‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ Movie Collection On 4K Blu-ray Coming In April

And the calculations are bullshit.
The original poster was talking about plastic trash. You switched topics and claimed that disks were more environmentally friendly than streaming based on an apples-to-oranges comparison that doesn’t actually compare their environmental impact.
But nice try.

Oh, I never believed that environmental impact was a concern of yours, but you brought up the emissions comparison to counter the comment about plastic trash made by Luke.

Here is a comparative life cycle assessment of bluray vs. streaming: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827119301040
I point you to figure 3.

By the way: The linked article does not include the disposal of the disk in its assessment (the trash in the land fill the original poster was talking about), which would increase the impact of disks even more.

Three points:
1) The 55 g CO2eq per hour of streaming does not only include content provisioning and content delivery, but also content consumption, that is the energy use of data centers, transmission networks, home routers, TVs, set-top boxes, etc are all included. In fact, electronic devices at the user’s home make up almost 90% of the total emissions number.
2) You simply multiplied 55 g with a random factor of 17 to derive a completely bogus number of 935 g CO2eq. In Europe, the average across all viewing devices (that also means all resolutions incl. 4K) was 56 g per hour in 2020, while FHD on a 50″ screen was just 58 g per hour. So going up to 4K would have minimum impact on the emissions. On the other hand, watching on a larger screen would indeed increase this number.
3) Your number for 4K discs is just for the production of the disc. You’re missing all the emissions on the consumption side, which are included in the estimate for streaming and actually make up the largest share of the estimate.

That’s what I meant when I said that your calculations are bullshit.

Also, the environmental impact of discs vs. streaming comprises much more than just CO2 emissions, as the assessment I linked clearly demonstrates.

My goodness, you’re dense. The server farms and network are included in the streaming numbers. Maybe actually read up on the numbers you quote.

And maybe you can provide a source for those 935 grams of C02 for 4K streaming while you’re at it.

Like I said before: You don’t understand the numbers you’re using:
1) Your starting value of 55 g CO2e per hour is probably based on this report by the Carbon Trust: https://www.carbontrust.com/our-work-and-impact/guides-reports-and-tools/carbon-impact-of-video-streaming (or other websites who simply repeat the number).
2) If you actually look at how that number is derived (the full reported is linked on the website), this is an average over all streaming users, it is not a value specifically for SD streaming. And secondly, this value includes emissions for data centers, content delivery networks, internet transmission, home modems/routers, peripherals (like streaming set-top boxes) and viewing devices (like TV, tablet, phones).
3) The report also provides example numbers for different video qualities and viewing devices: e.g. 58 g CO2e for FHD on a 50″ smart TV and 16 g CO2e for SD video on a laptop. Again: This is the total sum over the streaming service side, internet transmission and viewer side.
4) There is a full chapter in the report on the difference in energy use between SD, HD and UHD and also on cellular network vs. fixed network. But this only makes up a small share of the total average value of 55 g CO2e.
5) So basically, there is absolutely no basis for your 55 * 17 calculation.
6) Lastly, the number you provided for 4K discs is only for the production of the discs. It does not include your blu-ray player or your TV when you actually watch your discs, which are included in the number for streaming. So you would need to add them to the emissions numbers for 4K UHD discs.

In summary, your original claim has no basis in facts. Your number for streaming is far too high and your number for discs is far too low, making the comparison meaningless.

As I pointed out earlier, there is more to the total environmental impact of streaming vs. discs than just the CO2 emissions numbers during operation. The research article I linked two days ago gives some examples but it does not include impacts of disposal at end-of-life.
As you say, server hardware in data centers is replaced after several years. But think about it: A streaming server will have served, what, hundreds of thousands of viewing hours when it is taken out of service. That’s a lot of blu-ray discs not going to a landfill.

Look, I get it, you like your home media collection. Standard blu-ray and 4K UHD discs provide better picture and sound than streaming. No argument about that.
But you got triggered by a small off-hand comment by Luke that there might be negative side-effects to discs and got all defensive – ironically something you accused other users of. Unfortunately, the defense you decided on was wrong. No biggie, it happens.
If others prefer streaming, be it for convenience, lack of space or even for environmental reasons, that’s their decision. If you prefer discs, that’s your decision.

Not to burst your bubble, but Netflix recommends 5 Mbps for FHD and 15 Mbps for 4K. Extrapolating that, 8K streaming would probably clock in around 45 Mbps or 340 MB per minute.
The maximum bitrate for 4K discs is 144 Mbps according to specifications, compared to around 50 Mbps for standard blu-ray. So 8K discs would probably end up below 500 Mbps.

Will streaming services start to offer 8K? I have no idea. It’s possible because TV manufacturers will try to push 8K TVs on people, and what good is an 8K TV if there’s no matching content? Do I personally think that 8K is necessary? No. Not at normal viewing distances/sizes at home.