Slashdot Mirror
Energy Star Program Needs an Overhaul
Martin Hellman writes "DeviceGuru.com ran my piece raising questions about the EPA's Energy Star program. For example, an Energy Star compliant TV that claims to draw 0.1 watts in sleep mode appears to do that — but only seems to sleep about 25% of the time that it is 'off.' The other 75% of the time it draws about 20 watts, for an effective sleep power draw from the user's perspective that is 150 times what the manufacturer claims. Based on the observations described, it is also questionable how many PC's really are sleeping when their screens are blank, even if the user has turned sleep mode on. Given the billions of dollars and tons of CO2 that are at stake, this situation demands more attention."
Moderation -2
50% Flamebait
20% Interesting
20% Informative
Total Score: -1
Looks like you got up someone's nose.
Honestly, in a time where much of the western world is drinking the "CO2 is teh evil" kool-aid, what did you expect?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Apparently you did not bother to actually understand what you posted. Approximately 60% of CO2 comes from non-petroleum sources, most of which goes to power generation. Of the remaining 40% that is petroleum, about half is related to transportation in the broadest possible sense. Of that portion that is transportation, only a fraction has any relation to Joe SixPack's automobile. In fact, if you actually do the math on the fraction of total CO2 that has anything at all to do with your car, you would find that replacing every single car in the US with a Prius would decrease the total CO2 production by something like 5%, which barely offsets the CO2 output *growth*. At some point, you will realize that your car is not the only significant consumer of petroleum in the US, and definitely not a significant producer of CO2. If everyone stopped driving their car tomorrow, it would barely make a dent. If we are going to come up with constructive solutions, let's attempt to stay in the ballpark of reality.
On the other hand, if you replace fossil fuel power generation with something else, you cut CO2 production in half. 50% versus 5%. One of these is below the noise floor, and the other is not. And it would would not be surprising to find out that it cost more to replace everyone's car with a Prius than replace power production.
I want constructive, efficient solutions, not pleasing solutions that stroke your preconceived notions and accomplish nothing. The numbers very obviously say that vehicle fuel efficiency has no meaningful impact on CO2 output, whereas power generation has an enormous impact. Vehicle fuel efficiency *does* have a meaningful impact on petroleum imports, but you are apparently too confused to discern the difference and that is a very different issue. It is like the people that confuse global warming with the ozone layer hole.