Mastodon MigrationOct 8, 2023

So 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.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2394949-starlink-carbon-footprint-up-to-30-times-size-of-land-based-internet/

Starlink carbon footprint up to 30 times size of land-based internet

The satellite internet services provided by SpaceX Starlink, Eutelsat OneWeb or Amazon Kuiper will come with a carbon footprint much higher than that associated with land-based alternatives

New Scientist
Show threadDave McOct 8, 2023
@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?
Show threadDave T-W
@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
Oct 8, 2023 at 11:49amWeb
Show threadDave McOct 8, 2023
@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?