This conversation
| Answered by | claude-sonnet-4-6 |
| Extended thinking | off |
| Exchanges | 0 |
| Tokens sent (context) | 0 |
| Tokens written back | 0 |
| Chip energy, sent @ 0.05 mWh/token | 0 Wh |
| Chip energy, written @ 0.5 mWh/token | 0 Wh |
| Cooling & overhead ×1.12 | 0 Wh |
| Vercel hosting & network per exchange | 0 Wh |
| Your device | 0 Wh |
| Electricity drawn | 0 Wh |
| Grid intensity | 473 g/kWh |
| Total | 0.00 g CO₂e |
Notes
We do our best to make these calculations as accurate as possible. Some of it has to be estimated, so here's where the numbers come from and where we're guessing. The full method has all of it.
One thing we don't know precisely, but would be great to find out: which specific servers are answering your questions, in a data center somewhere else, running on their own electricity. We've assumed they're close to you and on the same energy sources, which is an estimate. We'd love to know exactly which servers are doing the work and what that data center draws, but that isn't public information right now. Our goal is to run this locally on a sustainable server ourselves.
The sum itself is simple: energy used × how dirty the electricity is. Extended thinking, where it is on, is counted inside the tokens written back: it is charged at the same rate, and it is the thing that decides whether an exchange costs once or several times over. The total also includes the device you're reading on, not just its screen, which is how the published methods count it. But only the part you were actually here for: typing and scrolling are the evidence, and once neither has happened for a while we stop counting. It's an estimate, and the row shows it next to how long the page has simply been open. And longer chats cost more per answer, because we send the whole conversation back each time.