Standby Electronics a Waste?

Re:Tell me exactly... by blackraven14250 · 2006-01-22 21:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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 Jason1729 · 2006-01-22 21:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Back in the vacuum tube days, when you turned on your TV it would take a few minutes for the tubes to warm up before you could use it. Then "instant on" was invented. Basically the tubes were left at full power 24/7, so the TV was drawing almost as much power "off" as on, with few people realzing it, and tubes took a lot of power.

Maybe the Europen TVs today are a hold-over from that.
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 gmby · 2006-01-22 22:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

No. The tubes were in a sort of stanby mode. The filiments were running at about 1/3 power so they warm up fast. The high voltage was off completely. I would bet they took less than 1/3 the ON power in the "stanby" mode.

Even if the filiments were in full on; they would still only be a fraction of the overall power of the TV. The resistors dissipated a lot of power. The circuit design back then was a "wast power to reduce voltage" type of design. Now days all circuits are designed to switch power to reduce voltage. Much more efficent.

With todays low power silicon there is no reason to waste power. If it takes more than 1watt to run a switch then it's too much. Maybe 3watt if you want a "remote control on" feature.

Nothing like a good "CLICK!" to let you know it went off!

--
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
Re:A small step in the right direction by somersault · 2006-01-22 22:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

I live in Europe and ever since the 90s or maybe before, we've had standby o_0 you think TV makers have to use different standards for America/Europe *has a coughing fit when someone points out NTSC/PAL and power supply differences*

--
which is totally what she said
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 Goth+Biker+Babe · 2006-01-22 22:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

On everything I've own over the last twenty years the button actually turns the device off. The remote puts it in to standby.

Completely off topic. Why have an eject button on a DVD remote? You still have to physically remove the disk!
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.

What about us? by rts008 · 2006-01-22 21:29 · Score: 2

If the UK is wasting that much on standby, I wonder about how much energy we use with standby here in the USA?

It would have to be a lot I would think. Something to think about- what really needs standby and what doesn't?

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

Re:What about us? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 21:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Everything (and I mean everything) for which I own a remote control for does not have any way to turn off "properly" short of unplugging it from the wall. VCRs, Cable Boxes, Televisions, Radios, they all are either powered on, on stand-by, or are unplugged.

VCRs make sense. I don't necessarily need the visible clock display, but I do rely on the timer to kick the machine on and record my shows.

Televisions? What a waste. Sync up to the cable system's time when I power it on.

Cable Boxes? Please. Those things use almost as much power on as off, and I can't think of any benefit to me. Store the menu data for the next few days in flash and sync up when I power it on.

Radios? Well, in my house those are typically clocks that happen to play music, so the clock benefits me, no problem there.

Hell, even my car goes into stand-by mode to run the alarm, and to allow me to operate the locks.

I didn't choose these products this way. It's more or less the only way they come.
Re:What about us? by mwvdlee · 2006-01-22 23:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anything which doesn't have a conveniently located power button needs stand-by.

At home, I have my entire computer setup (box, monitor, printer, scanner, etc.) plugged into a single power-line with a big switch mounted to the desk; one switch to rule them all. If only I wouldn't need to manually shut-down WinXP, it'd be perfect.

The main idea was to rid of the annoying stand-by LEDs when I didn't need them, but the power saving is nice too.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

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 arivanov · 2006-01-22 21:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hello? Ever heard of thermodynamics?

So where exactly does that power go? In the form of flying angels that flap around the room maybe?

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by cnettel · 2006-01-22 21:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the heat you get is very very close to the power used. Of course, if you draw it all in LEDs and let them shine out of your window or something, then you might get a difference.
The real problem with this reasoning is that the generator of the original electricity was possibly going around drive by a turbine that was driven by heat. The efficiency of that transfer is far below 50 %. Only if your house is electrically heated, without employing a phase-change heat exchange (a reversed fridge for the air leaving the building, making the outside a little cooler) it's equivalent and one can still argue about how to achieve optimum airflow.
Of course, standby power in electrically heated buildings is less of a problem than in electrically cooled ones. In that case you have waste power for standby and waste heat from standby that must be handled by the AC, causing even more waste.
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 LarsWestergren · 2006-01-22 22:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

No, not quite as easy unfortunately. I'm renovating a summer house, and though hardly an expert, I've learned that where you place the heat sources matter a lot. You want your radiators below the windows for instance, because that is where the cold "fall" in to the room. If you put the heating somewhere else (a PSU in the computer of your desk for instance), you risk getting cold air currents along the floor and walls, and the nice heating going up to the ceiling and being wasted. Humans react to temperature changes, many will feel chilled if they get these cold draughts along the floor and walls.

Offtopic - 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, Australia, and from what I've heard, the US as well. I mean, you are rich countries, why build like third world?

When I lived in Australia, my host had an aircon constantly blasting heat in winter and cold in summer. Since there were big gaps under the doors and around the windows, and very little insulation in the ceiling this desired temperature quickly escaped. In winter he closed much of the house except one room where the air con was, and we had to stay there wrapped in blankets. 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.

--
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
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 pecko666 · 2006-01-22 22:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, he is right. I recently moved do London from central europe, and it realy amazes me, how poorly built houses are here. No one would buy such bad house in country where I come from. Even people who build their house by themselves make much better work, then 'proffesionals' in UK. Only here you can find such little paradoxes like heating in the hall, but NOT in living rooms.
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by BenjyD · 2006-01-22 23:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

The UK has a lot of old houses (Victorian/Edwardian) and there is a snobbery against new houses and an obsession with 'period' features of old houses like fireplaces and sash windows. I don't get it, personally, but I think it is at least partly due to the crap 'new' housing built during the 1960's.
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 GrahamCox · 2006-01-22 23:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by vidarh · 2006-01-22 23:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Offtopic - 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, Australia, and from what I've heard, the US as well. I mean, you are rich countries, why build like third world?
As a Norwegian living in England, I have to agree... Here in the UK I think it's largely down to mild winters. Insulation is practically non-existent in older buildings here (most new builds seems to be better, thankfully) - just a thin wooden floor with huge cracks and 20 cm or so of air separating you from the ground is quite common. And hollow wooden floors with cracks, only sealed with plaster plates for the ceiling in the floor below is pretty normal within residential houses.
Before I'd moved to the UK I hadn't even seen buildings built like that except in museums.
The lofts are usually equally bad - huge parts of the building mass still have completely uninsulated lofts (though admittedly there is a push to change that, with government grants often available to offset the cost of insulation) and huge cracks everywhere.
But my pet peeve is the British builders approach to leaks. Just fill the cracks with some silicone or other filler, and paint over whatever stains there are, wait until the next crack develops and try again, instead of ensuring bathroom floors are properly sealed.
I guess it's a cost thing combined with the fact that the climate lets them get away with it (for those who haven't lived anywhere COLD: Imagine having your walls full of moisture. Then imagine that water freezing and expanding. Now imagine the cracks developing after a few years of that happening on a regular basis...). But it annoys the hell out of me when I see bathrooms built in a way that'll give the people on the floor below a nice shower if you get the floor a little bit wet.
British builders, though, seems to be in a league of their own, and that is not a compliment. I've never ever had to deal with such a bunch of incompetent twits. Just got to love how they think that it's perfectly fine to just keep pumping more silicone into a flat roof if it's leaking, instead of actually trying to find a fix the massive leaks in the top coating of the roof. Because apparently that's too much work for them.
The lack of a proper certification system and a proper education is really a problem - to the point where it's not uncommon for people here to hire in German builders to get things done properly even with the extra costs (for larger jobs they'll easily pay for themselves by actually doing things properly, and without the massive delays British builders seems to take great pride in...).
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 cakesy · 2006-01-23 00:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Mate, he is probably complaining about your garden on some other website. Don't judge us by one man!
Re:Any heat is good heat in winter by rundgren · 2006-01-23 01:47 · Score: 4, Funny

..as a Norwegian who has visited England a few times, what I wonder about is why the British insist on carpets on their bathroom floors? Do you never miss when you pee? don't you drip when you come out of the shower? And why haven't the wonders of mixing faucets (insted of one hot and one cold) reached England?
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:Any heat is good heat in winter by vidarh · 2006-01-23 04:39 · Score: 2, Funny

I remember people telling me before moving to the UK that you can tell how far north you are in the UK by how blue the girls waiting outside the clubs are... And it seems to be true.

Re:Tell me exactly... by CDMA_Demo · 2006-01-22 21:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

...how they can come up with numbers like this. For every study like this that shows one result, you can find a mirror study that shows the opposite. Frankly, I don't know a single person that keeps any devices in standby.

These numbers are not new, and this story is 5 years late. See: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/0 2/09_energ.html

They will keep talking about energy wastage and no amount of energy awareness if going to change that. Unless of course, you have to refill your electricy "tank" for $5.00 a gallon, and then everyone will buy the consumer electronics equivalent of a Prius or Insight.

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.

Consumers want standby? by anagama · 2006-01-22 21:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Manufacturers include sleep modes on their products because it is what their customers want, says Matthew Armishaw from the Market Transformation Programme (MTP).

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 ... but I never wanted it.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good

Re:Consumers want standby? by DrEldarion · 2006-01-22 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you like walking up to your TV every time you want to turn it on rather than just hitting "power" on the remote?
Re:Consumers want standby? by jbrw · 2006-01-22 22:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Have you considered getting a colostomy bag fitted? It'll save you those pesky and time consuming trips to the bathroom.
Re:Consumers want standby? by poot_rootbeer · 2006-01-23 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

I did the same thing to allow myself to power-off a Brother laser printer I bought around that same time with no off switch.

My plan backfired, though. Due to the design of the printer a (long) cool-off period was required after anything was printed on it. I got in the habit of killing power to it immediately after printing, the fans didn't blow, I ended up ruining the fuser and having to get it replaced.

Now granted, not all devices have this type of passive power consumption required. But it pays to keep in mind WHY an appliance designer may have opted to design a standby mode instead of a power on/off switch.

Convenience by a.koepke · 2006-01-22 21:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

The problem is that standby is very convenient. I don't want to have to walk upto my TV to turn it on. I want to sit down and press the power button on the remote. For me to be able to do this the TV has to be using a bit of power (how much I am not sure of).

Some devices, like my DVD player and amplifier, have no way turning them fully off. The power button on the unit simply takes them out of standby or puts them back into standby. It is not a hard power switch like devices of old. Even PCs these days (with ATX power supplies) can be considered to be on standby since there will be a little bit of power consumed.

Really, the only way you are going to stop this problem is by switching off everything at the wall. The power point for my hifi setup is behind a shelf and there is no way to easily reach it so that option is out. The only other thing that comes to mind is for manufacturers putting the older style power switches on equiptment, but I can't see that happening in a hurry.

--

(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread

Re:Convenience by Angostura · 2006-01-22 21:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Convenience by JohnGrahamCumming · 2006-01-22 21:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I plugged all of my equipment into a powerstrip with a real switch on it. Switch it off and everything is definitely off; it wasn't rocket science.

John.
Re:Convenience by legalize.ganja.now. · 2006-01-22 21:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

my whole computer-setup hangs on one master-slave powerbar. that's really practical. my computer is plugged into the master-outlet while all the other devices are connected to the slave sockets. no more devices on standby...
Re:Convenience by MichaelSmith · 2006-01-22 22:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Really, the only way you are going to stop this problem is by switching off everything at the wall
A small device to listen for an ON signal from a remote control is only going to consume a milliwatt or so. The real problem is that a normal power supply will waste more than that milliwatt with no load.

I have several devices in my home which run on plug packs at about the same voltage. I made a wiring harness to run them off the same supply. Doing it this way should waste less power.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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:Convenience by Simon+Brooke · 2006-01-22 22:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

AOL

To turn off my TV installation would mean separately switching off the television itself, the video recorder, the DVD player and the digital TV decoder. Neither the video recorder nor the digibox start cleanly - the video recorder wants it's time set (surely that could be stored in non-volatile) and the digibox gets petulant about the EuroSport card being reinserted. And consequently I don't do it - although in an average week I watch less than one hour's television. If my next TV integrates at least the digital receiver and a DVD-RW drive, and starts cleanly with no faff I'd be more than happy to do without a standby mode.

Same applies to everything else in the house, actually. Don't need standby; do need reasonably fast, reliable startup.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:Convenience by nbert · 2006-01-22 22:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

That would be extremely inconvenient. Maybe it's better to define limits for power consumption and label devices in stores accordingly, just like they do it with refridgerators for years (at least in many (all?) EU countries).
I guess this would encourage many companies to invest a few bucks more into energy efficiency when it comes to standby. Even if devices get a little more expensive, consumers and the environment will benefit in the long run.

--
I don't read replies by ACs.
Re:Convenience by m00j · 2006-01-22 23:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I see this being a problem as a lot of people would then leave their devices (DVD ect, not so much the tv) on all the time. It makes no difference to them if it is on or off (just some extra lights on the front) but they still have the convenience of standby.

Make a maximum wattage during standby and get rid of the standby LEDs! They are pretty much useless most of the time anyway.
Re:Convenience by Tim+C · 2006-01-22 23:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would be extremely inconvenient.

Why? I turn my TV off at the button on the set every night. Doing so adds maybe an extra 5 seconds to the warm up time the next day when I switch it on, but so what? Same for my monitor - if I'm going to be away from the PC for more than a few minutes, off it goes.

I really don't see how it's an inconvenience.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

forgetting the off button by Darkon · 2006-01-22 21:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's amazing the extent to which we either forget about or just don't care about turning stuff off these days. Ever passed through the business district of your town/city late at night well after working hours? Noticed all those office buildings with all their lights blazing out? How about that computer in your office? Can you put your hand on your heart and say you always turn it off before you leave work at the end of the day? Not only would it help the environment and reduce waste of finite resources, but it would probably save businesses a fair bit off their power bills too.

Re:forgetting the off button by MichaelSmith · 2006-01-22 22:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Noticed all those office buildings with all their lights blazing out?
Conference rooms in my office building have PIR movement detectors to switch on lights. When we developed problems with our mains power supply (too many computers and aircon units in the building) I suggested we use them all over the place.

One day I went past my managers office. He was sitting at his desk in the dark. If he stops moving for long enough the lights go off.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:forgetting the off button by Xugumad · 2006-01-23 00:56 · Score: 3, Funny

One day? One day??? They installed them at the new building we've just moved in to; every 15 minutes I have to lean to the left and wave my arm frantically to get the lights to work!

*twitch*

Don't start me on the fact that we can't turn the lights off, so they're blazing away throughout summer. Although we kinda need them, because they made the windows tiny "to save energy".

Arrgh!

It's not just standby... by AVee · 2006-01-22 21:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Believe me, there are more and more gadgets around that are a waste of energy when running as well. ;)

Believe it or not, Oil companies are to blame. by sumday · 2006-01-22 21:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe not just oil companies, but they certainly contribute a lot. What i'm talking about is the western public's passive nature toward the coming energy crisis. Oil is running out fast, and everyone knows it. Natural gas is disappearing even faster. But for some reason, people have this "everything's gonna be fine" attitude to the whole situation. Oil companies inflate their expected barrels/year figures to keep stocks high, the government doesn't bother telling people to conserve energy on a large scale... Bad things are going to happen if the west doesn't wake up to this problem.

--
sudo killall humans

Apple's Sleep Mode on Macs, A Question. by BibelBiber · 2006-01-22 21:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I always wonder whether it's smarter to turn my iMac(last PPC with 2GHz) rather completely off over night (~10 hours) or leave it in sleep mode. Considering the start up time and starting all the usual apps plus loading the documents I've been using the day before. I tend to think this is a waste of time and probably consumes as much energy as leaving it on sleep mode. Any suggestions on whether I'm right or wrong?

Re:Apple's Sleep Mode on Macs, A Question. by cnettel · 2006-01-22 21:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just refreshing RAM is comparatively cheap. A laptop can stay in that mode for hours and hours on the battery. However, most PC power supplies have very low efficiency at low power (while real standby power for wake-on-LAN is only a few W). I'm not sure about the Mac, though, but I would doubt they have spent the premium to make the circuits fully adaptive for the complete range.
You might save time, of course, there is no denial of that. Saving energy by the process is a kind of weird question. Will your saved time result in the machine staying in sleep mode for one minute longer, or will you do actual work for one more minute? The shift in power usage for an idle and active desktop system is not that significant, at least not when the shift won't involve heavy duty for the GPU in either case.
On the other hand, the sleep mode will also induce almost all of the material fatigue in different components that turning off would give. The HD will stop and so on.
Long live Suspend-to-disk, no matter what OS it is. Yes, it will take longer to resume than suspend-to-RAM, but it's still often quicker than a clean boot, and certainly quicker than a clean boot + resuming work where it was.
Re:Apple's Sleep Mode on Macs, A Question. by mean+pun · 2006-01-22 22:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
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.

Smarter electronics or smarte people? by VincenzoRomano · 2006-01-22 21:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe smarter electronics would help.
While stuff that needs longer "boots" (like PCs) can take advantages from "stand by" (or sleep) mode, everyday appliances like TVs, VCRs and so on could easily be smarter as far as power consumption is concerned.
Maybe the same could be for power supply units and AC-to-DC units. Once the device is charged a controlled circuit breaker could interrupt any further consumption.
But then how much pollution would be created by all those new things whose lifespan is within a couple of years?

Or maybe smarter people would be a much better solution!
Turn your appliances completely off if you know you won't need them for a while. Unplug your cell phone charger once you used it.
And don't leave anything turned on only because you think you'll save some milliseconds of your time!

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]

Re:the entire population of Glasgow... by indie1982 · 2006-01-22 21:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Either way, you New Yorkers reading this wouldn't want the Entire population of Glasgow in your city ;o)

Don't forget Transformers by putko · 2006-01-22 21:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Re:Don't forget Transformers by Stephen+Williams · 2006-01-22 22:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Transformers are equally culpable of silently sipping power.

No kidding. The global Energon crisis is all their fault. I have it on good authority that the standby mode on Megatron's fusion cannon consumes a gigawatt every second.

-Stephen
Re:Don't forget Transformers by meringuoid · 2006-01-22 22:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Well, kind of. But you're not really doing your bit for the national Kyoto commitment that way. Consider: if you heat your home by burning gas, you're getting pretty much 100% efficiency. All the energy turns to heat. If, OTOH, you heat your home by electricity, somewhere there's a powerplant burning gas at much less than 100% efficiency to provide that power. Much better to cut out the middleman, and usually it's a good deal cheaper too.
If there's a device you really have to have on, then its waste heat is a bonus in your cold house, that's fine. But in general, it's better to switch off any superfluous electrical devices and let the thermostat burn a little more gas to make up the difference.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Don't forget Transformers by carpe_noctem · 2006-01-23 00:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Transformers are equally culpable of silently sipping power.

Transformers... more than meets the eye!

--
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K

Standby mode doesn't have to suck by wfberg · 2006-01-22 21:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Somebody crack the heads together of the eco-nu by Angostura · 2006-01-22 21:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want devices that can be controlled at a distance and that don't require me always around to control the damn thing.

Ah yes, I can see how that would be useful for televisions. Ahem.

Talk about the eco-nuts missing the point, its not about making this a harsher world. I suspect the eco-nuts believe that the world is going to get really very harsh quite quickly if people aren't willing to take remedial steps such as... oh I don't know - standing up to turn on the TV.

its.... about people being smarter.

Yes, yes it is.

Re:Tell me exactly... by squoozer · 2006-01-22 21:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

I find it strange the way people use electricity like it doesn't cost anything. I suspect it is because the link between using it and paying for it is weak in that you might pay for it upto a month after you use it. I firmly believe that _all_ electricity meters should have a display showing how much it is _actually_ costing you in some prominant place. How many people could honestly be bothered to climb into the broom cupboard to take a reading and then convert that reading from units in to £/$//etc using some tricky to understand pricing structure that changes with frightning regularity. It's just not going to happen so people will just keep paying whatever their bill shows and not understand how much different things cost to run.

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

Re:Tell me exactly... by Tet · 2006-01-22 21:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

They will keep talking about energy wastage and no amount of energy awareness if going to change that.

What they don't mention is why it's so high. I remember when we first got a TV with a standby mode. According to the specs, the draw in standby mode was absolutely miniscule (less than 1W). It did exactly what it said on the tin. 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? I don't agree with banning standby mode, but I do think it should be quite feasible to get devices down to using less than 1W while in that mode.

--
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown

Absolutely. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-22 21:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I live off-grid, charging a battery bank via solar and wind power, and as a result I've learned not to waste any electricity at all...I simply cannot afford to.

My friends are aghast at "the way I live", wondering how I survive without microwaving everything, or without an electric dishwaser and clothes-dryer. To them I may as well be eating raw meat in a cave someplace.

At least I have enough amps to run my 533 MHz VIA mini-ITX system and read Slashdot... ;)

Re:Absolutely. by gmby · 2006-01-22 22:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Congrats and thank you for leaving more energy for me to use!
After all I need this Overclocked, Peltier chiped, four cooling fans, two monitors, TV output, 300watt sterio amped, video switched, VCR input (now in standby), CED input (also in standby), Laser Disk (also in standby) input, Athlon CPU, 4 Hard Drives (never in standby), 2Gig DDR Ramed computer.
Just so i can type this crappy response to your cool post! ;)

--
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!

cold lights by happyrabit · 2006-01-22 22:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Anyone wondered if the light of the fridge gets off when you close it?

--
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.

Re:cold lights by Gimble · 2006-01-22 22:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Anyone wondered if the light of the fridge gets off when you close it?

Gets off with what? The cucumber ?

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

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-01-22 22:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A job for the manufacturers by Riquez · 2006-01-22 22:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Tell me exactly... by KiloByte · 2006-01-22 22:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Well, it's pretty hard to fail to notice that my USB mouse receives power even with the computer being off. I mean, it's not just a LED, it's nearly bright enough to read by.

This is the second mouse I have that emits so much light -- and we're not speaking about special fancy geek-style mice. They were just the "tell the tech guy at work: 'do we have a mouse I can buy? I'm too damn lazy to go to a shop'" kind.

If your random mouse draws that much power, I guess that the article has a good point.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Re:the entire population of Glasgow... by Eunuchswear · 2006-01-22 22:18 · Score: 4, Funny

You think we're downsizing planes?

Just wait 'till Chirac turns up in his nice new presidential A380. "Hey is that Airforce One? What a cute little plain that 747 was".

A380 - When a SUV gets too cramped.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

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:the entire population of Glasgow... by darkain · 2006-01-22 22:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

you are forgetting, SUVs waste more resources then 100 commercial airplanes!

The real question is... by benzzene · 2006-01-22 22:27 · Score: 5, Funny

... what would happen if all those Glaswegians actually did fly to New York. I have a feeling it would be much worse than some wasted kilowatt hours.

home entertainment issues by welshie · 2006-01-22 22:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have a CRT television set (with a standby button), a VHS recorder (with a standby button), a DVD player (with a standby button), and a digital satellite set-top box (with a standby button). Only one has a real mechanical, circuit-breaking, power switch easily available (the TV).

In order to even turn all the devices into standby, I need to fumble for four different remote controls, else they all end up heating the living room when nobody is in there. Typically, the TV is the only thing that gets put into standby.

Given that the VHS has auto-set up and can recover from a power outage (save for timer recording, which many people don't use), I guess it might make some sense to hook them up to one of those master-slave power bars, whereby you set it up so that when the TV stops drawing full current, the other sockets are switched OFF.

The digital satellite set-top box has a few issues with losing power (it loses EPG reminders, and defaults to some silly promotional channel, which I guess is mostly due to design by BSkyB).

Here's another thought. Duplicate circuitry. All of those devices have DC transformers. The digital satellite set-top box has MPEG2 decoders, as does the DVD player, yet they are never used at the same time, but the circuitry is probably receiving their full power budget at all times. Likewise, the TV set and DVD player both have audio amplifiers, yet I've never used the speaker outputs on the DVD player.

If I had one well-designed appliance that had the screen, a DVD transport, a VHS transport (yes, they are still used), and an integral digital satellite decoder, it could use far less power overall. The problem there is obsolecence. In order to get that, I need to either sell, give away, or recycle the existing equipment, which uses energy. It also means that if I decide that High Definition television is going to be good, I'd have to discard the lot of it and replace it, but with something with a HD-DVD, or blue ray mechanism? turns into diminishing returns.

If all such equipment responded to a standard "enter standby" remote control code, then I bet more equipment would be going into standby rather than remaining on full-power. If they could all go into a mode where they use less than a watt in standby, all the better.

Haway the lads by FishandChips · 2006-01-22 22:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:the entire population of Glasgow... by FidelCatsro · 2006-01-22 22:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Well it would probably sort out late night crime in Central park .. having a bunch of pissed Weegies there would scare off any mugger.
It would probably replace the mugging with drunken disorderly though .
Not saying that Glasgow is all rough neighbourhoods , but being a Psycho is part of the Rent agreement in some areas

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though

Re:Tell me exactly... by advocate_one · 2006-01-22 22:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

I actually have to do this... I have a pre-payment card meter for my Electricity (long story, crap credit rating, can't have a normal meter) and have to fill it up regularly to avoid the power going off... so I know pretty well how much electricity I use as I have to keep feeding the beast to avoid my uptime on my LAN server getting killed from no power.

I'm currently having to stick some £15 a week into it (Winter and the heating is on) so I know if things can be reduced by turning them really off.

ps, I get 30 minutes grace with the server as it's the only thing on the UPS... so I have enough time to get the emergency credit activated which gives me a couple of days to get credit put on the payment card.

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.

Moving parts by MattBurke · 2006-01-22 22:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nobody seems to have mentioned yet that power switches have moving parts, and moving parts are always the first thing to break. (Yes I am aware that 'standby' usually involves a relay which contains a moving part, but relays don't involve the 'human factor')

My parents routinely turn things off instead of using standby and get through a TV rougly every 4 years. Cause of failure? The power switch! Kettle? Hoover? Stereo? All die within a few years because of a dead power switch! In contrast I moved out of the house some 10 or so years ago and have yet to have anything die. Go figure.

Sure, not using standby may save a few watts per year but what about the extra waste generated by dead electronics

Re:Moving parts by LilWolf · 2006-01-22 23:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or one could just like, you know, replace the broken switch instead of buying a whole new device.
Re:Moving parts by KowShak · 2006-01-23 00:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tell your parents to switch off at the wall instead.

Replacing a wall socket switche is cheaper than replacing a TV, even if you have to get an electrician in to do it.

A Small Step In The Wrong Direction by Makarakalax · 2006-01-22 23:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a small price to pay (moving you ass to turn it on) for big savings.

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.

Re:Tell me exactly... by ozmanjusri · 2006-01-22 23:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Your microwave oven has a remote?

Yes. I call her "Jill".

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."

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:Don't lie by oh_bugger · 2006-01-22 23:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Being a connoisseur of electronic visual arts (I've watched TV in both the UK and US), I can say that in my experience the only difference between US TVs and UK TVs is that there's more TV models in the US that don't have the red "standby" LED, and some that don't have a "completly off" power switch.

I was once trying to tell an American friend of mine that a TV will consume a huge amount power while it's on standby in it's lifetime. They asked me how they could tell if they're TV is in standby and I said that the red LED is on, but the TV didn't have one. So then I said that Standby is when the TV's on but not switched off, but this person's TV set didnt have a power switch. So then I said it's when a TV appears to be off, but when you press the on button on the remote, it will magically come back to life!

When people are given the choices of pressing a button on the remote control, and physically unplugging the TV set most of the time they'll go for the remote, press the "Power" button and then the TV will look dead. With my TV, I find that with the glow of the unusually big LED and the buzzing noise it makes on standby, it's more of a comfort switching the damn thing off!

--
Go home and shave your giant head of smell with your bad self

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.

Simply Off by Tom · 2006-01-22 23:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

What I'd love to make a comeback - and what is part of the problem here - is a simple "off" switch that actually means off.

The problem isn't that electronics are not smart enough. The problem is that electronics manufacturers aren't. As customer, I would like to have one very simple thing: A button that when I use it actually means "off" as in "absolutely no more electric power going into this device".

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

not a difference, sometimes by Maljin+Jolt · 2006-01-22 23:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just a timely experience for this article: Last week I bought a DVB-T receiver. I noticed it is still very hot when put on standby, so I measured it, with the funny result of having the same identical consumption in power on state as in standby: 16W. That's price for total digitalisation: the CPU must be on to process a command or timer.

Solution? I sacrificed factory guarantee and I am currently in process of device modification. However, I mourn the electronics consumer droids without knowledge of circuitry and without soldering skills, not to mention I will never buy any AverMedia product in the future.

--
There you are, staring at me again.

Re:the entire population of Glasgow... by Gordonjcp · 2006-01-23 00:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Hey come on, we haven't had a shooting for nearly a week!

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:Tell me exactly... by Achromatic1978 · 2006-01-23 00:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was flicking through the manual of my Sony LCD monitor today, and it (a 17" 1280x1024) draws 45W in use, 3W in standby, and 1W in 'off'. Go figure. "Welcome to the new world of 'on/off'."

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.

Re:Don't lie by Fallus+Shempus · 2006-01-23 00:35 · Score: 2, Funny

I was in a hotel in Edinburgh that had a remote power off button.

Which was all well and good except that the actual power button on the TV
was loose so it came flying off and hit me on the head.

Re:A Small Step In The Wrong Direction by brinkster · 2006-01-23 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Standby wastes relatively, bugger-all electricity.

I agree. When investigating my large eletricity usage it came to my attetion that the freezer was running overtime. The freezer was old and its CFCs had leaked to the atmosphere which kept the compressor running 24/7.

I think issues like this are far more relevant than "Should I keep my DVD player on standby?".

This lazy article is meaningless by JackDW · 2006-01-23 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

This article is very poor. Power consumption is given using energy units (Wh) without any reference to the amount of time taken to consume that energy. For instance:

electrical equipment in sleep mode used roughly 7TWh of energy and emitted around 800,000 tonnes of carbon

He has calculated that the CO2 emissions from electrical equipment being left on standby are equivalent to 1.4 million long-haul flights.

Per second? Day? Month? Year? The units are never fully specified, except once in the title of the graph.

It's just lazy to write articles like this. The figures are all there for "shock value", but they are meaningless.

Additionally, there is no mention of the fact that energy "wasted" by a standby device is just heat, and thus offsets the energy that you would otherwise "waste" in your gas boiler or electric heater.

BBC News, go to the bottom of the class.

--
You're an immobile computer, remember?

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.

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:the entire population of Glasgow... by IckySplat · 2006-01-23 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whats wrong with downsized bikini's?
Hmmm?

I for one welcome our Downsized bikini wearing overlordets

--
Help! help!, the termites are eating my DRAM!!!

Exclamation mark instead of question mark by ascii · 2006-01-23 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Standby Electronics a Waste?"

Shouldn't that be an exclamation mark at the end instead of a question mark?

--
naah sig schmig

Re:Back in The Day ..... by faedle · 2006-01-23 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

So a transformer is not 100% efficient {although it's about the closest anyone's ever built}.

The problem is, most "wall warts" are not just simple transformers. Most devices that use wall warts use DC, therefore, there has to be rectification of the AC current in there to make the devices work. On a wall wart, that is typically done through some form of diode bridge with a capacitor in there to level off the power.

Most wall warts are incredibly inefficient (Popular Electronics once did an article on this subject some years ago, and found that they were somewhere in the 50-70% range), and they are consuming power even when the device they power is off or even disconnected. The diode bridge/capacitor combination creates a lot of inefficiency.

I built a complete 12VDC plant in my house, with special 12V outlets in every room and a central switching power supply. I was able to save about 10% on my power bill just from doing the simple act of eliminating all the wall transformers around my house. For devices that need 5V or some other arbitrary low voltage: semiconductor DC-to-DC power converters work quite well (like devices based around the 7805), and are nearly 100% efficient.

Re:Don't lie by Just+Some+Guy · 2006-01-23 03:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

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?

Re:A Small Step In The Wrong Direction by schnipschnap · 2006-01-23 03:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

They do not have a go at people about leaving devices on standby.

My power supplier lends compact power usage meters for about one week (about like this (yes, they seem to have recycled the pun in the dept.-name))
Anyway, more or less coincidentally (/. has got these stories quite often, and I planned on posting about it as soon as I find the right occasion), I have got one pretty much right now. The claims you promote there, about the people with a career in environmental protection, not promoting anti-standby-mode but rather true power-off, seem false just by the existence of this article (and countless others).

So, a few bits of recorded data:
PC PSU ATX "standby": ~2W, an other model: ~7W, an external notebook PSU: ~3W
N64: ~2W (the switch is connected behind the PSU)
TV: ~2W (a very small one)
VGA CRT device: ~8W (it's got a pretty stupid switch that is more common with LCD devices)

Now, the more interesting stuff, but slightly off-topic:

PC, operational, max.: ~97W (~1.2 GHz Duron, Radeon 7200 Series)
PC, operational, max.: ~60W (~466 MHz Celeron, GeForce 2 MX 100/200)
Notebook, operational, w/ display on: ~16W (133 MHz, under "perl -e 'while(1) { }'" ~23W (same method for most other "under loads"), which I am also currently using :) (opera))
CRTs: ~55W (~17", textmode), ~45W (small TV w/ sound), ~70W (~15", older, in text-mode ~60W)
Radio alarm clock, w/ 7-segment LED displays: ~2W (sound makes not really a difference (yes, it does sound horrible))

And yes, I'm quite sure I forgot some interesting things. Also, most PCs draw much more power, because they might use a Pentium 4 CPU, more advanced graphics cards, more fans (the environment of the ~466 MHz device is ~10 degrees Celsius in winter, so the CPU-fan is deactivated by hardware (anyone got thoughts about removing the PSU fan?), and yes, the harddisk is quite "unhappy").

The device also correctly said ~40W for a 40W incandescent bulb (blecch), and I wouldn't know how to design such a device to not be able to cope with quickly changing power needs (quite old models they give out).

One more rumor I've got to eliminate: CRTs don't draw that much power while going on, only for very few seconds quite much (~225W the highest reading, and it can't be more than ~1800W), thereafter the information above applies.

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 Kadin2048 · 2006-01-23 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm going to disagree with you, just as a personal opinion.

I prefer the light from the modern compact fluorescents to incandescents -- I find that rooms just seem a lot "sunnier" when lit with the higher-color-temperature lamps. I'm not talking about the old greenish/blue-white ones, they're pretty disgusting, but the last few "warm fluorescent" ones I picked up at Home Depot are a lot nicer than the incandescent lights I replaced. I think they're around 4000-5000K, and going back to 2800K (typical incandescents) isn't even an option. They just seem too yellow now.

Granted, I don't have much in the way of direct lighting -- I have mostly torchiers and 3-lamp 'pole lights' aimed up at the walls and/or cieling, so perhaps if you had nothing but direct light it wouldn't work as well. I also can't stand being in a dimly lit room; I have what would be the incandescent equivalent of 750W of lighting in about 250 square feet. If it was actually all incandescent, not only would I be broke from the power bill, but the room would probably be uncomfortably warm. (And possibly it would be a fire hazard as well.)

But since installing the CFL bulbs I've noticed I'm just a lot less tired, and less dependent on the weather outside -- it used to be that if it was a really dark, overcast day outside that the room would be noticably more dim; with more lighting I can just close the blinds and have basically the same illumination available as if it was a sunny day outside.

I also wouldn't want a TV that required a manual power switch on the front to turn it on and off. I have several TVs in odd positions (on top of book cases, etc.) throughout my house, and they would be a lot more of a pain to use if I had to touch them in order to start using them. If they didn't have standby, I'd probably just switch them to the DVD player's "screen saver" when I wasn't using them instead of turning them off.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you, just offering a contrary opinion. To each his own, I suppose.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

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.

Alarmist graphs? by j-turkey · 2006-01-23 05:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Check out this graph. They seem the believe that electricity used by future TV's will grow faster than the amount of new TV's on the market. I am skeptical of this claim, since it seems to suggest that newer TV's will be more power hungry than the older ones. Does this not account for the new LCD, plasma, and projection (DLP, LCD, and LCoS), which should use significantly less electricity than their CRT coutnerparts?

In any case, looking at the graphs and trying to extrapolate the numbers, it looks like there's a projected 11 and 22% increase in the number of TV's in GB from 2000 to 2020, which (they claim) represents a 50% and 70% increase in power consumption by TV's. The numbers don't work out in any logical fashion, and don't represent the use of new, lower power technology that will almost certainly replace most new CRT's over the next 15 years.

This is beginning to sound like a bit of alarmism...which is sadly typical in the news (especially when it comes to issues of fear, including issues like terrorism or especially the environment and conservation).

Also, another bit of potential stupidity:

"In the end, there has to be costs in the form of manufacturers paying something to recognize the damage they are causing."

This is just silly, because the manufacturers will just pass this cost along to the consumer. The statement is a clear attempt to obfuscate the ultimate payor for the new regulations.

This article leads me to the question of whether or not most people are able to question anything when it comes to conservation because it's not PC to question environmental rhetoric.

--

-Turkey

It's impossible to waste energy in the winter by sasami · 2006-01-23 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:A Small Step In The Wrong Direction by skids · 2006-01-23 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

His point, if you care to think for a moment is that a few hundred thousand refigerator upgrades would save much more power than all those standby-mode devices use.

Really folks, this gadget-centric perspective is pretty ridiculous. If you want to save power, look at the bigger appliances and the heating and cooling efficiencies of your house. That's where the savings are to be had, not in obsessing about your roomba.

(Though as an aside I must say it would be real nice if the Linux Kernel folks would deal with making scsi spindown work as well as ide (or at all, even.) That would save me personally quite a few watts.)

--
Someone had to do it.

Re:Uh-huh... by XanC · 2006-01-23 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which is absorbed by the walls or other objects in the room and released as heat! :-)

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.

119 of 751 comments (clear)