OCT 14

I wonder, has anyone done a study on energy use and carbon emissions for printed books versus e-readers? It seems like e-readers would use more resources than books because of the components, even without considering their need for batteries which have to be charged. A printed book can last 50 years or more.

I'm also curious if there are any similar studies about electronic picture frames, versus printed photos.

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.

I'm guessing about 9 minutes on a 30watt bicycle generator would do the same thing as those 4.5 hours. Checkout rollergen.com

@ 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.

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.

@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.

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'.

This e-book is a great idea. It will save a lot of trees. Go Green.

At 9.6 percent efficient, it sounds like some pretty old technology is being used.

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!

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