Could 5G technologies reduce or offset the environmental impacts caused by 5G? To answer this question, let me return to Huawei's Green 5G white paper, especially its claims regarding 5G's potential to benefit the environment. Huawei's report praises 5G's energy efficiency at length. However, as I explained in my October 23rd letter, energy efficiency cannot prevent a significant increase in energy usage, since it leads to increased data traffic.
Huawei states that information communication technologies (ICT) could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other industries by 15% in 2020. This claim is based on an old (2008) report[9] that examined most aspects of worldwide ICT. Regarding broadband mobile networks (3G, 4G, 5G), it actually reported soaring greenhouse gas emissions, and no potential CO2 savings in other sectors.
And yet, Huawei's Green 5G paper confidently states that when coupled with other technologies (Artificial Intelligence, the Cloud, virtualization, the Internet of Things), 5G could help various industries increase their energy efficiency. Combining "5G" with one or more buzzwords in one phrase creates a smoke screen and hides a simple reality: 5G is a wireless connection technology. Using a 5G connection does not prove that 5G is the best or only possible connection available. Actually, we could realize many environmental benefits by using less energy-hungry technologies.
Without proof, Huawei's report incorrectly assumes that Internet of Things (IoT) technologies (such as autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, traffic optimization, smart cities and smart grids) require 5G. Actually, independent analysts have seriously challenged the benefit of 5G for the IoT.[10] Huawei's claims that 5G enables these technologies and energy efficiency are absolutely incorrect.
Saying that buying or producing "green energy" for 5G makes it more energy efficient is also a pure sham. Compared to non-renewable power, renewable energy is scarce. Building and disposing of "renewable" power systems (e.g. solar, wind, hydro) also has enormous ecological consequences. Further, using "renewables" for 5G would reduce available renewable energy for other applications. Huawei also misses the point when it says that "smart" lithium batteries would increase energy efficiency: 5G antennas will need much larger batteries[11] than 4G antennas, only adding to global energy use. Manufacturing larger batteries will increase ore extraction and greenhouse gas emissions. Charging and discharging 5G's larger batteries will waste even more electricity.
The report provides only three concrete case studies with quantified benefits. Each one incorrectly concludes that 5G enables sustainability.
In the case study about transportation, workers traveling by car to inspect gas pipelines are replaced by a fast, oil-fueled, 5G-connected drone equipped with an ultra-high-definition video camera. I identify four flaws here. First, deploying 5G around pipelines is uneconomical and energy-intensive. Mobile networks are not designed to connect drones[12] Huawei provides no evidence that only 5G can connect those drones. The report does not explain why (existing) 4G can't do this job. Secondly, compared to cars, even long-range drones still have very limited range (80 km/50 miles). Thirdly, Huawei does not account for the energy used to build or run 5G networks. Last, despite Huawei's enthusiasm, saving an annual 2.1 megatons of CO2 is insignificant (less than 1%) given 5G's estimated annual emissions of 250 megatons.
When Huawei shows how 5G could benefit telemedicine by reducing doctors' travel, it fails to report that such health care requires a highly reliable connection. 5G might be more reliable than 4G, however wireless connections like 5G typically are not reliable enough for telemedicine.[13] Secondly, healthcare does not need 5G's high-performance speeds or response times.[14] Huawei is simply incorrect in stating that healthcare requires 5G. In fact, telemedicine already takes advantage of existing high-speed, secure, wired connections that use less energy.
Huawei also reports on a smartphone factory that automates its quality control by connecting video cameras to Artificial Intelligence (AI) with 5G. Compared to human workers, AI identifies defects with much more energy efficiency. But again, because of the rebound effect, greater energy efficiency results in no savings. It can even increase energy use. This case is no exception. Huawei even admits that energy use did not decrease after this smartphone factory introduced 5G.
With each of these case studies, Huawei fails to consider the substantial amounts of energy consumed by 5G infrastructure. By using alternatives to 5G that use less power, we would not need such energy. While 5G could handle a tremendous increase in mobile data, it would also incentivize us to consume increasing volumes of mobile dataand, thereby, increasing volumes of electricity. 5G would be the main contributor to the problem it promises to fix: a lack of network capacity to stream larger videos. Is this irony or intention? When the industry creates new consumer needs by enabling virtually unlimited mobile data, it encourages mobile data addiction . This reminds me of strategies deployed decades ago by tobacco, sugar and chemical industries, strategies that led to out-of-control consumption.
5G is also expected to shift data traffic from existing, wired networks toward much less efficient mobile networks.[15] Given the huge amounts of energy (three times Sweden's footprint) that 5G will need, mainly from fossil fuels, Huawei's repeated use of the term "sustainable" when describing 5G is confusing at best. Curiously, in 2019, Huawei published another white paper[16] warning the industry about never-before-seen electricity needs with 5G. This report is referenced by various websites, including the International Energy Agency. Less surprisingly, after the Green 5G report went to press last August, the 2019 report disappeared from the Web.
Andy Purdy, Huawei's chief security officer in the U.S. and a councilmember at Forbes, praised 5G in a recent Forbes article.[17] He reported that 5G "promises to dramatically reduce the energy consumption in telecom networks" while his own industry opposes this claim. The mobile industry's association, GSMA,[18] and French mobile operator Bouygues Telecom[19] both warn that all networks operators will see inevitable increased energy use with 5G. The energy savings examples that Purdy cites are irrelevant. He claims energy savings that do not rely on 5G technology. He also mistakes the industry's ambition to reduce its carbon footprint with the reality that 5G will lead to soaring energy demands.
Greta, this letter has been so full of technical stuff. Still, I have only discussed the most obvious of Huawei's incorrect claims that 5G is "green."
In sum, Huawei's suggestion that 5G would reduce climate change is not true. Its report provides no evidence that 5G has a role to play in reducing energy use. The company carefully avoided discussion about 5G's massive environmental footprint (seven times Sweden's CO2 emissions). In fact, 5G's footprint would likely compromise energy savings and reduced carbon emissions targets.
Exploring other information-communication technologies could lead to reduced energy. A new vision of connectivity could emerge, with significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, increased user satisfaction, and true progress for future generations. Our society can reach climate targets, but only if we question the new digital needs created by the industry, and explore truly economical and more sustainable alternatives to 5G. Indeed, I find myself challenged to envision an Internet wherein we replace "smart" endless growth with wise consistent progress.
Miguel
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
