Standby Electronics a Waste?

A small step in the right direction by Ours · 2006-01-22 21:29 · Score: 2, Informative

When moving from the Americas to Europe I've quickly noticed how TV are different:
In Europe you have to physically push a button to turn them on in stand by mode. Unfortunally I haven't seen many devices (like radios) that work the same way.
But I guess TV was something that almost everyone has and everyone left on stand-by so it was a good choice for a device with mandatory off switch.
Lets hope this practices spread around elsewhere and in other devices. It's a small price to pay (moving you ass to turn it on) for big savings.

--
"You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons

Re:A small step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 21:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I used to have everything on standby. But after a powerbill I decided to add a switch that would cut the power to my projector, VCR, DVD, Radio etc.. And my next bill was actually lesser =) .. Why pay for power when Im not home? I turn on the power to all devices with one switch when I want to use them.. else its all turnedoff.. I save money, and the chance of it all catching fire when Im gone is eliminated =)
Re:A small step in the right direction by wcbarksdale · 2006-01-22 22:11 · Score: 2, Informative

US TV remote controls can turn the TV "on". Of course to do this, the appropriate circuitry to detect the power signal has to be kept running continuously, which isn't free.
Re:A small step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 22:27 · Score: 1, Informative

Er, yes, we call that "Standby". The grandparent poster seems confused by the simple concept of a "power switch" When he talks of "[pushing] a button to turn them on in stand by mode" he's turning the television on. It just happens that most modern televisions power on into standby mode; you then have to press another button to bring the set out of standby. There's no rule to say that once you've finished you can't just put the TV back into stanby again, but most people switch the set back off with the power switch instead.

Televisions with built in digital recievers don't really have a power switch; they're always on standby because the digitial receiver needs to be kept "on" all the time.
Re:A small step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 22:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Just FYI: that's how it is done in Europe, too. The average European thinks a lot more about saving the environment than the average American, but that doesn't mean we don't like the "luxuries" of our times. Most electronic appliances are the same the world over anyway, just with different power supplies for different markets.

Nobody's going to get rid of standby. It's just too damn convenient. We should make a point of designing the appliances to minimize standby power consumption. Too many consumer electronic devices pretend to save power by turning on an "Off" LED while consuming exactly as much as powered on. We have bluetooth headsets on standby for hours on tiny batteries, yet TVs draw several watts waiting for an IR command.
Re:A small step in the right direction by rickb928 · 2006-01-23 02:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Not such a good test. Off is Off. Try leaving the monitor on for 10 hours, in standby. Then see how quickly it comes 'on'. Most CRT monitors leave a low voltage on the CRT filament, to keep it a bit warm, and sometimes a bit of keep-alive voltage in the high-voltage section, tho that isn't so useful today. The other logic and such is easy to start up, so while the filament comes to full temp in perhaps 5 seconds, everything else is alive and well. Flat panel monitors usually don't suffer from the delay in getting the backlight or plasma warmed up and fully on. Another good reason to spend 5x the cash and use 3x the natural resources to buy that HD panel. Go for it! rick

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:A small step in the right direction by jaaronc · 2006-01-23 03:28 · Score: 4, Informative

The amount of energy consumed by the first coil in the transformer (the one plugged into the wall) is proportional to the amount of energy consumed by the second coil (the one with the switch in it). This is because a coil stores energy like a capacitor. There is a finite amount of energy that the coil can store, so when that amount of energy has been stored, the coil will no longer draw a current (this works very much like a switch). When the stored energy is used, (for example, when a current is induced in the second coil), the coil will draw enough of a current to replace it. So, when you turn off the switch on the second coil, the first coil will cease to draw a current (of course, a small amount of energy will be dissapated in the form of heat, since there is no such thing as an ideal conductor). This is why your power company can put several step-down transformers in the power grid as electricity finds it's way from the generation plants to your house, and yet the load on the generation plants varies based upon the amount of power used, not by the number of transformers in the grid.

This is also a good concept to remember in the context of this discussion. A CRT uses a very large electro-magnetic coil. When you first power this coil up, it draws an enormous current (if your house is wired poorly, you will see your lights dim). That energy is not dissipated, however; rather, it is stored in the coil as an electromagnetic field. As that field is used to control the electron ray that generates the image on the screen, the electromagnetic field is consumed, and the coil draws a current (much smaller than the initial current) in order to replace it. When the CRT goes into standby, that electromagnetic field is no longer being consumed, and the only current being drawn represents the energy being dissipated as heat -- the more efficient the design, the lower this current will be. Remember, there is a large amount of energy stored in the coil, and a small amount of energy being consumed. When you switch off the CRT, the circuit of which the coil is a part is broken. When this circuit is broken, the entire electromagnetic field will be dissipated at once as an electromagnetic pulse, wasting all of the energy that it was storing. So, depending on how often you use it, standby may waste less energy that repetedly turning the device on and then off again.
Re:A small step in the right direction by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-23 04:33 · Score: 2, Informative

IIRC, "instant on" in the context of vacuum tubes means keeping the tube heaters running constantly, but not anything else. Since the tube heaters are usually run off of a separate tap on the main power transformer, without any rectification, it's pretty easy to design the system so that they're switched separately. Once they're heated up, you can start using them pretty much immediately.

This also lengthens the life of the tubes, since what kills them is usually related to heating and cooling cycles more than anything else. Some of the longest-lived vacuum tubes you'll find are in applications where they're never turned off. (Someplace on the net I read that the standing record for a single vacuum tube is from the output stage of some VHF TV station's amplifier in California; it ran 24/7 for upwards of a decade. I can't find the link now, though.)

Plus, you get that nice warm glow out of the back of the case when you leave them on at night. :)

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:A small step in the right direction by Clueless+Moron · 2006-01-23 05:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, most of the startup draw in a TV is because of the degaussing coil.
TV's use a thermistor arrangement that results in a coil wound around the CRT sucking gobs of power for about a second on powerup. It's there to give the shadow mask a quick demagnetizing.
You can often hear this as a brief hum that quickly fades away on startup. If you then turn the TV off and quickly on again, the heavy draw and hum won't happen, because the thermistor is still hot.

Any heat is good heat in winter by d99-sbr · 2006-01-22 21:30 · Score: 3, Informative

For us that live in coldish countries, and I'd place Scotland in this group, as long as you have regulated heating, heat from PSUs is just as good as any other heat.

I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve energy, but these kinds of calculations are often off by orders of magnitude.

Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by jerde · 2006-01-22 21:55 · Score: 4, Informative

>These generate minimum amounts of heat when in this mode, but still draws a lot of power.

Not possible! Unless that energy is actually performing some work -- causing motion, facilitating a chemical reaction etc -- ANY power drawn by an electronic device will come right on out as heat.

If a device uses 2 Watts of electricity while on standby, you'd better believe that 2 Watts of heat energy come out of that device. (minus the energy of any photons emitted by light-producing components)

GP is right in that in any environment where energy is being used to keep the room temperature UP, there's really no "waste" by this standby power. Electric heating is usually a bit more expensive than other energy sources, but your vcr on standby at 5 watts is no worse than running a small electric space heater at 5 watts.

The real problem comes in cases where energy is being used to COOL a space -- in any hot part of the country, or in data centers etc. In THOSE cases, you'd want to eliminate ANY power waste, since you're paying for that heat twice -- once for the energy that's producing the waste heat, and a second time for the cooling equipment to REMOVE that heat.

I don't mind leaving any/all lights on in my house during the winter. But during hot summers, I look at each 100W light bulb as an evil source of dastardly HEAT.

- Peter

--
INsigNIFICANT
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by cowbutt · 2006-01-22 22:19 · Score: 2, Informative

For us that live in coldish countries, and I'd place Scotland in this group, as long as you have regulated heating, heat from PSUs is just as good as any other heat.
Sort of: electricity is currently (ha!) about four times more expensive per kWh than gas in the UK. Presumably this is down to a) conversion losses at the power station b) transmission losses c) value - electricity can be used for more purposes in a typical home than gas. If you're heating your home with electricity, you're effectively doing chemical->thermal->[kinetic->]electricity->thermal , rather than just chemical->thermal, and the overall energy efficiency will be accordingly lower.
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by 1u3hr · 2006-01-22 22:35 · Score: 2, Informative

When I lived in Australia, my host had an aircon constantly blasting...When I suggested he insulate the house to save money and energy, he said "No no, it is much to hot in summer here!" I tried to explain that insulating a house is like a thermos. It can keep your chocolate warm in winter, or your chilled drinks cold in summer. He remained sceptical.
Where was that? In Victoria certainly almost all houses are insulated. It gets pretty hot in summer too; over 40C, and close to freezing (though never snow in the cities) in winter. Don't generalise from one idiot.
Victorian govt: insulation info.
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by ArsenneLupin · 2006-01-22 23:24 · Score: 2, Informative

that flap around the room
Wouldn't that also heat the room ;-)?
The angels would need to fly outside and flap there for the heat to be completely lost.
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 23:30 · Score: 1, Informative

What amazes me as a Swede is that all Anglo-saxon countries I've been to build so incredibly flimsy and energy-inefficient houses. England..

I don't know about the rest, but every house I've lived in here in the UK could never be described as flimsy. Most houses built since the 1950's have a two-skin outer wall, with brick or rendered concrete block on the outer wall and plastered concrete block on the inner wall. There is an air-gap between the outer & inner wall, and in newer houses (Since the 80's) this gap is usually insulated with 3-4 inches of solid foam insulation. Older houses can have insulation blown into the air gap.

Any house built since the 1960's will have some sort of loft insulation. It is usually inadequate, but newer building regulations have increased the mimimum insulation values for new houses to a semi-sane level.

Almost every single house in the UK now has double-glazed windows. Either as-standard in new builds are retrofited in older houses. It's the #1 thing to do to improve your house price.

The only flimsy part of a new house in the UK may be the inside walls, which in most houses built since the 1980's are stud partitions covered with plaster board.
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by famebait · 2006-01-23 00:07 · Score: 2, Informative

heat from PSUs is just as good as any other heat.

This is only true if it is a season and a time of day when you would normally have the heating on, and you normally heat your house with electricity only.

Heating with electricity generated from fossil fuels is ridiculously wasteful in any case. Burning them locally with a modern heating system
is radically more efficient.

--
sudo ergo sum
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by Roger_Wilco · 2006-01-23 02:39 · Score: 2, Informative

It has entirely to do with the mild winters. I'm from Ottawa, in Canada, and there houses are generally extremely well insulated. Everybody has (at least) double glazed windows.
I'm currently living in Boston. Here it's much milder. Many places still have double glazed windows, but they're not ubiquitous. Until recently our windows were sufficiently old and rotten that there was a gap around the edge big enough for a finger. (Since heating is central, so heating costs affect the landlord directly, they replaced the windows last year as oil prices rose.)
Visiting southern England a few years ago, I was amused to see that essentially nobody had double-glazed windows. People don't want to spend much on renovations, so they get insulation which is "adequate", ignoring that spending more would be cheaper in the long run once you consider the cost of heat.

Re:the entire population of Glasgow... by blackraven14250 · 2006-01-22 21:32 · Score: 3, Informative

616000 people is alot to fly. Think about it. That's 290 people per plane on 767's, or about 210 planes.

Re:Tell me exactly... by Ihlosi · 2006-01-22 22:02 · Score: 2, Informative

What on earth could they be doing that needs to draw that much power?

Cheap circuitry. Of course you can get standby power down to below 1 W, but then you'd have to spend a few extra cents or bucks on the electronics. Since most consumers don't care (or know about) standby mode power consumption, the more profitable choice is to use the cheap design and let the consumer pay for it through higher electric bills.

Re:I'm sorry, what about the US??? by Aqua+OS+X · 2006-01-22 22:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Err... the article didn't say that.

The data was gathered in the UK and therefore the conclusions were specifically pertinent to the UK, although applicable to the US.

--
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"

Re:Tell me exactly... by Rothron+the+Wise · 2006-01-22 22:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Yet when I just checked the specs on my monitors, one is 3-10W in standby mode, and the other doesn't even bother listing power consumption in standby mode. I don't get it. What on earth could they be doing that needs to draw that much power?

Heating the electron gun. It has to be heated to get the electrons moving. This is why it takes
longer for the image to appear on the monitor when it's switched on cold.

LCDs are better here, but they often have a transformer which eats a fair amount of power even when the screen is switched off.

--
A witty .sig proves nothing

Re:Convenience by borggraefe · 2006-01-22 22:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Really, the only way you are going to stop this problem is by switching off everything at the wall.

No, you can also use remotely controllable power sockets. This way you can completely turn off your devices via a remote control. I have plugged all my home media devices to one of these and thus can turn them completely off very conveniently.

These power sockets are already pretty popular here in Germany.

Here's a picture:
http://www.pro-markt.de/02angebote/angebote.asp?ar ea=1&cat=3&Prod=2080

I don't know where you can buy them in the US.

Stefan

Re:Somebody crack the heads together of the eco-nu by Ihlosi · 2006-01-22 22:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Acceptable solution: turn the damn TV off.

Assuming you can actually do that. Often enough, manufacturers are too cheap to put in a switch that completely separates the internal circuitry from the power outlet. The result is that the thing even draws power when it is "off" (not standby, but off). The only solution is an external switch.

Re:Apple's Sleep Mode on Macs, A Question. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 23:02 · Score: 1, Informative

Its called Safe Sleep.

I followed these instructions:

http://www.andrewescobar.com/archive/2005/11/11/ho w-to-safe-sleep-your-mac/

Now I can 'boot up' and be surfing in about 30 seconds.

All computers should do this.

Re:Apple's Sleep Mode on Macs, A Question. by thogard · 2006-01-22 23:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Got an Amp meter? Find out.

If the the imac is like my mini-mac, then keeping it in sleep mode for a few hours saves more power than the extra power required for a full boot. I don't know the cutoff time but I expect if your going to leave it all weekend, then off is the best option but if you check it several times a day and its only idle 8 or so hours while you sleep, then keep it in sleep mode.

I've been looking for ways to replace as much of the "on all the time" junk with smaller more efficient systems. While it would be nice to keep the email server local, moving it to the cohosted server thats on all the time anyway makes lots of sense.

You can also use wake-on-lan on some systems to kick start them when they need to wake up. The real trick with that is keeping all the garbage traffic away from them while having something that can watch the lan for traffic and kickstart the bigger box.

Re:Don't lie by raju1kabir · 2006-01-22 23:14 · Score: 4, Informative

You've never even been in Europe. Had you ever been there, you would've known TV's operate no differently in Europe than they do in the U.S.

US TV: "Power" button on the TV itself and the one on the remote do exactly the same thing: switch between "on" and "standby". The only way to get it off is to unplug the mains cord.

European TV: Power button on the TV requires some finger pressure and physically disconnects the power, leaving the remote impotent. The "power" button on the remote only puts it into standby.

Of course there are exceptions but this has typically been the situation with my and my family's relatively modern CRT TVs on both continents.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

Re:Tell me exactly... by squoozer · 2006-01-22 23:44 · Score: 4, Informative

I know this might sound a little strange but I actually looked into getting a pre-pay meter installed so that I could find out how much leccy was costing me. I couldn't believe the cost of it though. You have to pay for the meter (if you want one installed by request), electricity costs more and you have the hassle of getting the card charged up.

I think it is absolutely stupid that we make the people that can least afford it pay the most for electricity.

--
I used to have a better sig but it broke.

Re:Don't lie by Gordonjcp · 2006-01-23 00:17 · Score: 2, Informative

US TV: "Power" button on the TV itself and the one on the remote do exactly the same thing: switch between "on" and "standby". The only way to get it off is to unplug the mains cord.

That would be illegal in the UK and EU. It wouldn't meet the safety requirements.

As an aside, I had a TV that could be switched off from the remote - actually entirely off - but not on. The on/off switch had a solenoid on it. When you triggered the solenoid, it let go the power button, turning the set off. Big mid-80s Decca, iirc. Probably a Ferguson/BRC chassis of some sort.

Re:Has anybody thought of or mentioned... by DrXym · 2006-01-23 00:26 · Score: 4, Informative

All the lights are on in every aisle. What's the point of that?

None. Motion activated sensors would know if someone is in there who shouldn't be. I expect that local government could slash energy consumption by enforcing some kind of "out of hours" energy tax aimed at lights, computers etc. being left on over night. Companies would certainly enforce a turn off policy if it was hitting them in the wallet.

Have you considered blown-in insulation? by dschuetz · 2006-01-23 01:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Whenever I have done any interior work that involves exposing the frame I have insulated that bit, but it's very patchy.

Here in the states, we have "blown-in" insulation. They simply drill a small hole (maybe 3/4" or so) in your wall, and blow little flecks of insulation into it. Actally, I think they drill two holes, one low and one high, and when they see the insulation pasing the top hole they know the cavity has been filled. Because there are studs every 16" or so, they have to do this many times across the wall, but that's not that big a deal.

They also sometimes use expanding foam insulation instead of flecks/pellets, but the approach is the same.

At any rate, this is a fairly easy way to insulate old homes without tearing apart all the walls...might work for you.

(and, btw, as much as the US [seems to be] better than Australia as far as longer use of good insulation codes, I'm still amazed at how incredibly well German homes are built. Ours are all wood and siding, the German homes are all like brick and concrete. Crazy, considering we've got a whole lot more tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes than Europe has...)

Re:This lazy article is meaningless by Ihlosi · 2006-01-23 03:55 · Score: 4, Informative

And in any case, it is wrong to say kWh per year. Kilowatts per hour, per year?

No. kWh is NOT Kilowatts per hour, it's Kilowatts times hours, aka Kilowatt-hours.

On top of that, kWh/yr isn't wrong at all, it is merely an equivalent to Watts that makes it easier to calculate how much money (power companies usually charge by the kWh) is wasted by the device over the course of one year.

Re:Tell me exactly... by camperslo · 2006-01-23 03:58 · Score: 4, Informative

There are tons of devices on standby right now. They just don't ever bother to tell you, so you THINK it's off.

That's for sure. And there are even more devices where it isn't even standby - they're wasting power when "off" while providing no added functionality at all.

Anything with an A.C. adaptor feeding it is generally wasting power all of the time it is off. Switching designs help, but most adaptors have transformer core losses being fed all the time. I've found the same thing internally in some devices. Looking around the house, I found that my soldering stations and a table radio had the power switches wired after the transformer. Some things that have transformers or whole power supplies live all the time include doorbells, thermostats, garage door openers, VCRs, CD/DVD players, cable/satellite boxes, printers, and cable/DSL/dialup modems. I remember the shock at discovering that my old electric toothbrush had a stand with a field coil powered all the time. The coil was the powered portion of a motor to wind a spring in the hand-held unit.

Contrary to what the article says, cable boxes could be designed in a way where they could be shut down. The boxes could designed to handle revalidation only when a box is on. Data when off could be retained by a small amount of CMOS memory and a capacitor, or by using flash memory. Switching on the main power supply could be done by passing power for devices it feeds signal to through the box, and sensing load current to trigger starting the power supply. I don't think we should be paying for energy just to make someone's DRM work.

Devices with timers could be designed to run from charged capacitors. Small half-Farad capacitors are available. Some devices use lithium batteries, but I prefer to avoid those since they're toxic waste later.
I reduced the power consumption of an old L.E.D. digital alarm clock from 8 Watts to 1.2 Watts by replacing the transformer with a capacitive voltage divider, and eliminating the series-pass regulator by using S.C.R.s in place of two of the diodes in the bridge rectifier and controlling those. That savings was enough to power a bedroom color t.v. 2 hours a day.

I'd like to see someone design a cordless phone that was efficient enough to get by with powering the base unit from the phone line. They could at least use a switching supply for the base unit. Few people really need to have their microwave ovens programmed in advance to come on at a certain time. For years I kept my old microwave with a rotary knob mechanical timer. That oven didn't use any power when off. Most U.P.S.es could be designed to use less power once the battery is charged - they'd probably get better battery life too.

Devices that are powered all the time are at a greater risk of being fried by line surges.

On my old computer I wired an outlet box to the switched monitor power outlet. Then things like my modem and amplified speakers would have the power cut when the machine was off. If the machine had been designed to control that outlet in sleep mode, consumption could be cut even more. Having those items powered from the computers switching supply instead of transformers would save even more.

Sometimes when shopping I ask salespeople how many kilowatt hours per year a product uses when turned off. It's entertaining to see the weird looks I get. If a few more of us asked suppliers about these things it might speed design changes. Designers need to be educated about the need for reduced consumption also. Sometimes it seems like many don't worry about it except when too much heat is produced.

Consumers tend not to think of low power leeches as costing anything, but it adds up over the life of a product. Where I am it runs about $1 (U.S.) per month for every 10 Watts used continuously. In hot climates where air conditioning is used, waste costs are compounded with those to remove the waste heat from these devices.

Re:A Small Step In The Wrong Direction by Shihar · 2006-01-23 05:09 · Score: 2, Informative

They persuade people to buy food that doesn't have to be flown from New Zealand to get to their plates.

Dude, I have been the UK. There is a damn good reason why all of your food is shipped in from New Zealand. When talking about the environment you need to be reasonable. Buy an efficient car, trying to use public transportation, cutting down on energy consumption, and recycling? All are reasonable. Having to eat native British food every single day for the rest of your life? Put a gun to my fucking head and paint the wall with my brains. There is environmentalism and then eco-terrorist-genocidal-lunatic. Advocating eating British food on a regular basis without a doubt fits in the later category.

Take reasonable steps to save the environment, but really people, you need to learn to draw the line. There are just some prices that we as a species can not afford to pay.

Re:A Small Step In The Wrong Direction by tfried · 2006-01-23 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

all the cars in uk produce 1 tenth the emissions all the airflights in the UK produce

Don't know, whether you have any specific emissions in mind, but I'd call this statement plain wrong. Currently total airflight energy use is about a quarter of total car traffic energy use (but admittedly airflight is growing at an alarming rate). Airplanes produce more emissions per distance, and also some particularily nasty types of pollution (water vapor in high altitudes, for instance, is a greenhouse factor), but it's not anywhere near surpassing car traffic in total, yet. (energy consumption in the UK. See page 14)

On standy: Yes, in many cases it makes life easier. However there is no wrong at all in 1) informing people that standby power usage is non-zero. Note that in some cases of bad design it's even quite considerable. Some inkjet printers use 15 Watts in standby - what for? 2) Pressure manufactures to make full-power-off reasonably easy.

Yes, there are areas other than standby, where (greater) amounts of energy can be saved. But also in many, many, many cases, summing up to hundreds or even thousands of megawatts, standby is just plain useless. Standby for a TV - ok, nice feature to have, if you like. Standby for a PC / printer / CD-/DVD-player? Heck, I'm typically right in front of those, when I want to start using them. What do I need standby for? Provide me with the option, fine, but give me an easy opportunity to switch them off fully, if only to reduce the risk of fire, or the damage done if lightning strikes nearby.

Mod parent up! by raygundan · 2006-01-24 07:17 · Score: 2, Informative

This is a much more coherent and accurate explanation than the grandparent. Shame it's posted AC, since nobody will ever find it and read it.

35 of 751 comments (clear)