Recent Comment
Share
A recent study by the Cleantech Group revealed the much lower envrionmental impact of e-readers - specifically the Kindle - compared to traditional publishing, but the devices still require charging from the grid. LG's new e-reader takes care of that: it's outfitted with its own integrated solar panel, allowing it to run on clean, renewable, solar power.
The thin-film panel is 10 cm wide and just .7mm thick, adding only 20 grams to the product. The panel is 9.6 percent efficient and needs 4.5 hours of sunlight to juice the device for an entire day.
Last year, LG introduced a display that can be illuminated by sunlight instead of the backlight when used outdoors, increasing visibility and cutting energy use by 75 percent. Press for the new e-reader doesn't indicate what kind of display it uses, but this product would be even more impressive if it included the sunlight-illuminated one. That way you could read easily outdoors while charging the device at the same time.
via Greentech Media
Hits: 12597
Comments (11)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Doug, October 14, 2009
The image shows a Sony reader with e-ink display. I wouldn't leave my expensive electronic devices out to bake in the sun. It would be more energy efficient and environmentally friendly to just charge the device from renewable power on the grid.
-
- +0
-
-
written by cke, October 14, 2009
I'm guessing about 9 minutes on a 30watt bicycle generator would do the same thing as those 4.5 hours. Checkout rollergen.com
-
- +1
-
-
written by Doug, October 14, 2009
@ Canada Guy
Not everything is about carbon emissions. I would have loved to have e-book versions of my text books from elementary through grad school. Though I loved their content, I hated lugging them around. Being able to digitally search for terms is also a great advantage. We often sacrifice energy efficiency for convenience.
That said in your calculations you should include the cost and energy used to transport books. Compare recent studies on the electronic delivery of music via the internet versus the energy used to manufacture and ship CDs.
More on topic, though, we should examine the energy used to manufacture that solar panel. Unless you're going to be stuck on a deserted island, I don't see much purpose to it.
Not everything is about carbon emissions. I would have loved to have e-book versions of my text books from elementary through grad school. Though I loved their content, I hated lugging them around. Being able to digitally search for terms is also a great advantage. We often sacrifice energy efficiency for convenience.
That said in your calculations you should include the cost and energy used to transport books. Compare recent studies on the electronic delivery of music via the internet versus the energy used to manufacture and ship CDs.
More on topic, though, we should examine the energy used to manufacture that solar panel. Unless you're going to be stuck on a deserted island, I don't see much purpose to it.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Roger, October 15, 2009
E-Readers are not 'Greener' than books, what a dumb and deceptive thing to suggest.
Firstly, just like any other consumer electronics product they must be manufactured, and they must be disposed of when they inevitably fail. Like all consumer electronics, there will always be a bigger and better version being produced to tempt the mindless consumer to upgrade.
Secondly, you never ever truly own the content of the e-reader. The licensor can revoke the material through the push of a button and your material will vaporize into the ether.
E-Readers are an attempt by corporations to get a monetary feed from peoples reading habits.
Paper books have stood the test of time, can be placed in libraries and shared with everyone (not just those who can afford to purchase a 'book reader').
Kill these devices. Do not buy one. These devices represent a very serious threat to world cultural affairs.
Firstly, just like any other consumer electronics product they must be manufactured, and they must be disposed of when they inevitably fail. Like all consumer electronics, there will always be a bigger and better version being produced to tempt the mindless consumer to upgrade.
Secondly, you never ever truly own the content of the e-reader. The licensor can revoke the material through the push of a button and your material will vaporize into the ether.
E-Readers are an attempt by corporations to get a monetary feed from peoples reading habits.
Paper books have stood the test of time, can be placed in libraries and shared with everyone (not just those who can afford to purchase a 'book reader').
Kill these devices. Do not buy one. These devices represent a very serious threat to world cultural affairs.
-
- -4
-
-
written by Cam, October 15, 2009
@Roger
I don't know why that would be a dumb and deceptive thing to suggest. The abstract of the report from the Cleantech Group that this blog is based on clearly states the reasons that eReaders are "greener." The report seems to objectively analyze the entire lifecycle of the reader vs the book. Your point about manufacturing is understood, but you seem to have some whimsical idea about how paper media is produced and distributed. The report says that 125 million trees were harvested for 2008 printed newspapers and books, both of which could be replaced by eReaders.
Your concerns about cost/barriers to ownership and content ownership seem valid, but irrelevant to the subject of "are they greener." Those seem more like implementation issues rather than platform issues. If the Google Digital Library thing goes through in 2010, that could give people access to 5m to 6m books from around the world online, presumably available on eReaders. This could have some positive impacts on "world cultural affairs".
In summary, it seems pretty clear they are "greener" than books, but have some implementation issues that hopefully will be resolved in the next year or two.
I don't know why that would be a dumb and deceptive thing to suggest. The abstract of the report from the Cleantech Group that this blog is based on clearly states the reasons that eReaders are "greener." The report seems to objectively analyze the entire lifecycle of the reader vs the book. Your point about manufacturing is understood, but you seem to have some whimsical idea about how paper media is produced and distributed. The report says that 125 million trees were harvested for 2008 printed newspapers and books, both of which could be replaced by eReaders.
Your concerns about cost/barriers to ownership and content ownership seem valid, but irrelevant to the subject of "are they greener." Those seem more like implementation issues rather than platform issues. If the Google Digital Library thing goes through in 2010, that could give people access to 5m to 6m books from around the world online, presumably available on eReaders. This could have some positive impacts on "world cultural affairs".
In summary, it seems pretty clear they are "greener" than books, but have some implementation issues that hopefully will be resolved in the next year or two.
-
- +3
-
-
written by piers, October 15, 2009
Dear Roger, the fact that you are reading this magazine on line instead of buying a print copy rather negates your arguments!
Sure there is a place for beautifully produced books but I won't mourn my pile of browning cheap paperbacks. I really see a role ror e-books for travelling, reference and magazines and the titles will presumably never 'go out of print'.
Sure there is a place for beautifully produced books but I won't mourn my pile of browning cheap paperbacks. I really see a role ror e-books for travelling, reference and magazines and the titles will presumably never 'go out of print'.
-
- +4
-
-
written by Anthony, October 19, 2009
This e-book is a great idea. It will save a lot of trees. Go Green.
-
- +0
-
-
written by eco-house, October 22, 2009
At 9.6 percent efficient, it sounds like some pretty old technology is being used.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Richard, October 23, 2009
At any rate, solar power is still the way to go because it does no harm to the environment and is low-priced.
1. It won't require us to disturb ecological systems.
2. It requires the aid of the sun which, until it dies in the next, oh say, billion years, is limitless.
3. It's cool. Makes our homes look like robots but live like plants!
1. It won't require us to disturb ecological systems.
2. It requires the aid of the sun which, until it dies in the next, oh say, billion years, is limitless.
3. It's cool. Makes our homes look like robots but live like plants!
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Hardy, October 29, 2009
A nice idea - the green credentials are a bit thin (the power savings are miniscule compared with having bread instead of taost for breakfast or driving an extra mile in your car.
The really exciting bit is accessibility in parts of the world with irregular power supplies (like most of rural Africa). Otherwise e-books are toys for effete Weterners
The really exciting bit is accessibility in parts of the world with irregular power supplies (like most of rural Africa). Otherwise e-books are toys for effete Weterners
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I'm also curious if there are any similar studies about electronic picture frames, versus printed photos.