Talk:Environmental Impact: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:One of the reasons why the solar option is so appealing. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 21:11, 5 December 2007 (EST) |
:One of the reasons why the solar option is so appealing. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 21:11, 5 December 2007 (EST) |
||
::Also, even in the 3rd world, a majority of children have some play room between the calories they consume and the physical work they are expected to do. If they don't, a laptop is really not what they need anyway, and probably not what anybody would give them, to boot. [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 22:01, 5 December 2007 (EST) |
|||
Revision as of 03:01, 6 December 2007
If the laptop battery is recharged using muscle power, it will impact the food a child needs. A simple conversion assuming a 90% efficient charging cycle and 15% efficient human food to muscle power conversion results in 105-140 calories of food required for each laptop recharge. Extra calories used due to thinking more aren't included!
| NiMH | LiFePO4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Wh | 16.5 | 22.0 |
| cal | 14187.4 | 18916.6 |
| kcal (aka food calories) | 14.2 | 18.9 |
| generator efficiency 90% | 15.8 | 21.0 |
| human food to muscle work conversion efficiency 15% | 105.1 | 140.1 |
- One of the reasons why the solar option is so appealing. --Walter 21:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)
- Also, even in the 3rd world, a majority of children have some play room between the calories they consume and the physical work they are expected to do. If they don't, a laptop is really not what they need anyway, and probably not what anybody would give them, to boot. Homunq 22:01, 5 December 2007 (EST)