Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Internet In An Off-Grid House
matt20 writes "This is an interesting article of a family living off-grid using solar panels. In such a setting, every watt adds up. The typical home computer and monitor use almost 150 watts. What is the best computer arrangement in such a setting? Here is what worked best for them. Anyone know what percent of our national power is used on computers? Should we be thinking wireless on laptops?" Even on-grid, this article raises some good points about power consumption and convenience.
And the cost of the solar panels + batteries + install etc etc.... Kind of puts it out of the average joes reach.
On the other hand it can't be worse than $AU200/Quarter for power. Over a few years anyway.
With the number of devices in the home that now use DC power, I always thought it might save energy to have one large AC to DC transformer for the house, rather than having "wall wart" adapters for each device. Even when the device is off that wall wart is using energy(feel it, it's always warm). Why not have a more advanced transformer that could adjust for load, and run DC through wires to the whole house. Plus, no more problems trying to plug 2 wall warts into adjacent spots on a power strip!
That's gotta be a record!
Cheers Koz
I am not sure i want to know how much I personally spend on my computing needs. But it must be a good 30% of my income with the number of computers I have. Kinda a scary thought...how much power we suck outta the world for shifting the little 1 and 0s...
The power of solar panels is nothing compared with the power of the Slashdot effect!
Three -1 posts and it's already slashdotted... I'm sure it'll be a couple hours until it gets back up, so I'll ask my question here, it may not even be answered on the site.
I remember a couple years back reading an article that said solar panels could absorb 3-5% of the energy that hit it. This struck me as an amazingly small number and I immediately imagined the potential of greater absorption rates. Does anyone know what the most current solar cells can absorb?
sig.
Get a laptop.
1) Go into your computer's BIOS and set your hard drive(s) to power down after 15 minutes.
2) Consider having a smaller monitor. Also set it to auto-turn off/suspend itself after the computer has been idle for a set period of time
This is why FM and TV broadcasting uses multiple-bay antennas... even the omni-directional ones. By directing less energy straight up (who lives _above_ a tower?!) and less energy straight down (who lives directly under a tower?!) they can send more energy out horizontally, extending their range. The same applies to wireless networking, just that it's at a higher frequency... and thus even more directional.
-T
recently my local news had a story about a household that used solar. they actually sell their excess to the electric company, to the tune of something like $300 a month. apparently it paid off the equipment in about two years, and now they just collect as profit!
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Heres the entire story... Its long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A year ago, when we finally settled into our still incomplete solar powered house, we set up our trusty three-year-old computer. Then, having no landlines (electricity or telephone) we installed a wireless broadband Internet connection. So we were sitting pretty, right? Wrong. In fifteen years of home computer use, we have never just left the computer on all day. But times and uses have changed. Our computer has become more and more of an appliance rather than a specialty tool. In our new home, it became apparent that we needed it available constantly for Internet research and e-mail. Yet leaving the system on, even in sleep mode, used too much energy. Our fairly typical desktop system draws 180 to 190 watts. Flipping it off and on was too much of a hassle because of the almost 2 minute boot up each time we needed to check something. Besides, even turning it on and off as needed was a serious drain on our 1.2 KW PV system. Expanding our PV array (sixteen, 77 watt modules) was not an option because the present rack and wiring are maxxed out, not to mention the hassle of having to submit a new electrical permit application, complete with engineering stamp. The Search So I began researching notebook computers. Without a doubt, they would provide a much better energy use scenario. I wanted the lowest possible energy use in a quality unit. I have always purchased desktop systems from smaller companies that offer good quality parts for the money. I could always make changes later if necessary. But notebooks are a different animal, since they are more or less a closed package. So it is very important that it has all the functions you will need. For many people, the notebook can replace the desktop unit. So a 14 or 15 inch (36 or 38 cm) screen, 5 to 7 pound (2Ð3 kg) "desktop replacement" machine will work. For others, a really lightweight 3 to 4 pound (1.4Ð1.8 kg) unit with a 10 to 12 inch (25Ð30 cm) screen is fine, since the desktop unit is not being displaced, but supplemented and networked. The former will certainly save watts over a desktop unit, but with its built-in drives and large screen, will use considerably more energy than the latter. For us, keeping the desktop unit for graphics-intensive tasks seemed desirable, since the screen is larger, and CRT monitors generally handle graphics better. So I researched what was available in the smallest of the Windows-based notebooks. Our personal parameters included finding a highly rated, quality product from a well-known company (such as Dell, IBM, Gateway, Micron, Sony), long battery life, no built-in drives other than the hard drive (but with an attachable CD/DVD drive for loading programs, etc.), at least 256 MB RAM and a 20 GB hard drive, a touchpad pointing device, and a high quality graphics card that will not drop frames when playing a DVD movie. I began looking more than six months ago. Because of their customer satisfaction record, I was somewhat predisposed to look most seriously at the Dell offerings, in particular the Latitude L-400. But it was weak on graphics and, having been on the market quite awhile, was not tops in energy efficiency. We came close to trying a Sony unit available from Costco for less than US$1,000, but it only had a 10.4 inch (26.4 cm) screen, older chip sets, and mediocre graphics. That finally kept it out of the running. A Small Gem In November 2001, Dell introduced a new model, the Latitude C-400. It was much like the earlier L-400, but had updated processors (866 MHz or 1.2 GHz, running on half a watt), a new generation of energy-saving Intel support chips (830M), graphics adequate for DVD movies, both a touchpad and a pointing stick, and some other goodies I found desirable. I watched the prices, including the Dell "refurbished" units. In January, after the Christmas rush was over, I kept close track and finally bit on a good offer. (Remember, if you buy on the phone rather than off the Net, you may be able to negotiate for even better than the current sale prices, but beware of the frustrating sales-speak even from reputable firms.) This particular model best met our needs. The US$2,300 price is in the midranges, with basic economy models available around US$1,000, and corporate road-warrior models well above US$3,000. (Note: laptop prices continue to fall, so you may be able to do even better by the time you read this.) In terms of energy usage, though, this model has to be near the lower limit. We measured usage with a Watts up? meter. The meter isn't extremely accurate when measuring loads drawing less than 20 watts, but it's close enough for general use. In any case, the C-400 uses just 15 to 18 watts when in regular use. This figure, when compared to the desktop system, is cause enough for joy. But when we close the case, putting the system in standby (it goes to hibernation in 15 minutes, or whatever you want to set), the usage is too low to measure with this meter. Over a typical day of turning the system on first thing in the morning, using it for about 5 hours off and on, with it in standby or hibernation the rest of the time (about 7 to 8 hours), the total watt-hours used is 84. That's equivalent to about 25 minutes use of the desktop system! If it is on standby, the C-400 comes back to full use in a few seconds. From hibernation, it takes all of about 15 seconds. That's very tolerable for an appliance. Other Considerations As a selling feature, notebook manufacturers try to maximize battery life, that is, the amount of time their computers will run on a single charge. Since we keep the unit plugged in so much, battery life is not critical, but it's still a good indicator of system efficiency. Within groups of similar computers, the longer the--battery life, the more efficient the computer is. This comparison works best if independently measured, but manufacturers' estimated time is usually a good rough estimate. Just remember that this measurement applies within a given category of processor, screen size, battery size, and peripherals. While it may seem good to keep the battery charged up, it is also good to let it cycle some. So don't leave it plugged in all the time. Unplug it every once in a while, and let it discharge fully before charging again. If NiCd is used, the battery should be fully discharged routinely (several times a month) and then refilled. If the battery is NiMH or lithium technology, it isn't as important to fully discharge the battery routinely, but it should be fully discharged once every month or two. Most modern notebooks use the NiMH or lithium ion batteries. Keyboards are also a concern with notebooks. The great portability of a 3+ pound (1.4+ kg) unit is somewhat offset by a slightly smaller keyboard, not to mention a few keys in somewhat different places. I find the tradeoff to be acceptable. You may not. The larger notebooks do have equivalent keyboards, but not exactly ergonomically correct ones. Another alternative is to buy a notebook with an auxiliary keyboard port. Then you can use a standard keyboard ordinarily used with a desktop unit. Most larger notebooks have similar ports for a mouse and monitor. Others have auxiliary ports in docking stations so a notebook can emulate a desktop computer. Of course, not everyone is in a position to part with more than US$2,000 to save some watt-hours. But it was worth it for us. The cost of adding more PVs and related equipment to have our desktop unit available full time would have exceeded what we spent. Almost any notebook computer, with the ability to handle similar tasks, is far preferable to a desktop system for energy conservation. As time goes on, more models will use the new energy-saving chip sets. Even the model we bought is now available as refurbished. (Usually they are returned within 30 days after purchase and like new.) I just saw one similar to ours for less than US$1,600. Although I was researching PCs, Apple's latest notebooks are also quite frugal. I managed to get permission (not without a questioning look from the store manager) to measure one of the 600 MHz G3 iBooks, and it came in at around 20 watts. Dessert The rest of the changes to our computing scene may seem frivolous. Still, if we see the computer as an appliance, the handier the better. We added a D-Link wireless router (Model DI 713P, US$140, 7 watts) that gives us the ability to use the laptop almost anywhere in the house. It also connects the two computers together and provides good Internet security from hackers. (Incidentally, software can provide good protection also, but it's not as good as the hardware solution in a router.) The setup of the router was very time consuming. I have read of others who have had an easier setup, and still others who have given up and returned the unit. So I have mixed feelings about it. Setting up a single computer would be easier, as would setting up with only a newer operating system. The manufacturers need to provide more information than we received. Usually I like to exhaust my own resources before calling tech support, but I still spent quite a few hours sorting things out with both the router tech support and my Internet service provider tech support. Energy-Sipping Computing Everything needs to be on switched outlets for efficiency, preferably surge protected outlets. On one switch, we have the fixed wireless radio and the router, which have no internal switches, and the printer, which does have an internal switch (usually turned off). The notebook computer is on another, and the desktop computer and scanner (usually turned off) on another. So we can handle almost any combination of computing needs without having unnecessary equipment sucking electricity. In spite of the less-than-satisfactory router experience, our new computer system has been a great convenience. After half a year of no computer availability in our off-grid home, we learned that our desktop computer was just too much of an energy hog to work for us in our limited-energy environment. Having cast about for a solution, I believe we found a good one with our 3 pound (1.4 kg) notebook computer. It draws only 15 to 18 watts when being used, and practically none when in standby. We no longer have to feel guilty when using a very important appliance. It is handy anywhere we are in the house, anytime we need it. And so far, we have run the generator hardly at all. Aloha.
Hree is groogle's cash of teh event!
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Anyone know what percent of our national power is used on computers?
Judging by the unavailability of this site, I'd say not nearly enough.
Is your browser retarded?
One of the best ways to cut down power and cpu heat at the same time is something like Vcool. It works for windows and they have a linux kernel patch to do the same thing. The only problem I have is this wintv will lock the chipset unless it is set to dib draw mode.
Also, for God's sake do not run distributed.net, seti@home, etc.. if you are trying to save power... My 500mhz k6-2 system draws twice the power with distributed.net on than while it is sitting idle.
Efficient Computing & Wireless Internet
x b,00.asp
p n=2&s=1005&a= 24385&ap=1,00.asp This is an article at the Extreme Tech site and may be available for a limited time.
©2002 John Bertrand
A year ago, when we finally settled into our still incomplete solar powered house, we set up our trusty three-year-old computer. Then, having no landlines (electricity or telephone) we installed a wireless broadband Internet connection. So we were sitting pretty, right? Wrong.
In fifteen years of home computer use, we have never just left the computer on all day. But times and uses have changed. Our computer has become more and more of an appliance rather than a specialty tool. In our new home, it became apparent that we needed it available constantly for Internet research and e-mail. Yet leaving the system on, even in sleep mode, used too much energy. Our fairly typical desktop system draws 180 to 190 watts.
Flipping it off and on was too much of a hassle because of the almost 2 minute boot up each time we needed to check something. Besides, even turning it on and off as needed was a serious drain on our 1.2 KW PV system. Expanding our PV array (sixteen, 77 watt modules) was not an option because the present rack and wiring are maxxed out, not to mention the hassle of having to submit a new electrical permit application, complete with engineering stamp.
The Search
So I began researching notebook computers. Without a doubt, they would provide a much better energy use scenario. I wanted the lowest possible energy use in a quality unit.
I have always purchased desktop systems from smaller companies that offer good quality parts for the money. I could always make changes later if necessary. But notebooks are a different animal, since they are more or less a closed package. So it is very important that it has all the functions you will need.
For many people, the notebook can replace the desktop unit. So a 14 or 15 inch (36 or 38 cm) screen, 5 to 7 pound (2Ð3 kg) "desktop replacement" machine will work. For others, a really lightweight 3 to 4 pound (1.4Ð1.8 kg) unit with a 10 to 12 inch (25Ð30 cm) screen is fine, since the desktop unit is not being displaced, but supplemented and networked. The former will certainly save watts over a desktop unit, but with its built-in drives and large screen, will use considerably more energy than the latter.
For us, keeping the desktop unit for graphics-intensive tasks seemed desirable, since the screen is larger, and CRT monitors generally handle graphics better. So I researched what was available in the smallest of the Windows-based notebooks.
Our personal parameters included finding a highly rated, quality product from a well-known company (such as Dell, IBM, Gateway, Micron, Sony), long battery life, no built-in drives other than the hard drive (but with an attachable CD/DVD drive for loading programs, etc.), at least 256 MB RAM and a 20 GB hard drive, a touchpad pointing device, and a high quality graphics card that will not drop frames when playing a DVD movie.
I began looking more than six months ago. Because of their customer satisfaction record, I was somewhat predisposed to look most seriously at the Dell offerings, in particular the Latitude L-400. But it was weak on graphics and, having been on the market quite awhile, was not tops in energy efficiency. We came close to trying a Sony unit available from Costco for less than US$1,000, but it only had a 10.4 inch (26.4 cm) screen, older chip sets, and mediocre graphics. That finally kept it out of the running.
A Small Gem
In November 2001, Dell introduced a new model, the Latitude C-400. It was much like the earlier L-400, but had updated processors (866 MHz or 1.2 GHz, running on half a watt), a new generation of energy-saving Intel support chips (830M), graphics adequate for DVD movies, both a touchpad and a pointing stick, and some other goodies I found desirable.
I watched the prices, including the Dell "refurbished" units. In January, after the Christmas rush was over, I kept close track and finally bit on a good offer. (Remember, if you buy on the phone rather than off the Net, you may be able to negotiate for even better than the current sale prices, but beware of the frustrating sales-speak even from reputable firms.)
This particular model best met our needs. The US$2,300 price is in the midranges, with basic economy models available around US$1,000, and corporate road-warrior models well above US$3,000. (Note: laptop prices continue to fall, so you may be able to do even better by the time you read this.)
In terms of energy usage, though, this model has to be near the lower limit. We measured usage with a Watts up? meter. The meter isn't extremely accurate when measuring loads drawing less than 20 watts, but it's close enough for general use. In any case, the C-400 uses just 15 to 18 watts when in regular use.
This figure, when compared to the desktop system, is cause enough for joy. But when we close the case, putting the system in standby (it goes to hibernation in 15 minutes, or whatever you want to set), the usage is too low to measure with this meter.
Wireless Internet
When it comes to broadband Internet service, there are three major routes and one minor route. Leading the charge these days is cable modem service from the cable TV companies. This is followed closely by DSL (digital subscriber line) service from the telephone companies. Satellite service from the two satellite TV companies has made inroads mainly where the other two services are not available.
Finally, in a few areas, ISPs have established fixed wireless service, which uses a line-of-sight radio link between their operation and subscribers. The radio signal is in the same frequency range as a microwave oven, and can be fairly characterized as a "microwave link." It conforms to the IEEE 802.11b standard used for wireless networking within the home or office, and is theoretically capable of 11 MB per second information transfer. A radio transceiver and small antenna are required.
We had a choice of going to Starband satellite service or Interlink Hawaii (local ISP) fixed wireless service. Starband was just becoming available with no track record, high upfront costs of more than US$1,500 (installation is less expensive in the continental U.S.) and a monthly cost of US$70. Interlink's fixed wireless service had been around for several years, had an installation package of US$500, and cost US$50 a month. Needless to say we went with the latter, which uses a Breezenet Pro.11 radio.
Overall, we have been very satisfied with the service. When our radio was failing after less than a year (it is leased and was used), they were slow to replace it. But otherwise, we have had mostly speedy surfing, with very little downtime. And being a local company, they are usually easy to work with. Power draw of the wireless system is 1 to 2 watts.
Over a typical day of turning the system on first thing in the morning, using it for about 5 hours off and on, with it in standby or hibernation the rest of the time (about 7 to 8 hours), the total watt-hours used is 84. That's equivalent to about 25 minutes use of the desktop system! If it is on standby, the C-400 comes back to full use in a few seconds. From hibernation, it takes all of about 15 seconds. That's very tolerable for an appliance.
Other Considerations
As a selling feature, notebook manufacturers try to maximize battery life, that is, the amount of time their computers will run on a single charge. Since we keep the unit plugged in so much, battery life is not critical, but it's still a good indicator of system efficiency.
Within groups of similar computers, the longer the--battery life, the more efficient the computer is. This comparison works best if independently measured, but manufacturers' estimated time is usually a good rough estimate. Just remember that this measurement applies within a given category of processor, screen size, battery size, and peripherals.
While it may seem good to keep the battery charged up, it is also good to let it cycle some. So don't leave it plugged in all the time. Unplug it every once in a while, and let it discharge fully before charging again. If NiCd is used, the battery should be fully discharged routinely (several times a month) and then refilled. If the battery is NiMH or lithium technology, it isn't as important to fully discharge the battery routinely, but it should be fully discharged once every month or two. Most modern notebooks use the NiMH or lithium ion batteries.
Keyboards are also a concern with notebooks. The great portability of a 3+ pound (1.4+ kg) unit is somewhat offset by a slightly smaller keyboard, not to mention a few keys in somewhat different places. I find the tradeoff to be acceptable. You may not. The larger notebooks do have equivalent keyboards, but not exactly ergonomically correct ones.
Another alternative is to buy a notebook with an auxiliary keyboard port. Then you can use a standard keyboard ordinarily used with a desktop unit. Most larger notebooks have similar ports for a mouse and monitor. Others have auxiliary ports in docking stations so a notebook can emulate a desktop computer.
Of course, not everyone is in a position to part with more than US$2,000 to save some watt-hours. But it was worth it for us. The cost of adding more PVs and related equipment to have our desktop unit available full time would have exceeded what we spent. Almost any notebook computer, with the ability to handle similar tasks, is far preferable to a desktop system for energy conservation.
As time goes on, more models will use the new energy-saving chip sets. Even the model we bought is now available as refurbished. (Usually they are returned within 30 days after purchase and like new.) I just saw one similar to ours for less than US$1,600.
Although I was researching PCs, Apple's latest notebooks are also quite frugal. I managed to get permission (not without a questioning look from the store manager) to measure one of the 600 MHz G3 iBooks, and it came in at around 20 watts.
Dessert
The rest of the changes to our computing scene may seem frivolous. Still, if we see the computer as an appliance, the handier the better. We added a D-Link wireless router (Model DI 713P, US$140, 7 watts) that gives us the ability to use the laptop almost anywhere in the house. It also connects the two computers together and provides good Internet security from hackers. (Incidentally, software can provide good protection also, but it's not as good as the hardware solution in a router.)
The setup of the router was very time consuming. I have read of others who have had an easier setup, and still others who have given up and returned the unit. So I have mixed feelings about it. Setting up a single computer would be easier, as would setting up with only a newer operating system.
The manufacturers need to provide more information than we received. Usually I like to exhaust my own resources before calling tech support, but I still spent quite a few hours sorting things out with both the router tech support and my Internet service provider tech support.
Energy-Sipping Computing
Everything needs to be on switched outlets for efficiency, preferably surge protected outlets. On one switch, we have the fixed wireless radio and the router, which have no internal switches, and the printer, which does have an internal switch (usually turned off). The notebook computer is on another, and the desktop computer and scanner (usually turned off) on another. So we can handle almost any combination of computing needs without having unnecessary equipment sucking electricity.
In spite of the less-than-satisfactory router experience, our new computer system has been a great convenience. After half a year of no computer availability in our off-grid home, we learned that our desktop computer was just too much of an energy hog to work for us in our limited-energy environment. Having cast about for a solution, I believe we found a good one with our 3 pound (1.4 kg) notebook computer. It draws only 15 to 18 watts when being used, and practically none when in standby.
We no longer have to feel guilty when using a very important appliance. It is handy anywhere we are in the house, anytime we need it. And so far, we have run the generator hardly at all. Aloha.
Access
John Bertrand, PO Box 811, Holualoa, HI 96725 caber@kona.net
Dell Computer Corporation, One Dell Way, Round Rock, TX 78682 800-915-3355 or 512-338-4400 csd@dell.com www.dell.com Dell Latitude C-400 notebook computer
Alvarion, Inc., 5858 Edison Pl., Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-517-3100 Fax: 760-517-3200 sales-north.america@alvarion.com www.alvarion.com Breezenet Pro.11 radio
D-Link U.S.A., 53 Discovery Dr., Irvine, CA 92618 800-326-1688 Fax: 949-753-7033 sales@dlink.com www.dlink.com D-Link DI-713P wireless router
Some Useful PC Computer Web Sites
Major Notebook Manufacturers:
www.dell.com www.gateway.com www.ibm.com www.micronpc.com www.sonystyle.com www.hp.com www.apple.com
Networking Info:
www.wown.com www.pcworld.com/features/article/0,aid,86935,tk,c
Internet Security Software:
www.zonelabs.com Zonelabs' Zone Alarm is a free download; the Pro version costs US$40. The free version has been highly recommended and has been used by the author. The Pro version has more bells & whistles.
Notebook Power Management:
www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,a
Evaluations & Comparisons:
www.pcmagazine.com www.zdnet.com www.techtv.com www.pcworld.com www.practicallynetworked.com
Shopping/Price Comparisons:
www.pricewatch.com www.pricegrabber.com www.techbargains.com www.amazon.com www.cnet.com
I don't know the number, but the trend is disturbing. I would have naively thought that as
- computers get more and more computational power
- while their power requirements per computational power decrease
that the number of computers needed would decrease. Instead, the number of computers seem to be multiplying. Even I'm guilty of it; add a firewall here, add a web server there, add a NAS box in the room.I do appreciate your desire for a low-power consumption box. And I do appreciate that your computing solution only involves a single box. Good luck in your search.
For those unfamiliar with Home Power, this is a typical article from them. Their typical monthly magazine has an article about "Solar Guirrilas", or people who decide to put up solar panels, plug them into the "grid" (municipal power supply) and not get the permits for it. They also toss in a "I use solar panels and/or a wind turbine to make 10-100% of my own power, using/shunning batteries in the process" article that makes one think that such a thing is so great, why doesn't everybody do it? (The answer is in a very attractive tabular form that has a dollar figure at the bottom.) Recently, although I don't think it's always, they have had an article on how easy it is to convert your existing car to an electric one. As near as I can tell, it's a thinly veilled advertisement for one of their sponsors (and possibly an editor, sheesh I wish I remembered why I suspected that).
Okay, cynicism aside, because that's what slashdot's all about, Home Power is actually one of my favorite magazines. They help me think about what I can do in my day to day life that may have an impact on the environment. I'm not likely to blow $20k on solar panels on my roof, not likely to get a wind turbine that always needs maintenance during the worst times even after I get approval from my homeowner's association, and I'm not even likely to convert my car into a $3k worth of batteries beast that maxes out at 65mph. I did, however, convert all my light bulbs to fluorescent and blew the $20 on the programmable thermostats. I'm even considering one of those insulating spreads that you wrap around the water heaters. Now if I could blow $4k on my car and make it a battery driven beast that could handke 85 as I commute down Parmer Lane in Austin...
I dream of, one day when I'm rich off of my wife's stock options, building a house with solar panels on the roof and maybe a pretty, whirring wind turbine in the back yard while I contribute to urban sprawl.
To pre-emptively strike against a good slashdot myth, yes, solar panels will pay for themselves. They earn back the energy that it took to make them (and start to net negative CO2) after 1-3 years of operation, depending on if you're in California/Arizona or Vermont, and if you ignore the time value of money, can earn their dollar cost back in 10-20 years, depending on costs, location and care.
And, they aren't here either. A typical desktop computer of today has a lot more than your normal laptop. For example, if you got a new desktop, you wouldn't settle for less than 1.4ghz, a dvd drive, cdrw, a big hard drive, and a cool video card, and you'd really want a dvd-r and a geforce 4600.
In a notebook the best you'll get it geforce2go a small hard drive, and a dvd drive with your mobile athlon 1.2ghz. BIG difference, and this will cost you more than the desktop.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Apparently their web server runs on solar power also, and we just sucked them dry! :-)
I would think a flat-panel monitor would help if someone was sticking with desktop PCs...
Couldn't find any solid comparisons of power consumption between LCDs and CRTs, though.
The CPU draws 5.7 watts, requires no fan, and is quick enough to handle most computing tasks.
I'm getting a 404.. Must be night. solar cells aren't working... webserver gets no power.
:)
I'll have to read it in the morning I guess.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I can't load the article, but from the copy and paste here, it doesn't appear to say which one he got (he just mentions apple's iBook as the last machine he looked at).
I also just checked, and apples flat screen iMac has a max of 130watt power draw, which is quite impressive for a low power usage situation. I'm glad my college bought those to replace the macs, to counter balance the P4's they are putting in (in terms of power consumption).
I could have swore I saw it flicker and go a little dim around the time this article got posted. Damn those solar power hippies stealing the sun's rays.. How selfish of them!
hell, use dialup for that matter: the phone line provides a *significant* amount of juice.
that the Slashdot effect took out a site by draining the server's battery rather than overlooding it.
ok, someone explain this to me. For a site to get slashdotted, slashdot readers would need to click through to read the articles...but as a long-time slashdot reader, I know that nobody here actually reads the articles, so...what's really taking down all these web servers?
Slashdot people can't read anyway.well they can, just by law it HAS to be senseless illogical bullshit.
Do you think they had solar panels in the compound at Waco? Did they have a wireless laptop network? Were they concerned with power usage? Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.
huh ? you did check that link didnt you, cos all im looking at is a google cache of yahoo?
We did a study for one of my engineering classes recently about the power required to produce a solar panel as compared with the amount of power produced over the panel's lifetime. Turns out that manufacturing requires nearly 40% of the power the cell will produce over its lifetime. Kinda makes you want to look elsewhere, eh?
I think the problem with current solar cells is they are hard to produce and less than efficient.
I had a dream the other day about algea that could convert solar energy into electrical energy. I envisioned giant ponds of green murky water with evenly spaced rods to collect the electricity the little buggers give off.
It's probably just a pipe dream, but considering our current biotech and genetic technology, is electricity producing algea possible? I mean we already have algea (or was it bacteria?) that live off of sulpher given off by thermal stacks deep below our oceans.
Consider this...
You can see the crystals on a solar panel with the naked eye. Very large, sort of wasteful. Can you see a single celled organism with the naked eye? Theoretically you could pack a whole lot more algea into a square inch that you could solar crystals.
This is just a question, it's been buggin me for the last few weeks, and if anyone has an answer please share.
--toq
my parents recently wired their home to use solar panels
the house itself didn't actually get converted over, however
all that was needed to allow normal function was an inverter
it converts the dc to normal line voltage
the excess power is pushed back onto the grid and due to recent legislation, they get paid for it
needless to say, the electric bill is down tremendously...
Base 2 yields only ARTIFICIAL Intelligence
I have two mac laptops that use 45 watts.
So get a mac laptop.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Actually, two great ideas here, though I know you're kidding.
/tmp, /var, and /usr/local/bin in RAM (copied at boot time)...
1. A little WAP router box should suck less power than a desktop/laptop. One could use one (or two, I don't know how bad they suck) to 'repeat' the wireless connection to a local Wi-Fi channel, and access that from a Zaurus. Tiny, but low power, and it can play MPEG4. (Sharp actually sells an SD-card "VCR" for it in Japan, so people can watch their favorite shows on their Zaurii during their commutes.)
2. If the main purpose is to use the box for browsing, booting the OS off CD or Flash, and running it out of a RAMdisk would actually be much more efficient than keeping HD platters spun up constantly. You could do this with a conventional laptop with a lot of RAM- knock the HD into a 1-minute power-saving timeout, and mount
Trust me, even a gig or two of mobile DDR will eat a lot less power than it takes to keep your drive spinning.
Answering the originator's question about how much power is consumed by computers and the like, we did a study for DoE last year. Note that it excludes home computers, focusing on business use, but this picks up the bulk of power consumption. NTIS.gov will sell you a CDR of report PB2002-101438 for $47. A PDF slide set summary is available at:
http://www.tiax.biz/pdf/EIA-OffTelecom-TIAX.pdf
One interesting conclusion:
Commercial Office and Telecommunications equipment electricity consumption represents just under 3% of national electricity consumption, and a little over 1% of national energy consumption.
Note that the report was prepared by Arthur D Little Inc.; TIAX acquired the group that did this study.
Get a laptop and several batteries. plug the laptop in to power anywhere you can... hotels, friends houses, offices, wherever! charge up all your batteries and you're good to go. two batteries could be easily charged up throughout a day's use at the office and friend's houses. and one lasts for at least 3 hours. Weekends would be difficult, as would long programming runs.
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
It's not only the insurance costs of nuclear power plants. It's also the fact that no one cares too much about the safety etc. (read: future costs) of nuclear waste that's being dumped somewhere in the Nevada Desert.
Wireless for me is when I can't afford a new cord.
Anybone care to donate some ethernet cables?
I know that my computer has a 300 watt power supply, and it can barely keep the thing running. Monitor > 150 watts as well.
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
I'm halfway finished building an off-grid home, and currently running a 1KW array.
For computing, I ended up testing a number of motherboards and monitors looking for the best power combo. The winner was (and still is) an Intel 810-based legacy-free mobo paired with a Celeron CPU. With a hard drive & CD, a typical system will pull 30 watts -- as compared to about 70-80 watts for a mainstream P4 or Athlon system.
Power is lower using linux, and if you make use of the hard-disk controls and power down during idle, it saves about 5 watts.
The monitor is alway the power hog. 15" LCDs run 20-30 watts. Same size glass tubes run about 70 watts.
The single biggest issue -- as the article concerns point out -- is how long the thing in on. Even a 30 watt system uses 30 x 24 = 720 watt-hours per day if on always. That's nearly a full kilowatt, and amounts to about 1/10th of my current power production during the summer. Unlike the writer, I'll be adding more capacity as I read the house for long-term occupancy.
You mention 150 watts as if it's a large number.
Some rough figures:
Room with 3 incandescent lightbulbs: ~180 watts
32" television: ~250 watts
Microwave: 1000-1500 watts
Stove: ~2000 watts
Oven: ~3000+ watts
Window A/C unit: 750-1250 watts
Central A/C for a 2000 sq. foot house: ~5000 watts
Central A/C for a 4000 sq. foot house: ~9000 watts
So running your computer 24 hours a day would take approximately as much power as running your central A/C for maybe 20-30 mins/day. If you live in a hot climate, raising the temperature on your thermostat by 1 or 2 degrees is going to save you more power than getting rid of the computer entirely. And certainly much more than shaving 20-50 watts off your computer's power usage by using "low-power" components.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I know this sounds rediculously obvious (because it is), however I cannot think of any full-featured compter more efficient than a good laptop.
You could possibly run it directly off of your DC power, and you can take it anywhere you want. Laptop power consumption is typically less than 50 watts during peak usage, and during sleep it can use much less than that.
I know they aren't perfect, but sounds like it's what you need.
Just my two cents.
....that explains why the site went down so quick!
"In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words -- you have to hear the music"
It should be mentioned that off grid living is not something someone just jumps into casually. Getting your own solar plant up and running can be a bear, Theres daily managment of batterys and such. Alot of work goes into staying alive off grid.
At present its not a big money saver. On the contrary it costs oodles more to build. With the average 3 bedroom house in nowheres ville being about 80K earthships, one form of grid house are often 350-400K in the same area. Yes I know its not the bay area of california prices but people in the bay area dont live off grid.
As to computers there are 12 volt power supplys available. If you get rid of the inversion process (most motherboards are 12v already) you can save alot of power. Ive actually been looking at building systems and selling them that are all 12v. The other application is boats and RVs which are both fairly offgrid. I leave in about a week to spend a year in a RV so power has been a concern.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
Many of Apple's computers give off little enough heat that they do not require cooling fans, and those that do have fans still run cooler than most PCs. I would guess that this means they consume less power than most PCs (less heat coming out = less power going in, yes?). I'd also guess that the PowerPC being RISC rather than CISC helps a bit; that should mean the processor is less complicated and more efficient.
As someone else pointed out, LCD displays consume less power than CRTs.
Would not a G4 iMac then be perfect for this situation?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In what respect? The costs for containment and handling of nuclear waste make it one of the most expensive forms of energy in the world (not even mentioning the fuzzier costs of environmental damage in the long term.) If not for massive subsidies, the nuclear power industry wouldn't exist!
Solar has a high up front cost, but the cells have a minimal upkeep cost; maintenance is cheap.
Well, it might be feasible in cooler climates, or if you really don't mind no A/C. But if you live in say Houston, TX, where the summer is usually 95-100 F and 80-90% humidity, evaporative cooling is not going to cut it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
At my college, we've installed some solar panels on the roof of a dorm to see if it's worth expanding the project to use even more solar. (We have a lot of flat roofs, and in Southern California, that means pretty good solar energy.)
Anyways, we have a website showing the power generated, using the multi-purpose MRTG. It's all running via some student and staff-built hardware, running the OpenVMS port of MRTG by one of the computing and information services gurus.
This guy lives in Hawaii, spent the money for solar, and is nickle and diming on computers?? What a screwball. I. Just. Don't. Get. It. And, FWIW, did he look for a desktop computer with non-commodity/low-power parts?
Why not just hook a car alternator up to an excercise bike, and pedal for that extra power. Yeah!
Screwball.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If you're privileged enough to have running water on your property, you can't beat micro hydroelectric.
. ht m
For $1500, you can get a 2.5kW micro hydroelectric generator. Compare that to $700 for a little 100W solar system.
The best part is that micro hydroelectric is a 24 hour power source for 60kW/hours per day of monkey-shocking goodness.
http://www.solarelectric.com/products/level3_43
If you want to conserve energy, better stop driving as well! Consider the typical commuter that spends 1 hr driving each each day. Cruising at 70 mph in a typical car requires around 24 kW of power. So, thats 24 kW-hr of energy a day. That's equivalent to using 1000 W of power 24 hrs a day. Car engines are also not as efficient as the gas turbine generators used at many power plants. So spending an hour a day driving uses more resources than one would use leaving about 7 computers on all the time!
I grew up in a 12v DC household.
We had a bank of half a dozen (or more, it varied) old automotive batteries in parallel which were charged by an old (1919) DelcoLite generator whose original 36v coil had been rewired to produce 18v. We ran it below optimal RPM's to get about 14v. It had sat in a field for 30 years used for target practice before we got it and rebuilt it with an air-compressor piston (connecting rod cut and extended with a pair of bolts welded onto it), an aluminum pot with the bottom bashed out of it as an air duct for the head, a Land Rover instrument panel, and an old motorcycle carburetor. We primed it with gas but it actually ran off kerosene.
We could run for about a week between charges until we got solar and then we only cranked up the generator about every 6 months or so when the cloud-cover had been too heavy.
All lights were ordinary 60w bulbs but anything with a motor was either designed for RV's or rewired. (Fridge was kerosene then butane).
All computer equipment was laptops and portable printers (12v or less).
I made a few bucks on the side for quite some time designing 12v adaptors for laptops that took more or less than 12v and making them fit inside in whatever space the manufacturer had left over!
The soldering iron I used for this was a piece of broomstick and a twist of coat-hanger wire holding a real soldering-iron tip which was wrapped in a heating element salvaged from an incubator.
And I really did have to walk/hitch-hike 20 miles to school every day in the pouring rain (or boiling sun)!
But that's another story...
A better approach is the danish electric grid... they allow for particulars to own power generators.
Several groups of people have join in cooperatives to buy wind generators and thrus not only they produce "green" power, but also they have an investment which have a turnover in more or less 5 years... (which in current economic turmoil is not bad).
Cheers...
Linksys PCMCIA 10/100 ethernet card
Power:
5V 260mA, 60mA sleep mode
3V 180mA, 30mA sleep mode
Linksys PCMCIA 802.11b wireless card
Power:
5V or 3.3V
275mA TX, 225mA RX, 20mA standby
Or to put it simply, when operating, the wireless card operates at up to double the power requirements of the wired interface, while giving a maximum of 1/10th the speed. (That's a very optimistic maximum, as well.) There are a few added power drains for wired networks, such as powered hubs and switches, but I'd have to go with the wired net, every time.
Nobody reads the articles, but they do like to look at pictures! Especially screenshots. Sometimes it confuses people when no links to screenshots are posted with Linux kernel releases, but that doesn't happen every day. :)
This may be common geek knowledge but I didnt learn it till a few years ago. All those AC adapters you have (speakers, chargers, etc etc etc) suck up power whenever they are plugged in, even if the device they power is OFF. I always thought I was saving a majority of the energy my computer uses by turning off the monitor. Turns out that those lil bad boys just really SUCK. I am suprised that they dont have some way to well... NOT do that?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
The average household uses an average of 1kw. Of course, it depends on where you are; in California lighting loads are much lower because of local energy codes than (say) the midwest, where seeing 800 watts of lighting for a kitchen wouldn't seem that odd.
So, as a proportion of total usage, 150W is fairly large number, especially if it is continuous, and on PV/batteries.
In Austin, we have coal fired electric plants, and SOME nuclear from Houston, and maybe SOME hydroelectric.
Question: (and I am serious)
Assuming a newish car:
Is the amount of pollution from the used batteries and the electricity generation(including extraction, shipping, and burning) greater or less than the pollution from the refining, shipping, and buring of the gas?
In other words, does anyone have data for the amount of pollution created to create Energy Quantity X when using a gasoline engine vs. a battery/charger system?
Do hybrids do a better job?
Just wondering. I know that the amount of energy in a gallon of gas is quite high, and the energy in the same mass of lead/acid battery is not...
Data makes the debate smart!
These folks can answer all these questions and more where solar (off-the-grid) living is concerned (and then some).
Real Goods
Best of luck!
I'd like to know how much power my applicances are sucking up.
He mentioned the Watts Up? Meter:
http://www.greenculture.com/pr/es.html
Are there any other cheaper/better ways to do it?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Indeed you could... the hard part is storing enough energy for a few hours with small enough loss/expense to to profitable.
:)
There's a plant at the twin lakes resivoir which pumps water uphill at night and generates power during the day.
They have much nicer bathrooms than are avaliable at the nearby national forest campsite, too
--
Benjamin Coates
Rawr
This is kinda cool because I run a wireless ISP at my home and provide internet to people that are off the grid. My father-in-law is using wireless from my feed right now and he is off the grid running on batteries.
The above is not worth reading.
You can replace the Switching ATX power supply in a Desktop computer with a DC-DC model that runs off of 12/24 or -48V DC power. Eliminates the need for an inefficient inverter. After all why convert to AC if all your computer components (sans CRT monitors) are DC anyway. Installed one in a friends motor home and it works well.
Here's a wacky thought that I've not seen mentioned (confession: I didn't read *every* comment). Inverters are not, to mh knowledge, incredibly efficient, nor are the wallwarts often used. So why not wire your house with a minimalistic AC system for what needs it and feed the rest off a ~35V DC bus with DC-DC converters to replace the wallwarts?
35V because that's near the upper limit on some of the cheaper DC-DC converters I've looked at (the actual number needs more investigation). The upper limit instead of [random] because energy distribution loss decreases with voltage. And DC-DCs because they have better than 90% efficiency in many cases without being incredibly expensive. There even exist DC-DCs capable of producing all the voltages needed inside a PC - so why not just rip out the power supply and replace it with a/several DC-DCs? It can't *hurt* efficiency to bypass the inverter/rectifier or inverter/switching-power-supply, can it?
--Knots;
Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
Anyone else here (besides me) live in CA? I have a question.
Would you really consider yourselves ON THE GRID? Even if you are lucky enough not to have an outtage every couple weeks, you're still paying about three-times the price for power.
I'm not a real wholistic guy myself. I'd be just as happy with an article comparing the COST of solar panels, power grid, gasoline and natural gas (and possibly propane) generators. I love the idea of solar panels, and hope their effeciency improves, but I'm not going to waste money on what's available now.
If I thought I could get reliable, and cheap power, I'd personally drill a several miles-deep hole into the earth.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You can put together a VIA EPIA based computer. The 533 MHz chip uses about 2 watts of power. The power supply is rated at about 70 watts. I use the DC-DC power supply. Learn more at mini-itx.com
http://www.etaengineering.com/killawatt.html
$39!
Anyone find anything better?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Get it?
If the government legislated desktop power consumption down to laptop level, they'd stop progess computational power - for about a year, then it would continue exactly as before, by Moore's law. They could do this over several years to cushion things. It would save a zillion barrels of oil but naturally no one worries about such things, the economies doing so well and dot-coms are just flying....
I think the original iMac and iBook had no cooling fans whatsoever, but the new iMac has a fairly quiet cooling fan, as does the new iBook. (The cooling fan in the new iBook comes on only when it is needed.)
The article neglects to mention how using the sleep/standby/hibernate features of modern operating systems can really reduce system startup time. I like how OS X "wakes up" in just a few seconds.
The article also talks about NiCd and NiMH batteries -- I thought that most laptops use Li-Ion batteries these days.
Did you not read the post? Houston in the summer is often 80-90% humidity, with rain every other day (checking weather.com, it's currently 84% humidity, at 2am, despite not having rained in 2 days). It's about as far from an arid climate as you can get without traveling to a rainforest. Condensation is a huge problem, even without a radiant cooling unit. Leaving a glass of ice water on the counter will quickly get you a very large pile of water. I don't see how evaporative cooling could work at all, when the air is so saturated with water vapor that evaporation is an extremely slow process. Certainly it wouldn't be enough to cool a house from 100 down to 80 or so while it's being hit by sunlight.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Man, there are shanties in Rio that had it better than you did.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Recently, although I don't think it's always, they have had an article on how easy it is to convert your existing car to an electric one.
I've spoken to a few people that have done it, and are very happy with the result. They are faster than conventional cars, apparently because the electric motors give more torque. Here is one home conversion that does 100mph and cost £6,000 to convert. Running cost works out at £0.018 per mile.
I'm not likely to blow $20k on solar panels on my roof
Expect prices to drop. There are companies like BP pouring millions into research. Current solar technology is maxing out around 20% effecient, and uses rather nasty substances to make, so the hunt is on for alternative fabrication materials and methods (eg here).
I did, however, convert all my light bulbs to fluorescent
There are new energy efficient light bulbs that run on under 20 watts, are blindingly bright, but best of all now cost less than (afaicr) a couple of quid.
I'm even considering one of those insulating spreads that you wrap around the water heaters.
Essential. Also look out for micro-CHP coming soon (CHP = Combined Heat and Power). CHP is in wide use today in large buildings. Converting electricity to heat or vice versa is very inefficient, and you can get a max of 40% return. By producing both at the same time, you can get 90% return on the energy you put in.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I live in Kona, about 15 minutes from I'm assuming where he lives, and I am surprised he gets enough sun to run anything at all. My house has solar for water and its so cloudy up the mountain most of the time we have to turn the electric water heater on, not to even begin to get enough power to run everything in a household.
Yeah...it would be nice to cripple the U.S. economy with restrictive laws. We just have to keep trying, we'll eventually get it done. We had a nice try with the Kyoto treaty, too bad not enough pressure (read: $$$) was exerted on the U.S. government and ratification failed.
Can I ask, in regards to your sig... neither my IE6 browser (I assume the target of your ridicule), OR Mozilla 1.1 brings up anything when I view said page, or if I go back a level to what I assume is your homepage...
As such... what is that page trying to demonstrate?
Approximately 1 in 10,000 households and businesses in the US get their power from people other than their local government-approved grid. Given a population of 260 million, and assuming that one household or business exists for every 2 people, that's 13000 establishments within the US that aren't giving us money!
Now, since if these people would probably chew through $10,000 per year in electricity. That's $130,000,000 that ends up in other people's pockets!
The sky is falling on this industry and we need laws to prevent this!
Most desktop CPU usage is under 2 percents. Half the CPU Hz would reduce the power consumption to half and you still have the same performance.
get over it america.
Remember! criminal rights should ALWAYS come before the victim's
Anyone know what percent of our national power is used on computers? Should we be thinking wireless on laptops?
Huh?
I would put in a vote for ppc notebooks, for low power. Plus, when your batteries die during the night, you'll know about it but your notebook with then keep running for 2-5 hours depending. ppc desktops are low power too. If you have to use x86, I'm sure Intel and Transmetta can help.
No fancy directional antenna, regardless of how high the Effective Radiated Power, is going to beat the energy efficiency of a cable directed to the other end. : )
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
My Fujitsu lifebook P uses just a couple watts. Plug in an LCD and a keyboard and mouse and it's a damn fine PC
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
If you had an inkling of engineering knowledge, you would implictly understand the stamement. Statistics are bullshit. Details are easy. Mine the raw materials, transport the materials to a place of manufacture, consume energy in the form of heat, work and infrastructure. Add people and ALL the stuff it takes to keep those folks alive. Design the panels, or any product for that matter. Find a design that actually is semi efficient, product that design. Then you have to market the product. Pay off the vested interests that are against the product, in this case the power companies. Add in the resources used by ALL the sub-industries that support the manufacturing effort. The people who design the screws, the extruded parts, the boxes which hold the parts, the transportation to get those parts to the manufacturing facility...the shit goes on and on. You want more details? You should get a decent education, study mechanical engineering, physics, chemistry, and then you may begin to grasp the concepts. I bet you are one of those fools that gives 110 percent every time. Douche bag!
Check out the Television, it does the same thing. Always on so it can be 'instant' on. When was the last time you waited 60 plus seconds for yout CRT to warm up? Not during the last 2o years I'd wager. All transformer using devised do this. Wake up you technoweenies!
Does anyone know of a website that gives a rough estimate of how good alternative energy solutions are for a particular location?
Like with the amount of rain/cloud cover Houston and Seattle get are solar panels even worth it?
Just how windy is my city?
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
It's the lose of efficiency that is the big concern. Every material blocks some of the wavelengths of light that solar panels convert to electricity. The panels already have a fairly low efficiency, so putting anything in front of them just reduces the power you generate. The ISS and Hubble solar arrays are outrageously expensive. They are very close to a money is no object solution. I doubt many people want to spen a few hundred thousand dollars to get their home off the grid. If your going to get "off the grid", it has to be an entire design philosophy. You don't want to just throw up a few panels and forget it. Get as much from natural resources as possible. The problem is that this is not always pleasing to the eye. Passive techniques can save a fortune. Use the sun for heat and the earth to cool. Properly superinsulating can give very tangible paybacks. Having a fresh air heat exchanger and blocking every other air leak you can find does wonders. Buying the "right" appliances can also save a fortune in precious electricity. It all comes down to priorities. Most people would rather buy the $1500 whirlpool tub than get an energy efficient washer and dryer. Or for that matter, dry your clothes outside on a line.
Whats it like to feel like you are morally superior when you actually aren't, on an issue most folks couldn't give two shits about?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
That lives in a 12 volt house. There's no power available where he lives (though phone is there). He also uses a laptop. He has a big bank of batteries that charge with solar cells. No incandescent lighting at all. The other interesting thing is that he can only use a Deskjet for a printer...Laserjets have too much power drain (he uses an inverter for printing). Oh..and he lives on the side of a hill...with a stream running by...which is how he gets his water. The stream provides about 8 PSI pressure...just enough for a shower and the toilet to fill and flush. Water is solar heated (of course).
And I really did have to walk/hitch-hike 20 miles to school every day in the pouring rain (or boiling sun)!
Was this before bicycles?
With all the other energy ingenuity going on at your hours, I would think you could have at least concocted yourself an electric scooter powered by table scraps?
(Mr. Fusion units are easily found in most auto graveyards. Look at early 80s model DeLoreans first.)
I bought one for my house when I moved in 4 years ago. It's real nice to have the heater kick on about an hour before you wake up. Even though we have forced hot air, we're not using a lot of oil (soon gas) to stay warm through the winter.
In some states, the power company will give you an instant rebate on flourescent bulbs, making them pretty darned cheap. They're now putting out a better spectrum of light, making them look more like incandesants. But they still don't work with X10 gear.
I have to say I don't completely agree with that the grid can save much of the energy and that we should all opt for it. Think of how much energy and resources and other resources in turn it costs when one wants to make a solar grid panel. Plus, how do you get rid of it when it for example stops working (breaks apart, etc.)?
IMHO power plants treat the environ much better than we could should we all use the solar grid panels.
You got a oil powered computer?? Your power company certainly isn't running on oil. Coal or Nuclear, get the facts strait dude. Todays laptop does beat the desktop of 3 years ago, but we commonly call 3 year old desktops obsolete. You still dont get the same hard drive performance though, and cdrom is way down there too.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
... which means you can set its energy-saving settings aggressively without worring about losing work or having to wait a long time for it to wake up.
I have a white iBook running OS X, which I only reboot when I install updates that require it. I have *never* had a crash due to failure to wake from sleep (which I've heard is still a problem with Linux and Windows laptops - please correct me if I'm wrong). Its wake from sleep time is typically 2 seconds, and it consumes ~7% of its battery power per day asleep.
At home I have a 466 G4 tower which is our house network gateway/router. Its hard drive and monitor are set to sleep early and often, though not the CPU. I've had trouble with it losing the cable modem connection when it sleeps completely, and dearly hope that 10.2 improves this situation.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Re-do the math. It's true if you only allow a 5 volt drop from the breaker to the 120 volt outlet at full load of say 1800 watts. However a 5 volt drop to a 12 volt 1800 watt appliance (1 tenth the voltage at 10 times the current) does not do the appliance much good even if you are not overheating the wire. Losing 5 volts of 120 is one thing. Losing 5 volts of 12 is entirely diffrent. To keep your loss to say 5% instead of 5 volts, the cross section will need to be more than 10 times bigger cross section. 10 times bigger wire will only maintain your original 5 volt drop at 10 times the current (for the same wattage) but the percentage of power lost is much greater at the lower supply voltage.
The truth shall set you free!
My father recently set up solar in his house and has been looking to convert as much as possible to use solar energy. 12 volt lights are a major part of the plan... they are extremely bright but pull very little amperage.... with the 10 marine grade batteries in his basement he could power all of his indoor and outdoor lighting for at least a week before he needs to recharge.
... it seems to me that all you need is the molex and motherboard connectors wired into some sort of 12 volt plug, something like a car trailer light plug.
/. effect so I couldn't read their solution... seems workable to me. For other things like TVs and home theater we may have to punt and use a power inverter to step up the voltage.... I don't relish tearing apart a stereo system to yank the power supply.
Now he is looking for ways to convert appliances and other systems to run off the solar panel. It occurred to us that it should be relatively simple to power a computer directly off of 12 volt wiring, provided that the circuit can support the amps needed for the machine. Then you would have a quieter computer that doesn't eat power through its transformer
Has anybody tried this? I can't get to the article due to
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
In an off grid home, due to the fact the system mentioned in the article has a rating of 1.2KW, most items on your list of energy hogs are not supported.
In an off grid situation, the stove, water heater, and central heat are not electric. Most off grid homes do have a TV and Microwave. They are simply not on for extended periods. My parents RV is designed to be "off grid" It has 800 watts of panels and a 2 kw inverter with a 60 AH battery. The fridge (7 cu ft) is an energy effecient model. None of the lighting is incandecent. The heating and cooking is all gas except for the microwave. They often will park by a favorite lake somewhere for a week and not have to run a generator. They do have a gas generator for the few dog days of summer to run the AC, but running that is rare due to the high cost of operation.
The truth shall set you free!
I don't even think about the computer equipment...
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
In Texas, you'd be better off staying On-Grid, cause then the electric company would have to pay you if you ever produce more power than you can use. The law was originally intended for Windmills, but if you make the power, they have no choice in buying it.
Your study is saying that a solar panel is a 150% return on investment for energy. If it makes more power than it takes to manufacture it, it sounds like a winner to me! It would seem to make sense to set up a solar-powered solar panel factory in a desert, with convenient access to abundant sun and silicon. Make panels, put them on the roof, and use the power to make more panels. Now that 40% can come from a solar source as well!
I have always wanted to see a similar study on the power required vs. power obtained via oil-- nobody ever seems to take note of the fact that oil has to be found, drilled for, shipped to a refinery, refined, shipped to storage, shipped to a station to dispense, and finally burned in an internal combustion engine with a current maximum tank-to-wheel efficiency of around 16% (http://www.fuelcells.org/fct/benefits.htm) efficiency. (Steam engines are around 40% -- http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node80.html)
Laptops are much more efficient than regular desktops. They are definitely the way to go.
What state is this in? It definately isn't California - where people had to basically sue PG&E to enforce net metering.
The part about being -paid- sounds pretty shakey - here, if you produce more than you use, you donate the power to PG&E...no paycheck, just making some free juice for the Man.
We've got about 2.5 kw of photovoltaic on our roof, courtesy of a local contractor, Sun Utility Network . The local utility (Los Angeles municipally-owned DWP) directly subsidized about half the install cost. That plus some nice state tax benefits, too (no Federal benefits unless you drill an oilwell in your backyard. Thanks, Dubya).
Our average daily consumption went from 12 KwH/day to 4. Our monthly electric bill is now $30, very cheap for CA. We are of course on-grid. What we generate credits against our bill. DWP won't send you a check if your production exceeds your consumption (darn!)
Plus keep in mind that electricity may eventually go to peak-rate pricing, pay more for a Kw used during peak than off-peak. Figure that peak is the same time slot the solar cells work best, mid-day to late afternoon.
That and the satisfaction of sticking it to certain out-of-state power brokers that have been bleeding California to death.
Here's a link to some mirrors that load even when its cloudy...
Our unisolar panels are pretty tough. My solar dealer has another customer who has one that someone shot a bullet through, it still works and is in service still. Modern solar panels are about as tough as any other part of your home. I have two flexible panels, they won't last near as long as the rigid panels, but will produce electricity. they are no more tough than the rigid ones, in fact, I consider them wimpier, just more convenient for like back packing, etc. Do some hands on research to find out. Big hint, they make bullet resistance 'glass" from similar materials that cover panels. I didn't say "proof", but resistant, yes, which means that they will take the odd tree branch falling or hail, seen both here in real life non video gaming meatworld on our panels. and the wiring inside is designed to shunt around bad cells. Again, do some actual research first. A good rule of thum is if your panels suffer catstrophic damage, it will be of a similar nature that would destroy your home. a huge tree falling, or a tornado, etc. Our panels and mounts are rated for over 90mph winds, but the way they are installed I would bet it is double that. I've cleared any trees nearby, so none may fall on them. Extreme act's of God, well, the grid goes down as well, have a back up small system buried/stashed in your storm shelter, along with some other emergency stuff, that's just common sense. Anyone who doesn't have bqckups for their critical apps is a lazy unthi8nking person, and that includes food and water and clothing and some equipment and some 'energy". putting all your eggs in one fragile basket is a no-no for thinking adult humans, IMO.l
-I'm amazed that the the folks who are actually running alternate energy are being ignored and ridiculed on this thread. Last night when I retired I had hopes for the thread, now I see it's arguing about elephant execution methods. I posted a long one last night on how almost anyone who can afford any house can afford solar power, only got a typical foul mouthed troll reply. And I have yet to ever get modded out of zero because I refuse to get a user name account. I've stopped using email for most purposes, and never eat cookies, both security measures that have worked out well for me. I get almost no spam, and I have no spyware on my machine. So, stuck with the label anonymous coward and a constant zero rating, when I just consider it 'safe and smart computing". I've posted any number of decent non troll replies on various topics since I've been coming to slashdot, including on this thread. and here's something I actually have tech knowledge on and been involved with since the late 60's. I'm not a programmer or gamer, so that eliminates at least half the threads I can comment on, but I enjoy reading them anyway. Just fries my grits on alternate energy though, this is probably the 4th alternate energy thread I've posted on here, never get any decent replies except one time from a young guy wanted a little more info which I gave, and gladly, because the tech is so slick. I'm starting to understand the frustration people see with the moderators here, they appear to be childish video gamers primarily, that's their main interest.
Our solar rig can be remotely or on-site administereed with a computer if you choose to go that route. Dang if I'll give any details on it though, let folks on the grid suffer when a few years from now after the middle east collapses into warfare and their energy costs are through the roof, let em find out then, I got mine NOW. Let the gamers stare at their copies of quake and see how much electrical energy they get from it. Let the MP3 pirate collectors stare at their PDA's and see how much food that puts on the table. Let the porn addicts try to squeeze water out of their jpegs.
Does anyone know of another tech board that is primarily visited by actual adults who don't consider video games and mp3's and porn to be the main purposes of computers? I'd love to find such a forum to visit and be a member of, this place is script kiddie masturbating troll city. And "anime"? I am supposed to consider that as a topic for serious discussion?
I know there are some decent adults here, so on the off chance any of you read this, I would respectfully ask for a few links to any intelligent adult moderated tech boards if you know of any.
Thanks in advance
Hello. You may have read a recent post from me about power factor. Here's some more information:
If you plug in a very heavy load device, like a TV / Airconditioner, Hairdryer, vaccuum cleaner, you may notice some noise on your TV screen or Radio. This is caused by CHEAP TVs, etc. They are ALL supposed to have an RFI filter on their powerline, few do. By re-introducting this high frequency noise in to the 120VAC power line, you affect not only your devices, but also your neighbors, and the power companies. The power company, and your neighbor's devices have to dissipate your high frequency noise. In some cases it's not much, in others it's a big deal (like a factory with heavy machinery that uses MOSFET Class D switching amplifers for motors, etc.) Get yourself an RF filter for your MAINS power lines.
Also, Wireless networking, should only emit as much power as it needs, instead of the stupid, but easy to produce: Sleep or Full Power mode.
I'm getting these with my new Kill A Watt that I got at radio shack the other day:
17" Compaq CRT - 83 watts
17" Compaq LCD - 56 watts
My Work PC on but not doing anything - 1 Ghz, some fancy graphics card, 19" LCD - 145 watts
My home PC on but not doing anything - 400Mhz, compaq presario 5032 with 17" CRT - 140 watts
15" imac on but not doing anything - 60 watts
15" imac in idle mode - 4 watts
In short, the 800Mhz imac with monitor on uses the same amount of power as my 400Mhz desktop PC with no monitor. Also, since I have a compaq there is no way to get it out of sleep mode, so that's disabled - the imac also has a larger HD, more ram, runs a hell of a lot quieter, takes a lot less space and the new 17" monitor kicks ass. Guess what I'm replacing my desktop with?
I'm also building a file/web server with a shuttle sv25 bare bones, with a Via C3 processor and some Seagate Barracuda IV hd's for a low wattage, quiet, cool running system. Sweet!
Brad
Enron inspired my wife and I to have a 2.3kW grid-tied solar system installed on our San Jose,CA roof in Feb 2002. We entered a Net Metering contract with PG&E, such that we are only billed once a year, and our electric meter is a time-of-use meter that permits us to be charged less for off-peak usage. Our excess energy is fed onto the grid, thereby running our meter backwards most days during peak billing hours. Most of our consumption is off-peak, therefore we mostly sell energy at a higher billing rate than that at which we buy it back.
We had already installed a setback thermostat, replaced incandescent bulbs with CFL's, replaced a desktop CRT with LCD display and do most food reheating in a microwave. Our desktop is a Mac G4, which uses less energy than an equivalent desktop Pentium due to the nature of the Pentium chip set, and our other computers are Mac laptops, which are very efficient. No wall warts or other gear are left on when unused in our house. [ Note also that with any type of computer gear, all else being equal, the faster the clock rate, the higher the energy consumption, and the more waste heat that has to be dissipated somehow. If you don't like throwing your money away, for any given task use the slowest "suitable" system. No one should ever need 1.4GHz clock and DDR RAM to compose a text message! ]
The net result is that we will likely generate >100% of our electric needs in an average year, despite our electric stove, and using one or more computers and a TV or Stereo every evening. The installation has a 20 year warranty and will pay itself back in 15-20 years, unlike *any* other toy that I've ever purchased. No, it's not for everyone, and you have to take a long view to justify the expense, but it is quite practical in a reasonable climate, particularly if you have a more or less south facing roof.
Art
I always wondered if would be every possible, to transmit electricity wirelessly. So you could charge say a laptop without plugging it in the wall. Now that would be cool and truly wireless!
Don't forget potato clocks!
All organisms produce voltage gradients. That's what mitochondria do and that's how muscles work. I'm sure it would be possible to cook up a scheme to collect electricity from bio-cells, but think of the maintenance! The poor guys could cook in the sun, there'd be leaks to contend with, and what about viruses/mold/bacteria?
Brad
The "ideal" goal of any consumer products manufacture would be to list their device as having the lowest power draw so that you can plug as many of these devices into a single wall outlet. However, there is nothing in the spec preventing a manufacture from placing a higher current DRAW on the rating plate as it does not increase the fire risk to the consumer. OTOH, they must be able to DELIVER the power output on the rating plate. Of course, the more you draw the more likely you'll shorten the life of the product ( and see higher ripple if it's a power supply).
Now that's ideal, the truth about PC power supplies is that most of them are cheep pieces of junk. Unless you are willing to pay several hundred dollars for a 300W AT power supply do expect them to really live up to your expectations.
So, to the point of what your system is using, on average, is probably a small fraction of what is on the rating plates. If you average is even close to half the rating plates I expect that you are going to see high failure rates on consumer products. It's just not designed for that level of average usage. The only real way to measure usage is to measure the usage with a meter. And measuring AC power usage is a whole course in school. The simple answer is to find a quality RMS logger and a good meter, at least a Fluke 83 (probably better), to measure peak usage.
Alas, Linux only supports Advanced Power Management (APM), the obsolete, nearly useless power 'management' mode of old PCs. No support for ACPI. Linux can't hibernate, can't turn off th screen, etc. And I'm sorry, most Linux workstations take far longer than 30 seconds to boot (including POST time!!)
-AC (does it really matter who I am among 300K+??)
It uses much more energy than wired networking.
I can't give you specifics, but my iBook battery lasts half as long when I'm using AirPort networking. Wired networking has no noticeable effect on battery life. Perhaps that's due to some design quirk on Apple's part, but I don't think so.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
When my friends and I started playing around with computers (and hence electronics) in high school, we generally found that computers left on all the time (including monitors) use less electricity than a power saving refrigerator. I'll grant you that this was in the days of 486's and 15" monitors, and a refrigator rates slightly closer to "necessary for survival", but it's still a point to consider.
Now, for those that feel a "need" to own a multi-CPU power hogging system I am reminded of quote from one of my other good computer friends:
Coolness factors, nifty things, and enjoyment, are what life is for. They are the whole reason that the financial bottom line matters at all: so that you will have money for spending on geeky things.
Solar panels are romantic.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You've left out duration-of-use from all these examples, so you've only shown power, not energy, and your conclusion is dead wrong.
150 watts left on all day is 3.6 khw. Typical US home uses around 40 khw/day. Typical California home uses around 20 khw/day. So one computer left on is 9-18% of typical energy use.
Add printer, scanner, usb hub, dsl modem, etc., and it will go up another 5 or 10 percent.
Lights typically aren't left on all day, and in any case incandescent lights spew power. Saying "it's only as much as a lightbulb" means "it's only a huge energy waste".
During last summer's manufactured energy crisis I got a watt-hour meter and measured everything. The biggest losses were to cooling (attic fans) and computers. Computers pulled more than refridgeration, which is frequently listed as the largest consumer after AC. I fixed the attic cooling by improving the passive venting, and fixed the computers by powering them down when not in use. This required putting a hard switch on them (power strip), because most computer devices continue to bleed power even when they're "off".
If you're using AC it's definately more than computers, but that doesn't mean computers use little energy.
If you're trying to lower your AC use, don't forget the attic. Much heat enters through the attic. Many attics overheat because they have black shingles, and inadequate venting and insulation. No amount of insulation is going to do the job if you have black shingles in a really sunny climate. Reflective mylar thermal barrier can help, though.
My 1GHz Laptop (with Gforce2) uses a MAX of 60 watts...thats for screen and everything...If the screen is not on the brightest setting, and the battery is not charging, and you not doing something that requires constant cpu activity, I would imagine it would use tens of watts less...
Also, with a laptop, you could use it for about three hours (or buy two batteries to double time) during times that you can't afford to use power from your preciouse batteries..
Also, maybe there is some way that you could set up a battery or two made only for the laptop...it would be a nice way to regulate how much power you use. Just get some deep cycle marine batteries for it...
Economic efficiency is not the same as energy efficiency. Something can be economically efficient even if it is a losing bargain energy-wise. Consider diamond mining-- a lousy energy investment (i.e., 100% energy loss), but it still makes money.
At each stage of the process, by each group involved (drilling, refining, shipping, gas station etc...) the oil is marked up and sold for more than was paid for it.
I doubt that oil is a negative return on energy invested, but I suspect that a significant portion of the energy obtained is spent in obtaining it, much like manufacturing a solar panel.
Not so massive compared to the insurance costs of fossil fuel fired power plants in case they pollute and kill people, or flooding from hydroelectricity ... oh wait, those things do happen, and you can't buy insurance for things that are pretty much guaranteed to happen.
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
Was this before bicycles?
The farthest I had to walk on any given day was about 2 miles. I'd rather do that and hitch-hike than ride for 20.
(Having a bicycle is a severe handicap when hitchhiking. You can pretty much forget about cars stopping and even a lot of trucks don't want to bother.)
I couldn't agree more.
Nuclear power has been held back by the environmentalist movement due to ignorance and fear. Nuclear power is a viable solution to our energy problem, however, as nuclear energy:
[1] Has enormous energy output, far more than solar, wind and much more per ounce for natural gas/oil/coal-based plants. For all practical purposes, solar and wind-based energy are not effective for producing the energy we need for the population.
[2] Would stop the "clean coal" (an oxymoron) movement; over half of America's energy is coal-based, and coal produces vastly more waste per ounce of fuel than nuclear, some of which contains horrendous toxins such as arsenic, which leak into the water supply daily at the various mines. Keep in mind that every day we use coal to generate our power, we are doing more damage to our environment that nuclear ever would through mining and transportation scarring the landscape, disturbing ecosystems, etc.
[3] Has waste that is more compact and managable than oil, gas, and coal. It can be glassified and stored in corrosion-resistant containers, of which will be endangered only by subduction (a problem solved). This is well-illustrated by the Yucca Mt. repository.
[4] Is more sustainable than any other current solution, as fast-breeder reactors produce more usable fuel than they consume, and can run effectively for thousands of years.
Solar energy is promising, as well as some other energy alternatives. They need more time (fuel cells/effective solar are 50 yrs. down the road), however, before they become viable solutions.
[c0d3fu]: jwjb62@umr.edu || james@macrohub.com
Check out http://www.austinev.org/evalbum.
Tim
You thank "Dubya" for the fact that there are no federal benefits, but does he have anything to do with the situation being like that? Was it like that BEFORE he got in?
As for out-of-state power brokers...they really seem to annoy Californians alot...particularly the "liberal" crowd - and it's funny because their grief is self-inflicted. If everyone wasn't so extremely "NIMBY" about actually building more powerplants in their state, it wouldn't even be an issue. Since they aren't willing to actually have more power production facilities internally...well...WELCOME TO CAPITALISM. Your demand is outstripping your supply...supply more for yourself, or pay for it from elsewhere. Demands come at a price. Clean up your own damn backyard and quite blaming your own broken fucking policies.
What state is this in? It definately isn't California Los Angeles DWP is very happy to do net metering. I've heard SCE will do the same. We are still in the same California, right?
there are advantages of being completely off grid as opposed to generating electricity and using the grid as a backup. for instance, you won't necessarily have to comply with the NEC. well, you still might. but usually the penalty for non compliance is removal from the grid. (assuming they don't condemn the place).. you would also have to worry less about those pesky permits for the same reason... just think of all the stuff you have to do before you can connect to the grid... i can see this as a definite pro for those of us who want to live in our shot gun shacks in the middle of nowhere.. (ps. i'm not being serious)
http://www.neccomp.com/v2/products/PowerMate/eco/
It's based on the Transmeta CPU. I couldn't see a typical power rating, but the PSU is rated around 80 W, including monitor. Looks to be basically a notebook on the desktop.
S.
Unless you buy expensive brand-name (and well-tested) power supplies, with quality components, your average computer power supply will have a high rate of failure if you use even 70% of its rated power for any extended period of time. The 300 W figure is generally the maximum peak power it can spike to, not the maximum power it can sustain for any length of time (i.e. more than maybe 500 milliseconds). So if you blew it out, it just means that you spiked momentarily above 300 W once (or if it was a cheap generic one, maybe even 280 W). It certainly doesn't mean that you sustain over 300 W of power consumption.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In the L.A. area, nearly everyone has air conditioning. And business/offices have ridiculously powerful air conditioning units -- it's not uncommon to have the place at 72 F on a 95 F day.
Simply making all businesses turn their 72 F thermostat up to 78 F would likely save more power than everyone in the entire country switching to "low-power" computers.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I recently heard about the VIA Cyrix processors and am quite impressed with their (lack) of power draw. If your 810-based mobo handles 100Mhz fsb, you can drop one of these chips in for real cheap (~$50) and save more energy than a Celeron (about half, judging from their heat dissipation characteristics.) Unluckily, my linux box's old mobo was 66Mhz fsb (a Celeron CPU) so the Cyrix chip didn't work. (But another $80 and I had a new, low-end mobo that works great, includes video and audio on-board.)
I have, however, found some faults with the Cyrix: I can't watch DVD's (even with a high-end agp video card) and playing the most modern 3-d games can be hit-or-miss (Giants is unplayable, Return to Wolfenstein is semi-unplayable). But web-surfing and mp3 playing is most of what I do anyways...:^)
If you're particularly brave, you should be able to go without a CPU fan (one is included with the CPU)...I don't think there's an intel-style temperature throttle so you might want a thermometer to watch the heat level, but others on the net have said that with proper case ventilation, the CPU can run with just a heat sink (as some of the older PII/Celeron chips can.)
To expand on your ideas, check out these posts:
l d=5&commentsort=0&tid=137&mode=thread&cid=3614 776
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33419&thresho
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I've lived here for a few years, and absolutely every single person I know has air conditioning in their homes. Those with new (less than 15 years old or so) homes have central A/C, and those with old homes mostly have window A/C units (usually in the bedrooms), though a few have retrofitted their houses with central A/C as well. I seriously don't know a single person in the L.A. area without A/C. Perhaps if you're talking about the low-income areas people don't have A/C because they can't afford it, but I haven't heard of people voluntarily not having A/C.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
OC, Pomona, San Bernardino, Riverside, etc. Around here even rather poor people often have a window air conditioner that they use now and then, when they can afford to. Anyone middle-class or richer will have A/C on all the time.
Of course if I lived by the seaside I might not need A/C as much. =]
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10