Comment A surprising result demands a second look (Score 5, Insightful) 146
The authors used Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs) from 3rd parties - they did not do their own. So when they get results like:
But SSDs are significantly more carbon intensive to manufacture. That's because the chip fabrication facilities for SSDs operate at extreme temperatures and pressures that are energy intensive to maintain. And bigger memories require more chips, which increases the footprint accordingly. All this adds up to a significant carbon footprint for SSD manufacture... For example, almost 40 per cent of the carbon footprint of a desktop computer comes from its SSD, compared to just 4 per cent from the CPU and 11 per cent from the GPU.
They should have known they were comparing apples to kumquats. This result is bonkers. There's no way that a single SSD has 4 times the carbon footprint of a GPU. Have the authors ever looked at a GPU? It's on a huge PCB, has an IC with literally hundreds of millions of transistors, surrounded by 4, 8, or 16 DRAM chips with even more hundreds of millions of transistors, and consumes hundreds of watts in operation.
There's nothing unique about the carbon footprint of IC fabrication for SSD flash memory chips compared to DRAM chips, CPUs, or GPUs. A HDD contains chips too - DRAM cache, interface controller, etc. Did they consider those? The CPU consumes dozens or hundreds of watts in operation, with a huge IC die of over 9 billion transistors.