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.
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
Hree is groogle's cash of teh event!
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
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.
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).
The bit about electron pileup is a single most idiotic statement I have ever heard. What the fuck are you talking about?
The reason we use AC instead of DC is because you can use transformers to change the voltage easily. Power is transmitted better at very high voltages because of ohm's law (higher voltage = lower current = less power converted to heat in the wires; heat dissipated equals current times wire resistance).
It is very difficult to change DC voltages when you have large currents involved. AC is also more suited to running things like motors (AC induction motors are far better than DC motors - quiet, reliable).
I'm a big proponent of Solar energy, but come on. Payed off in two years and NETTING $300/month in payback? MAYBE if you include the energy they use in that figure, and if that is quite a stretch.
However yes, many locales do have this sort of net metering set up. You have to demonstrate that you can do it safely but it's just common enough that even utilities up here in Maine have policies on it.
It's the law. The utility has to buy power back from you.
AC is much better for distributing power, thats why Edison lost.
No, high voltage is much better for distributing power. Changing voltages used to be much harder with DC. It may still be for really high currents and voltages, I dunno.
The savings at high voltage are just a matter of V=I*R & Power=VI
VI=I^2*R
So if you want to minimize the power lost over a transmission line you want to make the current(I) as small as possible, but you still want to transmit a lot of power so you raise the voltage. Once you the electricity near conducting stuff you want to minimize the voltage so that it is less likely to arc and jump through another conductor, esp if said conductor is a person or pet.
With AC it's easy to make transformers that are 99.99% efficient, so you can have all these gradiations of voltage for different levels of safety and effeciency. (Easy but these things are still big. Not your average wall wart.)
Switching transformers are used on things like your laptop, but not your average 802.11b AP. Those use a conventional wall wart and a very inefficient voltage regulator to get the voltage to exactly 3.3V or 5V or whatever. Even those laptop transformers aren't that efficient, though definately lighter and probably cheaper than the equivalent conventional transformer.
A housewide transformer with 5V, 6V, 7.5V & 12V leads might or might not be more efficient, but I'd love it for the conveniance and clutter avoidance potential. Something like open feeds along the wall that you could just snap your device cord to. Maybe made out of some high tension wire like they hang those halogen lamps from sometimes. It could be really slick. It would only need five wires for all those voltages, and you could even make a +/- 6V supply for your electronics projects using the 0, 6 & 12 Volt leads... You also get a 1V, 1.5V, 2.5V, 4.5V and 7V out of those, maybe 2 of those are useful for battery replacement devices. Maybe a 9V lead would be useful too, that would get you the rest of the 12 V battery voltages.
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.
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
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;
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
Also, high-quality wall warts (oxymoron, I know) should not waste much power. The power waste is due to eddy currents and other leakage currents within the poorly-made transformer
No, the power loss is not due to the transformer so much as the diodes in the rectifier (to convert AC into DC) the resistors to make sure the current is correct, and the capacitors used to clean up the dirty DC signal created by the rectifier.
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!
Edison was asked what was the best way to kill someone, and he had suggested AC current because he wanted to get an edge on his competitors over at Westinghouse who were pimping AC current. This is literally where the electric chair came from. Nige guy, huh?
The good news is that his bid lost out, however we still fry criminals because of Edison's recomendataion regarding the lethality of alternating current.
Actually, Topsy was due for an execution by hanging (she had killed three people in as many years), but there was public concern over the inhumanity of hanging her. Edison stepped up to the plate with the intent of a) making AC power appear dangerous, and b) demonstrating the effectiveness of electrocution as a painless form of execution.
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
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!
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.
Same for running low on battery power. You can safely run the battery to exhaustion, then go find an outlet, plug in and hit the boot button. The machine will come back up exactly where it went down, all applications still running, without missing a keystroke. No lie.
And, the white iBook is *tough*. I've dropped it off a table onto an indoor/outdoor carpeted floor. The CDROM door popped open, but no crash or other permanent damage.
These features are what Apple should be hyping, not the "megahertz myth".
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.