Slashdot Mirror
Standby Electronics a Waste?
gnunick writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that UK citizens waste quite a bit of electricity each year by leaving electronic gadgets on standby or charging. Critics are arguing that standby mode on electronics are completely unnecessary and should be removed for a number of reasons. From the article: "To put it another way, the entire population of Glasgow could fly to New York and back again and the resulting emissions would still be less than that from devices left in sleep mode."
I remember my first exposure to "standby". An HP laserjet 4L I bought in 1995 -- it didn't have an off button. That bothered me so much I bought one of those undermonitor powerbars with switches on the front so I could turn the darn thing off. Since then, more and more things have come out that can't be shut off and I've sort of accepted "standby" now
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Really, the only way you are going to stop this problem is by switching off everything at the wall.
I suspect actually that what is being angled for here is either UK or European legislation that would prohibit equipment from having a standby button, and mandates hard on/off switches. Personally, I am sufficiently concerned by global warming to support such a move though I'm a a pretty big offender when it comes to leaving the TV on standby.
Transformers are equally culpable of silently sipping power.
I've read that 10% of a households energy use is from transformers.
That they use power is obvious if you look at the electrical diagram -- the things have a loop through which current travels. There is some waste power that gets lost.
Do we all go around the house unplugging our transformers, to stop from using power? I doubt it.
I figure that my electronic devices, with their "waste heat" are actually heating my place. I don't see that as a bad thing -- I want the heat.
If, on the other hand, I had to run AC to cool down the building, then I'd be peeved at them sucking up power.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
It would be trivial to have a (rechargeable) backup battery in the device that powers the, well, powerswitch. You could even use a normally-closed relay, so that when the battery powers down, the device powers up, stealthily enters sleep mode just to recharge the battery, and the shuts down; though that would cost more energy and doesn't make much sense (why have a sleep mode at all on devices that are switched off for months at end?). Mobile phones don't power down by being unplugged and they do fine springing to life at the touch of a button.
The main reason sleep mode sucks though is that by its increasing ubiquitousness, it's pushing away good old circuit breakers to where you can't find them. Plenty of PC cases only have the soft-off button connected to the BIOS, and the only way to break the circuit is to remove the powerplug from the socket (which incidentally is just great for repair and maintenance, since now you've also removed the ground circuit). Many TVs have thoroughly hidden actual-off switches. And sometimes, when you switch something OFF you just want it to switch OFF. *sigh*
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's really a job for the manufacturers of TV's to come up with a decent power saving system. People are going to be as lazy as you let them be.
Also there's an issue which no-one seems to have noticed - perhaps not with all TV's, but at least on the two that I own.
If I turn them off on the set, they lose the settings. I have to reset the time & any preferences etc.
I do agree that wasting all that power is plain crazy, so why can't the manufacturers just have an on/off on the remote & off means a *tiny* amount of power is flowing just to keep the IR active. All prefs should be saved onto solid state memory that does not require power - regardless of how cheap the TV is, surely all manufacturers can manage that without a cost implication.
I guess Standby is a leftover from old TV's that took time to warm up - that's pretty much gone now & I imagine non existant with flat screen TV's
Seems bizarre really, 2006 & we havent thought of a way to turn a TV off
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
From the article: "To put it another way, the entire population of Glasgow could fly to New York and back again and the resulting emissions would still be less than that from devices left in sleep mode."
It's not the entire population of Glasgow flying to New York that worries me. It's the prospect of them coming back again.
Wasting electricity is an expensive pastime, no doubt. But worrying about standby mode is a gnat-bite compared to our hopeless dependence on the motor car and in the UK's case our increasing dependence on importing energy from rather unstable parts of the world. This sounds rather like a typical UK New Labour gambit: encouraging people to feel good citizens while dodging the all the tough questions.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
I did the measurements once. My iMac G5 20" @ 1.8 GHz consumed 3.4 W at standby. Running, it consumed 75-100W, depending on things like processor use and screen backlight brightness. All these were before I upgraded memory from 650MB to 2GB, though.
Anyone with any sense with a career in environmental protection tries to make people take one less flight per year (all the cars in uk produce 1 tenth the emissions all the airflights in the UK produce! They persuade people that if they recycle anything, to recycle their aluminium because the carbon savings from, eg glass, are neglible if not negative, but the savings from aluminium are immense. They persuade people to buy electricity from companies that at least pretend to care about emissions. They persuade people to buy food that doesn't have to be flown from New Zealand to get to their plates.
They do not have a go at people about leaving devices on standby.
Standby is there to make life a little easier, and almost all devices make standby easy, and full-power-off harder. Standby wastes relatively, bugger-all electricity. So put things in perspective and don't make people feel guilty about trivial shit, because they will assume that saving the environment is all as tedious and unpleasant, and choose to not do anything at all.
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 live in Australia and it amazes me what primitive building codes they have. Most homes are timber-framed "brick veneer" and their thermal performance is abysmal. I think new regulations now force walls and roofspace to be insulated but it seems to have been a long time coming. My house was built in 1982 and it totally sucks - absolutely nothing in the walls and a limited layer of loose fill in the roof. Whenever I have done any interior work that involves exposing the frame I have insulated that bit, but it's very patchy. The roof space can be dealt with, but most of the problem is the walls and windows.
In addition, many homes are built individually to the owner's specification, and very few seem to have a clue about using the natural direction of the sun to create sensible areas of light and shade, areas that are warm in winter and cool in summer. Luckily in that respect my own house is situated correctly - in fact 180 to the orientation shown on the original plans! Obviously someone realised just before it was erected that the original orientation was stupid. Or maybe they just misread them...
The other thing that amazes me is that more homes are not built with built-in solar water heating and other solar-powered ventilation arrangements. These require no moving parts or external power, are very simple and effective. There ARE some houses that have these features and their benefits are obvious as soon as you walk into one - nice and cool in summer, and the sunnier it is, the cooler they get! Hot water for free. Instead most people fit reverse-cycle aircon to their homes to make them bearable when all it would take is some better building codes. It's about time this was forced on builders by legislation, but there appears to be no sign of it. Even the UK is forcing new homes to be built with solar water heating for god's sake!! I think outsiders think of Austrlians as being quite 'green conscious' and in some respects they are, but talk about missing the wood for the trees!
Who cares? The CRT in my TV is turned off (to the point that it takes about 10 seconds to fully come back on), so the component that takes 99.9% of the power isn't drawing a thing. The only thing required for standby is the IR receiver circuit. How much current can that possibly draw (at low voltages to boot) when idle?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
after a powerbill I decided to add a switch that would cut the power to my projector, VCR, DVD, Radio etc..
I actually bought one of those power outlet meters to try to reduce my home energy usage.
But after I tested two or three appliances, I realized that this whole endeavor is completely nonsense except in summertime. If my computer, power amp, water heater, or even incandescent lights, are running during the winter... every watt of power they generate will reduce my heating bill by almost exactly that watt.
Now yes, I do have electric heating. The tradeoff may differ for those who don't. But the fact remains that powering devices in the home is much less wasteful than it seems, for those who live in colder climates. Since this study was done in Britain, I wonder if they controlled for this factor.
In the summer, of course, I try to keep things off as much as possible. But this is primarily because it's too hot, and only secondarily to save power.
--
Dum de dum.
Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.