- #1
ellieee
- 78
- 6
- Homework Statement:
- my thought process is since the fridge is bigger, naturally it should consume more energy no?
- Relevant Equations:
- -
-
My wardrobe is bigger than my fridge and it doesn't consume any energy.Homework Statement:: my thought process is since the fridge is bigger, naturally it should consume more energy no?
Relevant Equations:: -
-
perhaps? because according to the article, the thinner the wire used, the more thermal energy generated in the wire[according to the equation R=(ρ)x (ℓ/A) ], so I assumed since we usually use thinner wires to change our phones, it means our phones are consuming more energy than fridge (which uses thicker wires) ?Maybe the article you read was about the average power
That would be true if you were comparing equal lengths of of wire, each carrying the same current.... the thinner the wire used, the more thermal energy generated in the wire[a
If you consider the entire energy footprint, the picture becomes less clear. While your refrigerator operates on its own once you plug it in, a smartphone requires an energy-using support network of cell towers, data centers and other equipment. When you factor in wireless connections and data usage with battery charging, the total energy footprint of the average iPhone is 361 kWh, according to a study by Mark Mills, CEO of the Digital Power Group.
I imagine your phone must consume less power than a fridge if it doesn't even have texting capability!The actual answer is that this nonsense IS stated on the Internet but it's a bogus comparison because to get that result, they take the refrigerator as a standalone item but for the phone they count the cell towers and other stuff that is NOT "the phone".
http://www.energyhousecalls.com/new...rtphone-uses-more-energy-than-a-refrigerator/
I think I understand what that article is trying to say , it speaks about the entire energy footprint and I guess it is trying to say that using our smartphone is not environment friendly, not only because of the EMI , but because of all this energy that is spend not only on the smartphones but on all the other things that have to consume energy in order for our smartphone to do its work, like the cell towers, data centers e.t.cThe actual answer is that this nonsense IS stated on the Internet but it's a bogus comparison because to get that result, they take the refrigerator as a standalone item but for the phone they count the cell towers and other stuff that is NOT "the phone".
http://www.energyhousecalls.com/new...rtphone-uses-more-energy-than-a-refrigerator/
I think ENTIRELY misleading is more appropriate. I mean, for a refridgerator do we count the energy requirements of running the power station, maintaining the power lines, etc ... ? I don't think so.However the title is easily misleading...
We should if we want to find the entire energy footprint, however those two factors that you mention are the same for smartphones and fridges. So they are kind of simplified.I think ENTIRELY misleading is more appropriate. I mean, for a refridgerator do we count the energy requirements of running the power station, maintaining the power lines, etc ... ? I don't think so.
My point is, you can carry this to the point of having to consider all the ramifications of the car that drives the maintenance worker to the energy plant. Basically, you end up having to consider the entire world. It just gets ridiculous.We should if we want to find the entire energy footprint, however those two factors that you mention are the same for smartphones and fridges. So they are kind of simplified.
Yes well the total energy footprint of something might indeed be something ridiculous, however if we exclude the common factors we might get something meaningful and be able to compare different footprints. You keep mentioning common factors in the energy footprints of the fridge and of the smartphone.My point is, you can carry this to the point of having to consider all the ramifications of the car that drives the maintenance worker to the energy plant. Basically, you end up having to consider the entire world. It just gets ridiculous.
True, I did, but only because they are the obvious things. If you want to dig into it then you have to consider the energy cost of manufacturing the fridge / phone and all that THAT entails. I stand by my point that it just goes on and on.Yes well the total energy footprint of something might indeed be something ridiculous, however if we exclude the common factors we might get something meaningful and be able to compare different footprints. You keep mentioning common factors in the energy footprints of the fridge and of the smartphone.
Just curious, where did you get the 10-20 W number for a phone? My phone's battery capacity is around 12 Wh. If it were using power at that rate, it would last only about an hour or less.Who told you that. A mobile phone consumes 10-20 Watt while a refrigerator up to 500 Watt in full operation.
I made it out of my headJust curious, where did you get the 10-20 W number for a phone? My phone's battery capacity is around 12 Wh. If it were using power at that rate, it would last only about an hour or less.
I found this thread very interesting after all, I learned about the concept of energy footprint and no I don't agree with @phinds I don't find it a ridiculous concept that has to include the whole world. It does so only if you include the common factors.Can we somehow put a large STOOOPID sticker on this and shut it down?
I made it out of my head![]()
Says the guy who just makes up numbersI don't find it a ridiculous concept that has to include the whole world. It does so only if you include the common factors.
Yes ok still, I wasn't far away from the truth, there might be some high end smartphone that consumes 10W+ in full operation.
Says the guy who just makes up numbers![]()
I know. I just couldn't resistYes ok still, I wasn't far away from the truth, there might be some high end smartphone that consumes 10W+ in full operation.