Mastodon MigrationSo in addition to cluttering up low earth orbit, wrecking terrestrial astronomy, creating the potential for a Kessler Syndrome cascade which could close access to space, and creating a national security nightmare, Starlink internet access is a climate catastrophe using up to 30 times more carbon footprint per internet subscriber than land based internet.
Dave Mc@mastodonmigration paywall, so I can't see the article. I wonder how that's calculated? It takes a lot of resources to dig up streets to lay fibre. Is it just on the 30w that it costs to run the Starlink terminals compared to significantly less for a fibre modern?
Dave T-W@guigsy @mastodonmigration I have this question too. Fibre modem itself taps into a provider's network and powered infrastructure before a user hits "the internet".
@guigsy @mastodonmigration Can't find any papers by that author, but an actual published article last year suggested 4x more emissions per user than terrestrial networks.
Haven't looked through in detail but it's here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4178732
Haven't looked through in detail but it's here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4178732
@davoloid @mastodonmigration I guess the other question is how significant is that footprint per user? Is it a significant amount, like flying, or the same as charging a single light bulb to led?
mathew@guigsy @mastodonmigration It’s more to do with Starlink requiring 160 satellites to be launched every week forever because they only last for 5 years and the company says it needs 42,000 of them in orbit.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
Karl Baron@guigsy @mastodonmigration A lot of people who use starlink are also far beyond “streets”. My parents have to ford a river to go anywhere