Slashdot Mirror
Efficient Power Supply Contest
A reader writes: "In the June (paper) issue of Scientific American, there is a mini-article descibing the energy being wasted by power supplies in computers. Those things are only 60-70% efficient in converting line-voltage AC to low-voltage DC, and there are so many millions of them out there that a modest efficiency increase could trim $1billion or more from the annual energy costs of the USA. Well, various governmental agencies are seeking to get improved power-supply efficiency into the marketplace. The central "clearinghouse" site is at efficientpowersupplies.org, and details of their contest are in this PDF."
You can also check out power supply reviews on Silent PC Review. They concern themselves with efficiency since an efficient power supply can be quieter and produce less heat.
The site also has a lot of other good info.
Energy costs at a company I worked for in SiValley were becoming such a factor that they dropped the use of all CRT monitors and towers in the work place. They switched us all to thinkpads. Now, on a small level this is very inefficient, but from a large perspective, I am assuming the energy cost savings would be enormous. My tower/crt costs me at least $25+ per month at home. I could easily lease a lowlevel laptop for that.
Aj
GroupShares.com A free and interactive stock market community. It is just getting started so check it out!
-------
artlu.net
Great idea! There are so many things that we keep doing in a wasteful and inelegant way just because it's "good enough" (or at least was in the past -- when things get wider distribution, problems are magnified).
Power supplies are a good example, as are cars (so much wasted energy -- hybrids are better in that regard, though, like in converting braking energy into electrical energy that can be re-used later to help the engine when it's at its most inefficient RPM levels).
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
especially since i use several UPSes which add another layer of inefficiency.
i want an efficient AC to DC UPS which connects directly to a DC powersupply for my box(en).
that would rock.
don't get me started on an entire DC house running off of a fuel cell and/or wind/water generators. woot!
Also one should take into consideration someone using a 500W is only getting 350 at 70% effecient. If you had a PS that was 90%, you would only need a 400W.
Now that you have a smaller PS, you might could drop a fan or two. This now decreases your power load on your new 400W.
Savings on effeciency == savings everywhere
Switching supplies can approach 90% efficiency if they are carefully built. Such supplies will cost more, naturally, but an improvement from 60% to 90% efficiency will save you the extra cost over the course of a year or so. And, of course, you can feel better that you are contributing slightly less to carbon dioxide emissions.
How much extra spent on power supplies? High efficiency, high-current (500W+, where PC supplies are headed) are not cheap to produce.
It would be far better if government worked to reduce the amount of petroleum being consumed through initiatives to encourage telecommuting, locating companies in locations that don't require commuting in the first place, and research into fuel cells and hybrid vehicles.
..don't panic
What if the same idea where applied to computers. Right next to the standard wall outlet would be a world standardized jack with six or eight pins for each of the required voltages.
Low voltage computer mains would make UPS systems less complicated too.
I've even heard of vendors who make telco friendly rackmount PC's that take 48v DC mains.
This is a boring sig
by switching from energy guzzling CRTs to cool power efficient flat screens. I went from a 19" CRT at 350w to a 19" flat screen at 50w quite painlessly.
I doubt you could achieve that kind of savings no matter how power efficient you made the PS.
Reminds me of the one about the Canadian Government buildings being determined to cost $200 a year per sq ft to maintain, so they replaced the CRTs with LCDs because they used less space, and therefore would cost less to maintain.
*sigh*
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
In short, there is almost NO reason to not use those fluorescent bulbs and it would result in a far greater amount of energy savings right now...
[wallwarts with the load unplugged] are still converting even though it's more efficient than normal since there is smaller load.
Actually, they're LESS efficient than normal. With no load, ALL the power they consume is wasted - efficience is 0%. B-)
Now the total AMOUNT of waste IS typically lower. But it's not trivial. Even the lowest tech wallwart burns power heating copper in the transformer and making up leakage in the capacitors. If it has a switching regulator it's also burning a bunch of power keeping that alive. And a voltage-flattening/capacitor-discharging resistor actually INCREASES the amount of power wasted in the wart when the load is gone (by eating some of the power that WOULD have gone into the load).
So why waste ANY by leaving the wart plugged in?
You can guesstimate the power by feeling the wart when it's been sitting there with no load for a while. The hotter, the more waste.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm a professional engineer, and have done several designs of switchers that were better than 95% efficient. But they cost more to make, so dream on, it's not going to happen in the mainstream with out some sort of mandate. The tricks are simple, better inductors (cost more for bigger copper and more ferrite), synchronous rectification (fet and drive costs more than a diode), taking care to be clever about quiescent currents (more engineering time) and so forth.
Doug Coulter, owner
C-Lab
http://clab.mystarband.net
Switching supplies can approach 90% efficiency if they are carefully built.
A downside of high efficiency is that the energy lost to heating is a tiny fraction of the energy handled. When certain components start to fail they can increase their losses - and this increases the heating. The higher the overall efficiency, the greater the extra heating is as a percentage of the NORMAL heating.
If this is not taken into account in the design of the supply (and its cooling budget), the supply may be prone to thermal runaway and catastrophic failures as components age.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That maybe the case, but it doesn't change the basic logic. If a 500W is 70% effecient, then it is pulling in 715W. If 500W is what you need, then at 90%, you now only need a PS that pulls 555W. Dropping almost 200W from your input, decreases your heat, decreases your fan requirement, decreases your output (and therefore input) requirement. See?
You're way off. In 1994, the U.S. alone produced over 1.3 billions tons of carbon (not CO2, just carbon; the CO2 weighs even more than that).
while about 500 million tons were produced by natural causes.
Natural causes do not "produce" CO2. They merely recycle carbon. The CO2 emissions of living organisms have no net effect on the global carbon balance, because all they are doing is moving it around, from the atmosphere into the biosphere and back again.
It is true that methane emissions from cows are an issue. This is because methane is many, many times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat. But the net amount of carbon still remains the same.
All the 'inefficiency' in your computer gets emitted as heat, noise, RF or light.
Ultimately, most of the non-heat forms of energy loss get turned into heat in the surroundings when they get absorbed by something, like a wall.
So if you are trying to maintain your house at a higher temperature than it is outside, then all the lost energy from your computer goes to do useful work heating your surroundings. Hence a 100% power efficient computer.
Now if we could efficiently generate electricity, we might have an efficient total system. I don't see that happening soon.
Evil people are out to get you.
It is a popular Slashdot cliché that small, weakly administered sites use desktop PIII systems with IIS, with the Windows 2000 Server install disc titled in felt pen, on the corporate DSL line and in the same room as the Coke machine and copier.
To no small degree that cliché is based upon a grain of truth. I've seen those sites. It is also true that such sites are not the exclusively Microsoft. But the parent of your post knows his audience and isn't ashamed to go for the easy performance.
This is a boring sig
1) Because the whole electronics industry has already been built up on electronics based on DC supplies, all chips, the circuits learned in EE class for common functions, etc.
2) The semiconductor technology that 98% of our electronics know-how is based on operates on low voltages, so you'd have to convert the higher 120-220-400 line and transmission voltages to low voltages anyways.
3) Most electronic active components in our current technology (semiconductors, even tubes), are asymmetric with regards to polarity and do not have "friendly" characteristics with truly bipolar (AC) signals and supplies.
4) Much of electronics can be viewed as tasks in signal processing, particularly signals that vary in time. AC power is itself electrical power that varies in time (e.g. 50-60hz). Therefore using AC as a supply into circuit would inherent introduce a LARGE signal on top of any signals you were actually interested in.
5) Batteries are inherently DC sources, so making circuits that can run of both batteries and an AC power source would be more complicated if the circuit required AC to run (you'd have to build the equivalent of a DC->AC inverter which is considerably more difficult than a AC->DC power supply, and doing so would waste battery power (inefficiencies in conversion), which is much more precious in most applications than wasting power originating from an AC powerline source.
That's not a totally inane rational.
Each worker needs a minimum amount of space to get their work done. My two old CRTs took up my entire desk, requiring me to have another desk in order to do any work that required paper. The new LCDs have freed enough space on my desk that I can use it for both purposes. This would allow them to mandate removal of my other desk and reduction in size of my cubbyhole.
If everyone's space needs can be reduced by a few square feet, we can pack in more people without the current occupants feeling more squished. Alternatively, we can improve the working environment for cramped people without actually investing in new office space.
Thus if I save 2 square feet at $200 per foot, I can actually justify spending $400 on a new monitor. I can spend more on monitors for workers in space limited work areas.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
No, your question and your understanding was valid. The power rating on a power supply states what maximum power the supply can deliver to its load. The actual power consumed *from* the power supply is solely a function of the load attached to it (i.e. the "computer" components it runs). The actual power consumed *from* the wall outlet is the sum of the power consumed by the power supply's load (i.e. the computer components) plus the extra power consumed by the power supply (i.e. the waste) which is directly proportional to the power supply's efficiency.
WarriorPoet42 got it right the second time around - but this did not make your question "stupid."
BY THE WAY: Just because you have a 400W power supply in your PC does NOT mean you are consuming 400W of power from the AC outlet. If you put an older (slower) CPU/mobo with no expansion cards, and run, say, a modern low-power hard drive, etc., the LOAD presented to the 400W power supply will be much lower. Think about it. Small form factor PCs are often built with 150W power supplies. This means that the components NEVER consume more than 150W, and probably seldom if ever hit that peak.
A side-effect of this is that the power supply efficiency does not necessarily always *waste* its ratedpower-minus-(1-minus-efficiency).
(whaatt??) Let's say:
R is the power supply's rated power.
E is its efficiency expressed as a fraction of 1 (i.e. 90% efficiency is expressed as 0.9)
So, a 400W (R=400) power supply with 80% (E=0.8) efficiency will *waste* 400*(1.0 - 0.8) 80 watts of power. But ONLY if the LOAD is drawing the full 400 watts of power!
Now let's say we have a 400W power supply with 80% efficiency, but the computer components only draw 180W of power. Let's use C to represent the power draw of the computer, so C=180. Now, just substitute C for R and you get:
C*(1-E) = 180*(1.0 - 0.8) = 36W. This is what you are REALLY losing due to power supply inefficiency.
Note: A switching power supply will have some minimal losses even if there is NO load attached to it. These are small compared to the efficiency losses in normal operation, so for practical purposes may be ignored. You could add a constant (say, K) to the equations above to account for this static power loss in the power supply, but K would be small, when compared to C, so has little effect on the math....