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."
You do want your TV to respond to your remote control, download it's clock-setting and other background data, and be ready to boot up in a timely manner? Don't ya?
We can reduce it, but this is something that ain't going to zero.
Cable/Sat DVR's don't know when they're going to get hit with a data download being addressed to them. They have to always be ready to take it, therefore always spinning. Besides that, it doesn't take that much power to keep the disc spinning, compared to frequent re-starts after stops.
The television in question appears to be actively "on" in the sense that the tuner is on and is sourcing program guide information in standby. When the tuner is not, the consumption is as claimed.
Suggesting that the testing regime is faulty is a stretch. As with all the other qualms mentioned in the article, you have to question whether the manufacturer provided a proper product, rather than one designed to pass, followed by production of one with "faulty firmware".
There isn't a whole lot of restriction out there for this type of practice in any standards testing. At least, you can get away with it, most of the time. I doubt there are many people charged with testing retail devices to see if energy star compliance is maintained. I'd guess that was the major problem.
I record my sleeptalking
From http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/eligibility/tv_vcr_elig.pdf
4) Test Methodology: Manufacturers are required to perform tests and self-certify those models that meet the ENERGY STAR guidelines.
Self-Certify? You've got to be kidding.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Speaking of drinking the koolaid. Why is it that wackaloon right wingers always insist on using "MSM"? I know enough of them to know that they are talking about the main stream media like it is some vast liberal conspiracy...but seriously...it isn't clever...it is actually pretty stupid. But hey, you go ahead and call me when that "MSM" stops running advertisements 24/7 for some of the most evil right wing run megacorps around and then we can talk about how much of an evil liberal conspiracy it is.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
kissing the asses
Are we talking cute college environmentally-minded girls' asses? Or living in a tree, non-leg-shaving, greenpeace girls' asses?
THL phish sticks
Before going crazy overhauling, let's audit the devices that are out there. Then you can assign marketing labels (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) in case you can't read the numbers. (Numbers would be watts per day, assuming constant usage)
Just create something the FCC registration process/database, and let certified labs submit their own engineering reports on the TRUE power consumption. I've never seen any Energy Star audit reports.
"but seriously...it isn't clever"
I agree; in fact most of the people who do that probably couldn't define "Main Stream Media" (incidentally, Mainstream is one word, not two).
Of course, it's no more stupid than people who say "Right Wingers". Those people can't define it either; generally it means "something I don't like". And when it comes from somebody who is presently attending a University, well, it has a certain gravitas, if you know what I mean.
So from my viewpoint both of you are in the same boat, floating down some river, bickering with each other and using pithy phrases like "feminazi" and "yes we can!" to get your points across. No doubt you'll debate it in your blogs. Life is good, eh?
There would not be billions of tons of CO2 at stake if we were not generating electricity with coal. Inefficient electrical devices are almost irrelevant to that problem, and pretty much miss the point. Energy efficiency and CO2 production are only weakly related, much like the case with cars, and it is kind of irritating that people so often conflate the two. If everybody in the US switched to commuting in a Prius tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on total CO2 production (the vast majority of CO2 comes from electricity generation), but it is often sold in those terms. If you get your electricity from nuclear or some other type of green power, there is negligible CO2 impact from having slightly less efficient electrical devices.
If you want to reduce oil consumption you might buy a Prius, and if you were actually serious you would move to a high-density urban area or lobby cities to allow them to be built.
If you want to reduce CO2 production you might buy more efficient "green" electrical devices, and if you were actually serious you would lobby for nuclear (and other non-CO2) power plants.
Part of the reason many environmental policies accomplish so little is that they are largely about symbolism over substance (see: Kyoto). Most people, including many nominal environmentalists, care more about looking like they care than actually solving the problem, particularly if the solution forces them to materially change their lifestyle or preconceptions. It is a cheap and mostly symbolic way to get social approval without actually having to be responsible for enacting useful changes that would actually make a difference. Everyone is so busy trying to prove how green they are that almost no one is actually, well, making the world green.
Your post is a set of trollish exaggerations, so force it to fit your views.
So, unplug and replug your TV every time you want to watch it. I honestly don't care if my TV uses 20 Watts when it isn't turned on or not, that is a rather insignificant part of my electric bill for a major part of my (and most people's) life.
No it not rather insignificant. The devices add up. And you don't know shit about most people. You are just stating that out of your ass. Show me someone who does not want to save money.
Some TVs have a guide that you can use to see what is on. And yes, there are actually TVs with built-in guides not using the cable box. It might be important to have that load in a timely matter rather than 15-20 minutes later.
Some TVs have that guide. This may be true. And if you knew anything about embedded computers, you'd know, that never on earth would any system need to load the data for your completely exaggerated 15-20 minutes. If you are talking about updating the guide from the net, it would go as fast as a browser loading a page. The TV would most probably only implement a cache with per-page refresh time values (like a browser). Why on earth would anyone implement a complex constant updating routine for powered-off state? It costs money, and you get the same results with the caching. On another note: I have never in my life seen a TV that needed to load that long, that I recognized it. And I have seen the oldest CRTs, where the tube gets slowly brighter (while already fully working), and the newest digital super-high-end TVs from my rich uncle that include every feature that you can think of, while still being from completely powered off in usable in the time i needed to get from the TV to sitting on the couch.
Then unplug and replug in your TV, the rest of the world wants TVs to boot up instantly.
Am I right guessing that you ignore connector strips with real power switches, including foot switches with a 2 m cable, so you can put it somewhere else. And remote controlled power outlets (if you're really lazy). And am I right in assuming you do this because else your "arguments" would be worthless? Again you don't know the rest of the world.
The fact that you don't watch TV much [...]
That's not what he said, and therefore no fact. He just does not consider it that important. And I consider people who consider TV to still be important, to be strange.
For most of the people that that TV manufacturers cater to, they don't want to wait. They want the TV to turn on quickly and using the remote, no matter if it costs a few extra watts of electricity. For people like you, well theres always the option of unplugging and replugging in the TV.
This is a repetition of what you already said. Do you think you can persuade us because you can't convince us? Because you can do neither.
You are now officially a troll. Go find a therapist or something to cure your misdirected urge to be right at all costs.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
saw a quote somewhere that said: "The main stream media is as liberal as the conservative capitalist companies that own it." I think that pretty much sums it up.
The government has been hiding free energy devices acquired from extra-terrestrials for decades in order to enrich the cloaked people who really control the Bush patsies.
Now, however, it is a new day in America and Obama will embrace the emancipation of free energy and cordial relations with beings from outer space. Amen.