of wasted energy from other sources as well, say:

    1. hamburgers, pizzas, MacMuffins – fast food in general

    2. SMS which are just silly chat

    3. time sitting in traffic jams

    4. flying or other travel for no real reason

    5. inserts (adds) in newspapers which are normally discarded without reading

    Commercially the junk mail must be working for the parties putting it out or else they wouldn’t be. If the junk had to pay their way (full post costs) then it would go way down.

    One problem to me is that the focus of GW is often squandered with loose irrelevant tidbits – some real and some silly.

    The loose ‘facts’ and silly stuff sometimes make the concept of GW laughable to some and less important to others.

  • russ

    Timothy this would be more meaningful if put into the context of wasted energy from other sources as well, say:

    1. hamburgers, pizzas, MacMuffins – fast food in general

    2. SMS which are just silly chat

    3. time sitting in traffic jams

    4. flying or other travel for no real reason

    5. inserts (adds) in newspapers which are normally discarded without reading

    Commercially the junk mail must be working for the parties putting it out or else they wouldn’t be. If the junk had to pay their way (full post costs) then it would go way down.

    One problem to me is that the focus of GW is often squandered with loose irrelevant tidbits – some real and some silly.

    The loose ‘facts’ and silly stuff sometimes make the concept of GW laughable to some and less important to others.

Back to Top ↑
  • Advertisements

  • Top Posts & Pages

  • Cool Cleantech Events

    Low Voltage Electrification Event, April 25-27. Detroit, Michigan (US)
    Delve deep into the benefits and challenges associated with EV power supply.

    Offshore Wind Market Development USA, May 11-12, Boston, Massachusetts (US)
    Network and establish your business in one of North America’s largest energy industries.

    Energy Storage USA, June 15-16, San Diego, California (US)
    Only event in the United States focused exclusively on the commercialization of storage.

    More details are on: Cleantech Events.

  • Advertisement

  • CleanTechnica Electric Car Report

    Electric Cars Early Adopters First Followers
  • Tesla Model 3 Review by EVANNEX

    Tesla Model 3 Review from EVANNEX
  • Tesla Model 3 Exclusive Video

    Tesla Model 3 Video
  • Tesla Model 3 Exclusive Pictures

    Tesla Model 3 Video
  • Tesla Model X Review #1 (Video)

    Tesla Model X Review from new owners Zach Shahan
  • Tesla Model X Review #2 (Pictures)

    Tesla Model X Review from Kyle Field
  • Tesla Model S Long-Term Review

    Tesla Model S Long Term Review from Kyle Field
  • Nissan LEAF Long-Term Review

    Nissan LEAF Long Term Review from Cynthia Shahan
  • Interview with Michael Liebreich

    Interview with Michael Liebreich
  • Interview with Akon (Teslas & Solar)

    Interview with Akon Tesla Model S Tesla Model X Solar Power Africa
  • Interview with Dr Nawal Al-Hosany

    Interview with Dr Nawal Al-Hosany
  • Interview with Gro Brundtland

    Gro Brundtland
  • Interview with President of Iceland

    President of Iceland Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
  • Interview with Nick Sampson

    Faraday Future VP Nick Sampson
  • Interview with Dipal Barua

    Dipal Barua 1st ZFEP WInner
  • Interview with Jonathon Porritt

    Jonathon Porritt
  • Interview with Clint Wilder

    Interview with Clint Wilder
  • Interviews with Solar Impulse Pilots

    Bertrand Piccard Andre Borschberg
  • Check out more CleanTechnica Videos.

  • Join The Solar Revolution!

    Edison-solar-energy solar-energy-spill-nice-day
  • Cost of Solar Panels

    cost-of-solar-down
  • Search the IM Network


Shares