Slashdot Mirror
NRDC Rates Energy Efficiency of Video Game Consoles
An anonymous reader writes "Today, more than 40 percent of all homes in the United States contain at least one video game console. Recognizing that all that gaming could add up to serious demand for electricity, NRDC and Ecos Consulting performed the first ever comprehensive study on the energy use of video game consoles and found that they consumed an estimated 16 billion kilowatt-hours per year — roughly equal to the annual electricity use of the city of San Diego. Through the incorporation of more user-friendly power management features, we could save approximately 11 billion kWh of electricity per year, cut our nation's electricity bill by more than $1 billion per year, and avoid emissions of more than 7 million tons of CO2 each year. In this November 2008 issue paper, NRDC provides recommendations for users, video game console manufacturers, component suppliers and the software companies that design games for improving the efficiency of video game consoles already in homes as well as future generations of machines yet to hit the shelves." The full report is freely downloadable as a PDF.
Destroy San Diego
Through the incorporation of more user-friendly power management features
On consoles, it's called the "power button".
Suggesting console manufacturers implement power-saving features is like asking Ferrari or Hummer to make their vehicles as efficient as a Corolla or Civic.
Power-saving measures make sense for PCs and especially for servers because there's a LOT of inertia involved in powering them on and off. Load times are bad enough as far as consoles are concerned -- introducing yet more waiting is a bad idea. I'll work off my potential guilt by riding my bike to the store instead of driving after playing XBox360 or PS3.
$1 billion/300 million = $3.
Yay.
That console might use what, 100 watts of electricity? Your microwave cooking for twenty minutes is equal to running that console for over two hours.
Your toaster is 1000 watts. The five minutes it takes to make toast uses the same electricity as the console running almost an hour.
Let's not even talk about your furnace blower, refrigerator, clothes dryer, dishwasher, let alone a space heater.
Meanwhile, consoles plug into the TV. My TV uses 250 watts of juice. YMMV depending more on your brand of TV the console is plugged into than the actual console.
Want to save energy? Turn your PC system off at night unless you've got a giant download, are running a server, or some other valid reason to have it on.
Replace those 100 watt incandescant bulbs with 25 watt CFL twirley bulbs. I don't have any more incandescants; If I leave every light in the house on it still doesn't equal my TV set, let alone dishwasher.
Your console's energy use is not the problem.
Free Martian Whores!
So does this mean those ps3's sitting around at full CPU utilization for days and days add up to give Folding@Home one of the largest carbon footprints of any non-profit? Of course I'm not being serious with my title, but how's that compare to the energy costs, efficiency, and carbon foot print of an equivalent blue-gene/L supercomputer?
How much of San Diego's electricity usage is from game consoles?
Xbox 360 console set to raise gamersâ(TM) power bills
That article quotes the Xbox 360 as drawing 160 W. , the Xbox as drawing 74, and the PS2 as drawing 50.
...the CO2 exhaled by the player? I definitely exhale more when I Wii.
In looking at the power consumption figures on Page 10-12 it's amazing the difference between Nintendo and the other Console Makers.
MS Xbox off 3.1 W Idle 117.5 W Active 118.8 W
SonyPS3 off 1.1 W Idle 152.9 W Active 150.1 W
N's Wii off 1.9 W Idle 10.5 W Active 16.4 W
That's just some of the numbers and no typo's Nintendo is an order of magnitude more efficient when running. Amazing. The more and more I learn about the Wii and Nintendo's current business the more impressed I am.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
I guess I should stop my run of Angelo Search since Final Fantasy VIII came out.
In figure 3 they state they've tested with Resistance: Fall of Man 4.
4?!?!?!?! two was just released and they got into the Super ultra pre-alpha for 4.
Can someone get me into that sweetness?
Yeah, all my electronics are guiltless vampires. I'm mean and put them on the "power off" light switch so they're all OFF when I want them OFF. Sure, it takes awhile for the Uverse box to sync back up on power-on, but the savings is worth it to me.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
What activities did the video game console replace in the home and what were their energy requirements?
How much additional power do Wii users consume in the process of charging their Wiimotes? The other systems all have usable wired controllers that don't need to be charged - but most Wii owners have at least two battery-powered Wiimotes that need recharging from time to time.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I don't leave my PS3 on when I'm not using it because the fans are too loud. That said I have two power strips under my TV cabinet.
One is always on and is buried in the back it contains:
Cable Modem
DVR
One has the button facing out and contains:
TV
PS3
PS2
When I'm not watching TV (and pretty much every night), I turn off the optional strip and leave on the always on one. Very simple and efficient way to use power. IKEA has two power strips in a bag for something like $7 right now. It's an easy step to take.
If you have electric heating, then any extra electricity you use will reduce the amount you use for heating. Basically, the waste heat is used to heat your house. So, the game consoles are free to use when cold outside. PS3 space heater anyone?
Here's an easy solution.
MS and Sony (and Nintendo) should make a series of simple alterations to their programming and production line machines, as follows:
#1 - When you hit the power button, it goes OFF. Not just "low power", and certainly not Sony's PS3 "still burning more energy than a 75W light bulb" mode.
I recognize this will lose the remote-control ease of "powering up" the device using the Home/Xbox/Power button from the controller. Tough. Get up and walk the fucking five feet to the box to turn it on. I also recognize that this may not be possible with the current already-installed base (though I bet the PS3 could spin down a hell of a lot more than it does).
But even if you can't do this to the currently-installed base, you can CERTAINLY do this next one:
#2 - Enough with the damn system clock. If you want to have a clock, have it ping an NTP server somewhere (heck, give the user a choice of which government or private-industry one they want to ping) for the time when it comes up. If it comes up without a clock and the user doesn't bother with the setting, the user obviously doesn't worry enough about it to care. The only thing you use it for anyways is marking a time/datestamp on savegames, which could just as easily be stored as the amount of gameplay time spent in the game rather than time/datestamping. Not only that, but your system clocks suck and have to be regularly reset anyways. Neither the Wii, nor Xbox360, nor PS3 is programmed to be a PVR or anything like that, so they have no reason to have a clock. At all.
Same thing for so many other devices: there is no reason for my coffee maker, or my toaster, or anything else to know what time it is. None. At all. I am not, I swear to god am NOT, going to put two pieces of toast in the toaster when I leave for work, then call home and enter a six-digit code from my cell phone when I'm 10 minutes away just so I have hot toast waiting after I walk in the door. And even if I did, that function would STILL not require my toaster to know what time it was, only that it had just received a code saying "toast. Now." And when I consider that the amount of energy my toaster expended simply waiting for that command could probably toast a whole fucking loaf, even having it networked in the first place is a waste of energy.
Added bonus: users could just hit the power switch on their surge protector to REALLY cut everything off if they want to, without having to worry about resetting the clocks later. The one reason I don't do this nowin my living room is that it's annoying enough to have to reset clocks after a 5-minute power outage, I don't want to have to do every time just to play a game. I do, on the other hand, do this for my various kitchen gadgets that have "standby" modes and they've never missed a beat (even found, after much research, a microwave model where I don't have to reset the fucking clock just to cook something).
We waste far too much power on "standby" modes for everything, and it's getting annoyingly hard to even find a device that truly turns OFF any more.
Finally, a note to EVERY company that makes products:
I DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A GLOWING RED LIGHT JUST TO KNOW MY DEVICE IS TURNED OFF.
I mean seriously, my living room looks like it's fucking christmas even when everything's turned off. I kill the lights and the collection of little red LED's from my TV, stereo system, and vcr/dvd player/game systems is collectively bright enough for me to see my black cat sneaking around to try to run between my legs and trip me while I go upstairs to bed. My various electronic devices stare out at me in the night like a deranged collection of fruit fuckers.
If it's on, I expect a status light perhaps. A happy little, not-too-bright green light or a system clock (for an older VCR or Tivo or something) saying "yeah, I'
FTA "Many users do not turn their video game console off. A game console that is left on 24/7 will use approximately 10 times more annual energy than one that is turned off after use. Due to the absence of any studies, we based our calculations on the assumption that 50 percent of users leave their device on when they are finished playing a game or watching a movie."
Here are my study results, consoles create 100MW of power. (1)
(1) Many users mod their console to include solar panels and wind turbines. A modded game console will generate approximately 10KW of annual energy. Due to the absence of any studies, we based our calculations on the assumption that 50 percent of users have modded consoles that generate excess power.
The study shows that many people leave their PS3s on all the time, and the power difference between running F@H and idle is small, so it's really the PS3 that's killing the planet. If you're going to waste power anyway, you might as well do some folding.
However, there is no reason a console should use 100W when idle. A laptop can drop its power consumption by a factor of 10 when it's idle; why can't a game console?
Moving from the UK to the US, one of the things I miss is having an on/off switch on every electrical socket. It's much easier to flip a switch than have to pull/push plugs. I can also be sure a device is truly off, and not slowly leaching power like the umpteen power adapters I have.
I'd love to start replacing the outlets I have with switched varieties, but I haven't found anything yet. Either my google-fu is weak, or I'm searching for the wrong thing. Anyone know where I can find such a thing?
"1 Many users do not turn their video game console off. A game console that is left on 24/7 will use approximately 10 times more annual energy than one that is turned off
after use. Due to the absence of any studies, we based our calculations on the assumption that 50 percent of users leave their device on when they are finished playing
a game or watching a movie."
Your study = fail
Wombats are an order of magnitude more efficient. Amazing. The more and more I learn about the wombat the more impressed I am.
It's hard to get the Red Ring of Death without really heating up that sucker first.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you turn off all your extra devices by removing power from the transformer brick, you'll save a lot more energy than just turning off the devices, with the power-bricks still sucking juice to make DC....
Devices such as monitors (LCD's included), stereo equipment, dvd players, printers, are all powered-off pre-brick at my place, and I can see a noticeable drop in energy usage by using that method.
Of course, that means I had an initial investment in power management switches for each area, but most of them sit under the monitor, or have remote on-off switches custom made for that purpose.
In some cases, I have outlets tied to an extra *light* switch that turns off all the *extra* outlets at once as long as the usage doesn't go over the rating of the fuse assigned to that circuit...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The math seems bogus
16e9 KWh * 1000 Wh/KWh / 100e6 households in US * 40% that have consoles / 100 watts per console draw gives me an average use of 640 hours per household per year.
That means absolutely every console in America gets about two hours of use each and every day. Or rephrased playing console games approaches a part time job. Seems unlikely high to me.
Another way to look at it, is if I'm too busy to play on the weekdays, all I have to do is play 14 hours straight on Saturday to meet my "quota". Fourteen hours. Every Saturday. All forty million households. Yeah, sure, like that is ever going to happen.
Also since my wii draws about a tenth the power of a x360 I guess I need to play ten times as much to compensate for the quota, or a mere twenty hours per day, each and every day, in each and every house that owns a wii.
One anecdotal example of more than that usage level, does not prove the usage level of all 40 million consoles.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Yup. I have a Kill-A-Watt device, and tested the PS3 to see how much electricity it wastes when switched off (but with the red LED on so it can be powered up from the controller).
The answer was that it was so little that the Kill-A-Watt still read 0 after 24 hours. So it's an utterly trivial amount in the grand scheme of things, and I'm inclined to believe the 1-2W figure.
I also once worked out the amount of CO2 emitted by my Mac, assuming I left it asleep (3W) instead of powering it off completely, and assuming that all the electricity came from coal. The answer was that I was emitting more CO2 per year by breathing.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
There are so many electronics in the house that are using more than a watt of power in standby that it can add up to a 100 euro per year for a single house hold. Not that much, but you could have used that 100 Euro for something fun.
And to be honest this whole 1 or 2 watts isn't needed for standby. My projector, a panasonic PT-EA1000, is one of the few pieces of equipment that only uses 80mW of power in standby. Other manufactures should think of doing this to their equipment.
For the persons who like to know:
- You power your standby electronics straight from mains power, through a resistor and a voltage regulator. This works because the standby electronics is very low power.
- The standby electronics controls a relay that switches the power supply for the rest of the equipment.
battery-backed RTC (real-time clock) has been used in desktop PCs for literally decades.
If you want to complain about power usage while "Off", I fully agree that it sucks and they should fix that with future devices.
But a system clock is NOT the reason it sucks (or at least, there is no reason for it to be).
If you want to measure efficiency, you do it by comparing energy consumed to work accomplished.
So, if console A has a fun factor of 5, and consumes 1 unit of energy, but console B has a fun factor of 15 and consumes 2 units of energy, then console B is more efficient.
Actually, console A is more efficient, as can be easily shown. Efficiency is work/energy. And everyone knows fun is the inverse of work -- if it was fun, it wouldn't be called work, as is also evidenced by the fact that the more fun your console is, the less work you do because you're spending all your time playing on the console. Thusly, efficiency = (1/fun)/energy = 1/(fun*energy), and console B, by being more fun and thus accomplishing less work, is the less efficient console.
The only way to solve this efficiency problem in consoles is to start making them less fun! Yet console makers seem bound and determined to make the problem worse. Nintendo is the worst offender here, it's as if they want to destroy the planet. Sony seemed to understand this problem at first, but even they eventually gave in and started putting out horribly, wastefully fun games.
The enemies of Democracy are
While it's true that the heat your electronics produce in winter is usefull as heat,
that same heat could have been produced with one quarter the electric input using a heatpump (ie. A/C with inverter).
Besides, unless you live north of Canada - if you house is reasonably isolated, you only need heat 4 month a year.
That makes the usefull heat of leaving you electronics/lights on, 12 times more expensive/polluting/whatever than it could've been.
If you live in an area where A/C is needed during the summer, the figure is even worse.
Bottom line: Electric heating is a waste - year-round electric heating is just plain stupid. Unless you happen to live next door to a nuclear plant with surplus capacity of course. :-(
This post might be colored by the fact, that I pay 30cent/kWh for my electricity - which comes primarily from coal
The point is that the Wii is a fucking 8 year-old GameCube with extras!
No it ain't. Unless you consider an AMD Phenom purchased today (with a uniprocessor OS kernel) to be the same as a 5-year old Athlon 64. The Wii uses a processor in the same line as the Gamecube, but it is an updated version that runs at 3x the clock frequency. The graphics chip is also updated, system and dram bus frequencies are higher. It's architecturally nearly identical to a Gamecube, but that does not make it a gamecube. Well, you could say that it is, but that definition of "is" does not support the point.
Of course you are right in the sense that it still isn't surprising that the Wii uses so much less power than the other consoles; Nintendo made a deliberate choice to design the Wii that way. The GC too was fairly low power, compared to the Xbox at least, but still used more power than the Wii, with one noticeable difference being that the GC needed a fan and the Wii doesn't. 360 and PS3 went for much higher hardware specs, power be damned, and Wii was speced much lower. However it is not simply a GC. And just because it isn't a surprise doesn't mean the lower power isn't noteworthy.
Also note that it is not as simple as newer hardware uses more power. Desktop PC power consumption rose for quite a while, but then plateaued and even has started to drop, with the peak (for processor power at least) coming with the P4 Prescott. That modern Phenom, even with all 4 cores in use, uses less power than the vintage Athlon 64 while delivering much higher performance. Especially now that low power versions are available for desktop use. The main thing causing this is not a change in the nature of technology itself, but rather that people now see lower power consumption as a feature and companies thus see it as something to design for. The Xbox and PS3 could have saved quite a bit of power at a modest cost to performance, but that wasn't the design goal of the company's in question.
The enemies of Democracy are
Saving energy in the winter if you have electric heat (not heat pump, actual heat converted from electricity, e.g. resistive) is pointless, btw, both from a financial and environmental point of view, since every Kwh wasted (i.e. turned into heat) is a Kwh saved by the heater running less to keep the same temperature. If it takes a certain amount of Kw to offset heat loss, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Even for more efficient heaters, power saving makes some impact, but less due to the offsetting effect of more demand for heat.
So if they say something saves a certain amount of energy overall, that figure has to be reduced taking into account the above.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The PS3, while on and running a game, consumes some 33.34kWh weekly--equivalent to around A$5 ($4.79). When on but idle, it uses almost as much, sapping 31.74kWh, or A$4.76 ($4.56). When the machine was off (with the back switch on), power usage plummeted to 0.30kWh, or A$0.04 ($0.04) a week. http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=26421252 So it's using about 16 cents a month in standby. That's hardly equivalent to 5 refrigerators. It's common sense to turn something off when your not using it. Why would someone leave a game console on when it's not in use?
Got a 50" plasma: that was pulling down about 600 watts when displaying a white screen. When doing a dark screen: it was around 200 watts. When off: it went to near as zero as the meter could read. Wii: 30 watts. 12 in standby.
The cable box from comcast was a surprise. 40 watts. It may go up a bit when recording: but this thing is always on. I pay $.20 a kw/hr: so do the math.
Has a tivo: so switching it off via a hard switch defeats the point.
I turned up the humidity sensor on the dehumidifier: and am going to do CFL in the outside lights. Not a fan of having the mercury ones in the house.
It IS a relevant comparison. Most humans in the developed world eat oil (read fossil fuels). Indirectly maybe, but that's what they eat.
The PS2 eats fossil fuels (assuming coal power) so do they.
Work out how much fossil fuels it takes to get a steak and potato on your plate - from fertilizer, pesticides, transportation, building the tractors and farms etc.
Compare the caloric value of the steak and the caloric value of the oil used to grow and eventually put a steak on your plate.
I bet you eat more indirect calories in oil than you eat in steak.
In countries where people drink goat milk from goats that just wander around munching shrubs (or eat the goats themselves), the CO2 they exhale is part of the normal carbon cycle.
But for "industrialized nations" that's not true.
[quote]Not a fan of having the mercury ones in the house[/quote]
Check into LED based lighting....
One of the things I've been thinking about for some time was going to a pure DC based power grid for all lighting and small electronics. Get one (or 2 for redundancy - with hot-switching) very efficient AC->DC transformer, with output taps at 40,12,9,6,4.5,3 and 1.5 volts. Run appropriate wiring from each tap to the right locations.
I think cheap and efficient LED lighting for the house is still a few years off, but researchers are making great strides in this direction.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?