How the heck does this guy come to the conclusion he does? E-reader is somewhere between 40 and 100 (N) books so that means books are more environmentally friendly? The conclusion I draw is that you only have to read N books and it becomes a net positive. If you are the type that buys an e-reader my guess is you'll buy more than N books over its lifetime.
"So, how many volumes do you need to read on your e-reader to break even?
With respect to fossil fuels, water use and mineral consumption, the impact of one e-reader payback equals roughly 40 to 50 books. When it comes to global warming, though, it’s 100 books; with human health consequences, it’s somewhere in between."
I hesitate to believe the numbers for the iPad and the Kindle are that similar. For starters, the iPad has a more sophisticated processor, and the battery has 4.3x the capacity of the kindle battery (which suggests 4.3x the rare compounds if the batteries are made with similar tech).
Add on power consumption during reading, and things are even more different; the Kindle can be read for 2 weeks on one charge. 24 hours x 14 = 336 hours. The iPad uses the same juice in just 10 hours / (4.3x as large) = 2.3 hours
In other news, I most certainly will be reading more than 50 books in the lifetime of my Kindle, so hooray :)
