Comparison of the energy, carbon and time costs of videoconferencing and in-person meetings

While video conferencing is often viewed as a greener alternative to physically traveling to meet in-person, it has its own energy, carbon dioxide and time costs. In this paper we present the first analysis of the total cost of videoconferencing, including operating costs of the network and videoconferencing equipment, lifecycle assessment of equipment costs, and the time cost of people involved in meetings. We compare these costs to the corresponding costs for in-person meetings, which include operating and lifecycle costs of vehicles and the costs of participant time. While the costs of these meeting forms depend on many factors such as distance traveled, meeting duration, and the technologies used, we find that videoconferencing takes at most 7% of the energy/carbon of an in-person meeting. This comparison changes when the time cost is taken into account, with videoconferencing potentially costing more than in-person meetings in a worst-case scenario. We also analyze the sensitivity of the energy and carbon costs to various factors and consider trends in energy and carbon usage to predict how the comparison might change in the future.

[1]  Sandra R. Smith,et al.  Electric power monthly , 1992 .

[2]  P. Belenky The Value of Travel Time Savings : Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 , 2011 .

[3]  G Wilson,et al.  GUIDE TO BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS IN TRANSPORT CANADA , 1994 .

[4]  Vijay Sivaraman,et al.  Complete life-cycle assessment of the energy/CO2 costs of videoconferencing vs face-to-face meetings , 2012, 2012 IEEE Online Conference on Green Communications (GreenCom).

[5]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  Spatiality in videoconferencing: trade-offs between efficiency and social presence , 2006, CSCW '06.

[6]  Otto Andersen,et al.  Life cycle assessments of consumer electronics — are they consistent? , 2010 .

[7]  Franco Davoli,et al.  Energy Efficiency in the Future Internet: A Survey of Existing Approaches and Trends in Energy-Aware Fixed Network Infrastructures , 2011, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[8]  S. Kuvalekar,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Autoliv's Night vision camera , 2010 .

[9]  P Vetter,et al.  Power Trends in Communication Networks , 2011, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics.

[10]  Nihar Shah,et al.  TV Energy Consumption Trends and Energy-Efficiency Improvement Options , 2011 .

[11]  Barath Raghavan,et al.  The energy and emergy of the internet , 2011, HotNets-X.

[12]  Kerry Hinton,et al.  Carbon footprint of the internet , 2009 .

[13]  J. Koomey Estimating energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of Internet advertising , 2008 .

[14]  Michael Kleiber,et al.  The influence of the modality of telecooperation on performance and workload. , 2012, Work.

[15]  Roland Hischier,et al.  LCA study of a plasma television device , 2010 .

[16]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination of communication: effects of shared visual context on collaborative work , 2000, CSCW '00.

[17]  P. Eng CO2 emissions from fuel combustion: highlights , 2009 .

[18]  Melissa Lee Zgola,et al.  A triage approach to streamline environmental footprinting : a case study for liquid crystal displays , 2011 .

[19]  Glenn Lyons,et al.  Comparing Rail Passengers’ Travel Time Use in Great Britain Between 2004 and 2010 , 2013 .

[20]  K.I. Takahashi,et al.  Estimation of Videoconference Performance: Approach for Fairer Comparative Environmental Evaluation of ICT Services , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2006..

[21]  A. Fuels,et al.  Electric power monthly , 1992 .

[22]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Total requirements of energy and greenhouse gases for Australian transport , 1999 .

[23]  Dietlinde Quack,et al.  Environmental Advantages of Video Conferencing Systems – Results from a Simplified LCA , 2002 .