Slashdot Mirror
Game Consoles Are Multi-Million Dollar Energy Wasters?
GamesIndustry.biz has details from a UK government report on energy wasted by consoles in standby mode. The information comes from a larger study by the government on energy wasted by consumer electronic devices, and confirms statistics gather here in the states. From the article: "Last month, a group of bloggers in the United States reported that while the original PlayStation leaked just 0.2W - accounting for some 1.752kWh wasted each year - the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 2 both leak a massive 2W, or 17.52kWh each year. The energy review proposes a number of measures to minimize energy waste, including working with electronics companies to phase out costly standby routines that drain energy while the device is not in use." The Gamers with Jobs site has some insightful commentary on the issue.
I wonder what this means for the Nintendo Wii, which has that 24-hours always-connected crap that we really don't need. Anyone know what the stats are supposed to be for the Wii's power leakage? If you can call it a leakage.
1) Internal clocks/batteries
2) IR Remote ports that need to be monitored as they can be used to turn on the consoles.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The tubes are clogged and I'm not getting my internets. Now the consoles stole all my power and stood by wasting!
This isn't the first time power being wasted has been an issue, but at least these consoles have a stand-by mode, because people don't like turning them off. Looking here, I have a laptop running right beside me just for aim, tell me that isn't a waste of power and a second monitor that I use right now just to shove itunes onto. The biggest way to conserve power is to convince people that power needs to be conserved, otherwise I'll just keep wasting it. I've never had an issue with not getting enough power, just keep paying the bills and it keeps flowing. And as far as cost, the numbers are really low when it comes down individually, you have to multiply by populations to get the numbers to a size that makes you go wow. A couple cents to a dollar a month, why do I care about that wastage from my console?
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
They're spying on us while waiting for the rise of the machines. They'll know it is time when they see their leader, the brave little toaster, rise up. ...unfortunately for them, the brave little toaster had a little accident involving a fork after he captured one of my bagels. I had the last laugh that day.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
It's only wastage if you don't play it 24/7.
If people don't want to be sufficiently hardcore, that's their own problem.
Standby is for the weak
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
how about shutting down the millions of PCs that are sucking 150 watts each when idle. How about Xerox machines that keep the lamp hot, etc.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I must disagree with the "insightful commentary". "Off" should mean "off". If there are useful tasks a console can perform while in standby mode, incorporate a "standby mode" state into the machine's design, separate from "off". Currently "off" really means "stand by", with a true "off" state completely absent. This is unfortunate. Of course there's a workaround, i.e. unplugging the machine from the wall, but that's unnecessarily burdensome for the consumer.
2W consumed 24/7. Yeah, that sounds like a lot. 336 watt-hours per week, to be precise.
Unless you consider, say, the typical 60W incandescent hall light that is on for four hours each night. 1,680 watt-hours per week.
I'd venture to guess that the majority of families have at least one light of this sort that is turned on between the time the sun goes down and the time the family goes to sleep, and probably more than one (porches, foyers, outdoor sconces, et cetera). So there you have it, folks: throw out five PS2s... or use one less lightbulb.
Yes, I can see how this is a horribly pressing problem.
Take a look at the specs of your TV/VCR, I bet they consume 5-15W while on standby.
How much do you think your ATX tower consumes? It is a fat 5-7W when "turned off". AT towers have been perfect. They had a mechanical switch and there was no "standby mode". My ATX tower has an external switch to be sure it's really off (my definition of "off" is 0W).
I think people focus on this a lot, or I just notice this more then other things. But it is highly overstated. There are far worse devices then a console. Check this out. Look at the listed items (the list is a bit old, consoles still showing at 1.1 W): Digital Cable Box - 23 Watts. A regular one is still over 15 W in idle. I would be far more concerned with those then I would be consoles. (I am pretty sure there are more cable boxes in the US and Worldwide then game consoles that are actually plugged in, not counting those dust collecting NES and Atari).
Actually, let us take a look at the soon to be average (if we ever get converted to digital) TV setup. Digital TV = 8.8W, Digital Cable Box = 23W, and DVD Player (don't most people have these?) 4.4W. Now, idling that is 36.2W of power usage. This is for something that is very likely more common then a console is. Power "leakage" (such a horrible word) is bad, but it is a sympton of two things:
1) Instant Gratification: Devices receiving power constantly are that much closer to being instant-on, allowing you to get to enjoying your DVDs and television programming faster. They have to keep certain things in standby modes to keep load times down.
2) Features and Adv. Functionality: You know, being able to power on devices with the remote, having time-of-day clock setups (there are a few devices that really do not need them), and external displays with time and other information on them at all times.
I am sure there are other reasons related to technology needed certain power requirements, but I really believe some of the great increases in idle power usage (cause that really is what "leakage" is) are not necessity. I am sure governments will attempt to regulate this a bit better, but we all know what a joke government regulations can turn into.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
So let's say that your TV couldn't be turned on by remote control (because it's energy efficient and off means off), thus requiring that you walk all the way over to the set, extend your arm, push the button, retract your arm, and walk back to the sofa. For the sake of argument, let's say that on average, this activity requires approximately one calorie per day per household in the US. So per household, that's 365 calories per year. Since I'm just making shit up, let's also assume that there are 150 million television-bearing households.
The amount of energy required then to manually turn on the television in the US alone is 54.75 BILLION calories.
In the US we pretty much only eat hamburgers. A single 1/4 pound lean beef patty contains 290 calories. So the number of beef patties required to power US citizens for the sole task of turning the television on and off by hand is 188,793,103.
Folks, that's almost 189 MILLION quarter pound beef patties. That's 47.25 MILLION pounds of beef.
Using my keen powers of google, I've determined that the average amount of beef we get from a single cow is just about 500 pounds. Hold on to your buns, because this is going make your mustard: the number of cows required to power US humans for an entire year of turning the TV on and off without the assistance of a remote control is 94,500.
Nintey four thousand five hundred cows.
Now prepare to be exagerated into oblivion. I'm about as knowledgable about ranching as you are about energy production, but from what I'm able to google, it looks like a single cow is probably going to eat from 4 to 10 acres of grass per year. Now cows do have a tendancy to grow before reaching maturity, and little cows probably don't eat as much as big cows, but it does look like beef cows get to live for just about two years. We also have to consider that we need to maintain one heffer per calf until cloning technology becomes more advanced. So I think we can safely say that for each cow, we're going to require 10 acres of grass per year.
That's 945,000 acres of grass per year required to turn our televisions on and off the old fashioned way.
That's a lot of grass. 1,476 square miles to be precise. People, that's the entire state of Rhode Island. Enough land for over 1,000,000 people to live and play.
Now it should be clear to everyone that if we figure out how much nitrogen and water and other various stuff is required per grazing acre, we'll end up with some really big numbers. Let's just say the numbers are definately going to be in the millions, and that's definately not small.
So, I think I've made my point. The next time you think about those 2 watts of wasted energy here and there and decide to multiply that number until it's a really big number, try to also think about the cows.