- #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.ellieee said: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) ?Delta2 said: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.ellieee said:... 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!phinds said: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.cphinds said: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 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.Delta2 said: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.phinds said: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.Delta2 said: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.phinds said: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.Delta2 said: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.Delta2 said: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 head . A more careful google search says that the average phone consumes no more than 5W even when fully operating.vela said: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.
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.hutchphd said:Can we somehow put a large STOOOPID sticker on this and shut it down?
Delta2 said:I made it out of my head
Says the guy who just makes up numbersDelta2 said: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.
Yes ok still, I wasn't far away from the truth, there might be some high end smartphone that consumes 10W+ in full operation.phinds said:
Says the guy who just makes up numbers
I know. I just couldn't resistDelta2 said:Yes ok still, I wasn't far away from the truth, there might be some high end smartphone that consumes 10W+ in full operation.
Yes, it is true that a phone uses more energy than a refrigerator. This may seem surprising since a fridge is a larger appliance, but phones require a constant source of energy to stay connected to networks and run various apps and functions.
The exact amount of energy used by a phone and a refrigerator can vary depending on the specific models and usage patterns. However, on average, a phone uses about 5-10 times more energy than a refrigerator.
Not necessarily. While phones do use more energy, they also have a smaller production footprint compared to refrigerators. Additionally, the energy used by phones is mostly renewable, whereas refrigerators often rely on non-renewable sources of energy.
Yes, there are several ways to reduce the energy consumption of your phone. Turning off unnecessary features and apps, using power-saving modes, and charging your phone less frequently can all help to decrease its energy usage.
Yes, there are various resources available that provide information on the energy consumption of different phone models. You can also look for phones with energy-efficient features, such as OLED screens and fast charging capabilities, to reduce their overall energy usage.