unless you’re a fast and furious reader

[keannu]

Why does "not being a fast reader" lead to more energy in e-reader? I'm sorry I can't get it.

44)Many shoppers may assume e-readers are more eco-friendly than old-fashioned books. It’s true that they remove the need for all that paper, but are they really greener? Some folks have compared the life cycle analysis of printed books vs. e-readers. They’ve looked not only at the materials needed to make each product but also at the energy needed to eventually recycle them. They have concluded that unless you’re a fast and furious reader, the energy to manufacture and dispose of an e-reader is probably greater. That is, if you read at least 40 books a year, the e-reader may be greener. Otherwise, however, it’s better to stick to a regular book.

 

[Gillnetter]

Why does "not being a fast reader" lead to more energy in e-reader? I'm sorry I can't get it.

44)Many shoppers may assume e-readers are more eco-friendly than old-fashioned books. It’s true that they remove the need for all that paper, but are they really greener? Some folks have compared the life cycle analysis of printed books vs. e-readers. They’ve looked not only at the materials needed to make each product but also at the energy needed to eventually recycle them. They have concluded that unless you’re a fast and furious reader, the energy to manufacture and dispose of an e-reader is probably greater. That is, if you read at least 40 books a year, the e-reader may be greener. Otherwise, however, it’s better to stick to a regular book.

It takes more energy to manufacture and dispose of an e-reader than it does to manufacture and dispose of a book made of paper. The implication is that e-readers will only last for a few years, while a paper book may last for centuries. Because an e-reader only lasts for a short time, the manufacture and disposal costs have to be accounted for in this limited time span.