1 kWH = 1 lb of coal. Batteries and circuit boards require chemicals to make. Printer ink must go through a manufacturing process. That LCD didn't magically appear. All of these objects have varying weight, which requires energy to move from place to place. While a single traditional instant Polaroid shot may be printed only once, users are likely to print their digital prints over and over.

There's always a cost. I'd like to see an extensive analysis of photo types to see which really is better for our world, but I'm afraid the study would produce quite a bit of waste.

"there are moments when you do not want to have to stumble naked through your flat, turn on the computer, and print out snaps to show your girlfriend."

You really must upgrade your living environment. Nowadays, your digital snaps go on a CD that your DVD player can read.
So, while I have no problem with your stumbling around naked in your flat, please stop killing more trees and turn on your TV to show those pics to your girlfriend.
The trees will appreciate, and your girlfriend just might as well.

Some digital cameras now come with a 3 inch (7.6cm) screen on the back - diagonal mind you, but thats only slightly smaller than this print, and it too is instant!

what kind of picture quality are we going to get out of this. i highly doubt a tiny printer can create any kind of picture quality.

yes a polaroid was not the pinnacle of picture quality. however the pictures had an old time feel which was appealing. there is nothing really appealing to me about having a terrible printer inside my camera for instant pictures.

practical use of this. very limited. just plug into your computer.