Slashdot Mirror
New Energy Efficiency Standards Take Effect This Week In the US (nrdc.org)
AmiMoJo writes: Eagerly awaited national energy efficiency standards for the little black boxes on the cords that connect many of our electronics--such as smartphones, computer laptops and electric toothbrushes--to wall outlets take effect this week. Known as external power supplies, or the less elegant term 'wall warts,' these power adapters may be small, but they consume a lot of energy. With 5 to 10 external power supplies in the average U.S. household, the new efficiency standards are projected to save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs and reduce the carbon pollution that fuels dangerous climate change. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that the new standards for external power supplies alone will cut nearly 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over 30 years, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 6.5 million homes.
About time these ghost electricity vampires were dealt with. That said, after replacing most of my major appliances with top rated Energy Star ones (dropping my utility bill 20 percent), I found a lot of the energy waste is going to the cable box for my TV.
Always on is just plain fiscally irresponsible. Only a communist would support wasting energy like this.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I never got why we never bothered making additional DC sockets for our homes, Where we wouldn't need these power bricks for every "Low Power" device.
I guess you could in theory have a power socket that allows USB too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So a savings of $300 million a year, divided among ~325 million people comes out to a little less than $1 per year. That's inconsequential. The pollution savings are significant, but too abstract for the common person to understand. Knowing the American people, I doubt that anyone cares; am I being too cynical?
Either way, it's a worthy change, and I hope to see more like this.
So, you're basically saying that we should dedicate a human to manually do a job that a chip could do trivially. Great.
I, for one, would like my electronics to do their charging quickly, efficiently, and without my having to babysit them.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
...save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs...
So $1/year/person. In other words, no savings to speak of.
"His name was James Damore."
Why bother, when this problem could be resolved by the free market. I mean, who'd want to buy a power supply that constantly drains power even when it's off? This would only make sense if you assume the average consumer is an idiot.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Wow, I'm gonna save $300 million dollars a year?! That's way more than I spend ...
But seriously, $300 million spread of $300+ million consumers (ie people) in the US means less than a dollar each. Whoopie. Replacing an old adapter with a new one should pay for itself after like 150 years! ( $1 per person shared over 10 adapters ~ .10 per year to pay off the $15 cost...)
Less than $1/year for every person in the country! How many hours and dollars were wasted, er... spent in drafting up these standards?
Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.
This. What the GP calls government intervention, the rest of us call convenience.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
5 to 10 external power supplies in the average U.S. household
That means somewhere in the U.S., there are about 20 wart-free houses that are offsetting my house. I recently hauled a cardboard box filled with them to the recycler; they were just the old ones from dead electronics. And I didn't even toss all of them; I kept another full box as replacements.
John
Does anyone else not care or am I alone? I don't give a fuck about anything
If, as the summary says, this saves US consumers about $300 million per year, and, given that there about 318 million people in the US, does that mean this saves about one dollar per person per year? Impressive.
And exactly how much will we spend to save that dollar? My guess is it will cost more in government red tape and enforcement than we will save. Probably mostly just help put low cost MFG out of business in favor of the big guys with big budgets.
But why do what we all should do, and instead add in Government controls on what we can can and cannot do, simply because we're too lazy to do what we ought to do.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
For someone who hates gov intervention, why are you telling me what to do?
I just wish there were a similar national effort towards reducing the amount of electrical noise these things generate. They're regulated on paper, but not in practice, and the noise they create, once it is radiated by the power cords and general house wiring, is a major source of shortwave radio interference.
Sorry, you're the idiot. What you suggest is quite ridiculous unless you are living in an SRO. When I'm using an electric razor, I want it plugged into an outlet in a completely different location from my laptop or my cell-phone, and typically they are to be charged at different times of the day. And likewise, wall-warts have a lot more uses than merely charging batteries in portable devices.
Syntax error: Line 1 Please rephrase sentence.
I've never heard of the term Wall Wart. Is this really a common term?
Lazyness is only part of the equation. Cheap manufacturers that don't give consumers a choice are another part.
Or maybe it means $300 million/year/person and we're all getting $300 million tax refunds each from the IRS? Woohoo!
Big Government!
"$300 million a year in electricity costs and reduce the carbon pollution that fuels dangerous climate change. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that the new standards for external power supplies alone will cut nearly 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over 30 years, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 6.5 million homes." OR
1 day in the life of almost any industrial plant, that can profit from the carbon trading market.
Not saying it should be a one OR the other tradeoff but why does the burden seem to fall on the consumer for what is essentially a short-sighted purely greed driven choice by the manufacturers ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"projected to save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs" this is total bullshit.
Power companies are just going to increase rates to keep profit at a slowly increasing level because we won't smack the fuck out of them for profiteering.
"You should pay more money if you use more of X!" yeah well when technology is developed to USE LESS OF X the utilities find a way to CHARGE MORE MONEY PER X.
So it'll save me about $1 in electric costs vs. whatever the increased price of the object is? Hard to know since they are typically bundled with a larger product.
Am I the only one who is having trouble finding articles lately that I even want to read? Come on Slashdot, give us more controversy, like it used to be! I hope this is not a permanent trend, but I fear for the beloved /.
Thank you Edward Snowden, you are a true American patriot!
More government intervention, because consumers ARE STUPID. Plug all your stupid wall warts into a power strip, when you get done charging, turn off the power strip. Idiots...now another stupid regulation.
So I should waste my time monitoring devices that were designed poorly in the first place? THAT is stupid. If we need a regulation to get companies to design products that aren't needlessly wasteful then so be it. Fixing market failures is actually a good use of government.
"Stop government regulation! It's so much easier to design without worrying about electrocuting people, or outgassing volatile compounds, or irradiating people!" . . . . No thanks. Safety regulations and "truth in labeling" are some of the few places where government actually belongs. And since wasting energy is directly connected to a smokestack in most parts of the country, saving energy promotes safety.
SSIA
(Others said it, but this post should be modded up because it was said succinctly)
But why do what we all should do, and instead add in Government controls on what we can can and cannot do, simply because we're too lazy to do what we ought to do.
You are asserting we all "should" waste our time monitoring badly designed electronic vampire devices and I think your premise is flawed. I have better things to do with my time. Has nothing to do with laziness AND it rewards companies for designing inefficient products. The correct solution is to ensure that the products are power efficient in the first place and make the problem go away without placing a huge collective burden on the citizenry with pointless busywork.
But, hey, it'll save baby seals and unicorns on the planet!
Unless this new standard has a provision to require manufacturers to recall and replace all the hundreds of millions of wart guzzlers already in the field, this won't be very newsworthy for at least a decade. Are citizens expected to run out and spend more money to replace the inefficient ones originally sold to them by manufacturers for decades? Why not make the manufacturers culpable for the consequences of their greed? They already knew how to make them more efficient, but didn't bother to do so to boost profits.
A better way to accomplish the same goal more effectively would be to eliminate the need for wall warts in the first place. We know how to do that, too: replace the increasingly obsolete AC distribution grid with a DC one. It's not as if that hasn't already been proposed.
That's all fine and good, but that does nothing to address the poor efficiency of these devices while they're actually in use.
But even so, the allowances for unused supplies is pretty generous and easily achievable with a few cents worth of components. It's just that now the market has an incentive (avoiding regulatory fines) to actually give a shit about not burning the candle from both ends, and consumers will see a benefit regardless if they knew about what they were missing or not.
=Smidge=
I know! We should have manufacturers label the amount of electricity their product wastes so that consumers can make an informed choice.
Oh wait, then people might not buy your shitty shit. Gotta keep the consumers stupid!
Shoot I thought they meant $300 million per consumer a year... you know because my power bill is outrageous.
Probably mostly just help put low cost MFG out of business
Since when is the cost spread changed by changing the standards?
Low cost MFG ARE the big guys.
I'm not sure what I'll do with my ~$1 windfall.
Then perhaps a better solution is something like an energy star rating so that consumers can be informed of how much electricity your product will waste.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Why bother, when this problem could be resolved by the free market.
The "free market" has utterly failed to solve this problem to date. QED your faith in the free market to solve all problems is misplaced.
I mean, who'd want to buy a power supply that constantly drains power even when it's off?
No one but you are implying that there is a choice. Many of these power supplies are designed to be as cheap as possible and/or badly designed. If I buy a TiVo or a router it's not as if I have a choice of what power supply it comes with. Companies that sell these things do not care AT ALL about your home or office electricity budget because they have no financial or regulatory incentive to care. This is called a market failure. The pure self interest of the companies making the product conflicts with the need to minimize power consumption.
This would only make sense if you assume the average consumer is an idiot.
Has nothing to do with the intellect of the consumer. The consumer isn't being given a choice and even if they were it's not clear they would choose to buy something that minimizes power consumption even though that is in our best interest as a society.
watch out which hole you plug that cable in!
geeze, now I'm going to have to go home and see how hard it is to cram a micro USB in a power strip outlet.
At least you should be sort of safe with a full-size USB connector. Unless you're five years old, really drunk or both.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
What an idiotic comment. So I should have to turn off and turn on every device I own twice? And I can't use a remote to turn anything on anymore? And what about the efficiency while I'm using the device?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
People don't buy their phones based on the energy rating of the wall wart that comes with it, and the manufacturer does not offer a choice of wall warts for a given phone.
I came up with the same $1. But they also said it's the equivalent of 6.5M homes - which is 5% of homes (~125M households in the us). I find it hard to believe that the average annual electric bill is $50 ($20/pp x 2.5ppl/household). Something in that summary is screwy.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is an example of the very common "Principal-Agent Problem" which exists in some form in many, many commercial products and services. Manufacturers and service providers make decisions in effect for consumer that benefit their bottom line, but pass on all sorts of costs to consumers as a result.
In this case cheap energy-wasteful wall-warts that reduce the manufacturer cost but adds to everyone's electricity bill. Market competition does not address this issue since purveyors of electronics are not using "wall-wart power efficiency" in their sales campaigns, or even reveal how much power they waste if the consumer wants to find out (you have to buy it and see).
Only regulation by an organization that acts in the interests of the consumer can address this.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
"... save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs and reduce the carbon pollution that fuels dangerous climate change. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that the new standards for external power supplies alone will cut nearly 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over 30 years, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 6.5 million homes" As many above also noticed, the $300 million/year reduction stood out to me ( $1/citizen), but maybe the reduced greenhouse gas makes up for the small gain? Let's see... 47M tons of CO2 over 30 years = roughly 1.57M tons/year. Last figure I saw was about 5.4B tons of CO2 produced in the US/year as a by-product of energy creation, so about a 0.03% reduction, annually. I'm not saying that every little bit helps, but at the cost of new wall warts (manufacture, distribute, packaging), this has got to be a net loss...
I thought the same thing too, but then I realized they were talking about 30 years of use compared to a single year worth of electricity for 6.5M homes.
hrm ... normally a Wikipedia fan in the economics section, but this is a little too simplistic.
Market failures are typcially held to be scenarios where the market cannot achieve a solution - not ones where Pareto efficiency hasn't [yet] been achieved.
Interestingly enough, many regulators cite market failure where regulations prevent market solutions from being offered. e.g. Nuclear energy insurance. Beware of their circular reasoning.
Personally when I buy computer PSU's I look for 85+ Bronze or whatever rating term they're using. I'm not sure who adminsters the seal, but something like UL for efficiency ratings on wall warts is entirely feasible. I'd certainly look at an efficiency claim on my next razor before purchasing - I spent an extra $30 on the last one to get the Li+ model for similar reasons.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The broken window fallacy made real.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Or you could just get a Mac, which is a special computer built for fags
Great. Any advice for dealing with devices that are never done charging? Off the top of my head for stuff in my own home:
- Multiple USB hubs
- Multiple hard drives
- Home security camera
- Printer
All of those are always-on and use wall warts to draw power. I'm confident I could double that list (at least) if I did a walkthrough of my home. Your suggestion does nothing to address always-on devices, which, arguably, are the larger concern here. Regulations that require better efficiency do address always-on devices, and they do so in a major way.
George: I didn't get any bread.
Jerry: Just forget it. Let it go.
George: Excuse me, I think you forgot my bread.
Soup Nazi: Bread, two thousand dollars extra.
George: Two thousand dollars? But everybody in front of me got free bread!
Soup Nazi: You want bread?
George: Yes, please.
Soup Nazi: THREE thousand dollars!
So $1/year/person. In other words, no savings to speak of.
You can always count on the amateur capitalist to neglect to fully prorate the costs of a thing before proclaiming its worth. Of course, if it were a proposed $1/year/person tax they'd be howling as if you'd stolen their first-born.
And what is the window being broken in this situation? What is being destroyed?
=Smidge=
The only real solution to this problem is to avoid designing dedicated external power supplies for each product. Instead there should be simple standards, which would open the marked to 3rd party power supplies. As the marked is today, there is no financial incitement in developing good power supplies as people think about just the device.
Imagine if we had a standard for powerplugs providing 5 volt. You could then buy a power supply providing 1000 mA and it would be able to power any device requiring 1 A or less. This would allow developing a technological superior power supply, which could then be used with nearly everything. Suddenly the cash for great engineering is present because the marked becomes much greater than the one device, one power supply as we see it today.
Once my router died. It turned out that the external power supply died and being on a deadline (master thesis no less) and I needed the connection to the university right away, I just went scavenging through whatever I could find to get it going again. It turned out that the USB hub used the same plug and voltage and it provided 3 A. I only needed 2.5A, which made it good enough and it worked fine for the rest of the time I used that router (removed due to speed, not because it died). It left the hub unpowered and I wanted to order another one, but I ended up ordering one more hub of the very same model because hub with power supply cost the same as the power supply. I was lucky to find a suitable replacement, but with an enforced standard it wouldn't come down to luck, which in itself would be an argument for making proper standards.
We could demand by government fiat that wall warts be more efficient and reduce our carbon output or we could use nuclear power and eliminate it. I suggest we use nuclear power.
If we use technology like a waste annihilating molten salt reactor we could eliminate the carbon emitted from electricity production, burn up the nuclear waste from old solid fuel reactors, and get some very valuable medical and industrial isotopes.
The only reason we haven't seen reactors like this already is because the federal government has decided that they alone have the authority to manage nuclear materials, and that the people that license these nuclear facilities are so risk adverse that they'd rather see everyone in the world suffer and die from a carbon dioxide induced environmental collapse than have someone get on the news for having bumped their head while working on something "nukular".
The federal government created this problem, I have little faith that they will fix it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"the new efficiency standards are projected to save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs "
While costing them an additional $400M a year in increased costs of the new power supplies.
This is similar to thought process that gives us cars that shut off the ignition when you stop the car, then restart. The starter breaks after 5 years, costing $1,000 to fix, but it does save $40 in gas over the life of the car.
I think you are confused. The broken-window fallacy exposes the flawed reasoning behind the notion that waste benefits the economy by creating work. Arguing in support of wasteful, inefficient electronic devices (and not the opposite) would be an example of such a fallacy.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
(source)(pdf). Sure, the wall wart is small potatoes. Lots of these items are small bits individually, and they all have to pass a cost/benefit test (the cost of the incremental improvement must be less than the financial savings). When you add up all the bits and bobs, the cumulative impact is significant. It's not like DOE started with wall warts. It focused initially on the biggest opportunities, and works its way down the list. It's only because /.ers have lots more wall warts than the common man that it's even newsworthy for us.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
You want an energy efficient shaver? Get one that requires a cord to work. Will also last several times longer. Same gain is available with a lawn mower, if you don't mind cord wrangling (which I don't).
The only device I use regularly* that needs batteries is the TV remote. And that goes for years betwix replacements.
* - I have a cell phone, but don't use it. It is for emergencies, like a couple of quarters in my pocket used to be.
I come here for the love
As an amateur radio operator, I avoid these high-efficiency SMPS wall warts like the plague in favor of the heavy old-school transformer units. They don't generate any of the horrible RF interference cheap SMPS frequently do. The realistic difference in energy costs for me is maybe a dollar or two a year so....no thanks. I'll stick with the old faithful foot warmers.
When the U.S. president says "millions of dollars" you just know he's not discussing foreign policy. He probably shouldn't be allowed to wield that word at all.
Sorry, Mr President, "billions" is as low as you're allowed to go for dollars; you'll have to save that for talking about "ounces"—even if "this grand initiative will save America $0.3 billion annually" doesn't make it sound like we're paying off the last war any time soon.
Come to think of it, if the president was confined to "trillions" (for the sake of uniformity) that wouldn't be a bad thing, either—even if the average America loses count when first hearing "this grand initiative will save America $0.0003 trillion annually." Obama in eight years has presided over something like $30 trillion in total state expenditure. For his substantive purposes, trillions are a perfectly good unit every day of the week, and all speechifying occasions.
Go out to Amazon and start looking closely at adapters, chargers and lights. A shocking number of items have obviously fake Under Writers Laboratory marks. Outside well known US and Major Asian Brands (Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, Samsung, LG) I'm dubious that the devices will be compliant.
I think the idea is that you should be a conscious person already and aware of the environmental impacts and working to mitigate the issues associated with waste.
Being a generally lazy individual, my home has enough wind and solar to ensure I can leave shit plugged in all the time and still push excess out to the grid. I don't even really have to do anything - it's all automated. I recommend a company out of Starks, Maine. They're Maine Solar and I am not affiliated or anything - just pleased. They were the ones who set up the system. They don't do much with wind but they were able/willing to integrate it for me. Yes, yes I am that lazy.
But, I'm pretty sure we were supposed to be aware of vampire power use and take a few steps to minimize it. No, no I didn't. I'm not about to run around trying to remember what I plugged in where and when I did so. I'd drive to the bathroom if I could fit a car in the house. Strangely, I can't get fat if I try.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Right. It's dishonest to say "in 30 years, save the equivalent of 6.5M homes for 30 years". A more honest statement would be "217K homes".
My health, the health of millions with breathing issues, and the health of our planet are not subject to your libertarian discretions on whether you feel like adding unnecessary pollution to the air.
We have these regulations to protect the common good, and to protect the safety and health of millions. In this case your "freedom from tyranny" to use something that pollutes unnecessarily infringes on my air, my asthma, and the safety of children, the elderly, and the environment.
The free market can go fuck itself and so can you. Either mandate a more efficient transformer or tax the shiy out of it to compensate society for the health and social costs choosing to use it imposes on everyone.
"reduce the carbon pollution that fuels dangerous climate change"
stop preaching. i reject your planet worshiping death cult.
Plug all your stupid wall warts into a power strip, when you get done charging, turn off the power strip.
Is this correct? Last year, we had rolling blackout in San Antonio (might have been 2 years ago). The power company told us that we had to unplug the device to actually save energy. They stated that plugged in is always draining power regardless if it's on our off.
Well, if this is $300 net, I'll take it. That's how economics works, doesn't it? You stop investing when the marginal return for a dollar spent is a dollar.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Any advice for dealing with devices that are never done charging? Off the top of my head for stuff in my own home:
Most of those things will run off power provided by an ATX PS, and most of those things (security camera aside) you only use when the computer is on. Power those devices from the high (85+) efficiency ATX power supply of the attached computer, rather than a separate low (20-75%) efficiency wall wart, and eliminate the 'vampire' draws by un-powered transformers all together.
Canada also does not regulate electricity. Rather, if you intend to connect your equipment or wiring to the power grid, you must have it approved by ULC/ETL/TUV/CSA or the ESA, respectively. These are all private companies, although the last one I'm not completely certain about.
The fact that TUV is private leads me to believe the same is true for Germany.
The government's only involvement is in prosecuting anyone using those various trademarks without permission *or* in prosecuting anyone violating electrical code, which is what happens when someone uses a device without those trademarks on public (or private) utilities. It also happens when someone connects unapproved (by the ESA) wiring to the public utilities.
A homeowner is welcome to build their own solar system with wet salty string if they want.
The two immediate problems are that 1) they're not hooked up to a machine with an ATX PSU (it's an old Mac mini for most of those, in fact), and 2) I wouldn't want any of those devices to be semi-permanently wired into the computer to which they're attached. Besides which, while that may be advice I can apply when doing a build for a new machine, it's not something that will work for the average consumer.
UL stands for Underwriter's Laboratories, and while UL approval may literally be required for some vendors to purchase product liability insurance, a true 21st-Century Enterpreneur [TM] shouldn't let difficulty in getting insured be an obstacle. You have to have an Exit Strategy so that before the claims come pouring in, you've already taken the money and run.
OR, you could be a mega-too-big-to-fail corporation, self-insure and pay claims out of petty cash the way that Detroit automakers computed the cost/benefit ratio of lives lost versus cost of installing seatbelts (and other equipment) before the goddam gubmint made them do so regardless.
I'm pretty sure switching off the power strip it's attached to will do the trick.
Consumers decided that they'd prefer cheaper products with whatever power adapter was able to keep the device working reliably for a reasonable number of years of service-life. (Let's face it... If the cheaper adapter costs me an extra 50 cents per year in electricity, I'll probably come out ahead paying that vs. whatever extra they'd have to charge for a better adapter. For 4 years of use, we're talking an extra $2.00 or so? And I bet that estimate is high.)
Cheap manufacturers that don't give consumers a choice are another part
Ahh, but you fail to realize "cheap" is the choice of consumers, not the manufacturers. Manufacturers are just responding to the demand.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's just the saving on the supply of electricity. How much is preventing more than 1.5m tonnes of CO2/year being emitted, plus the other pollution, worth?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You can regulate the power at the breaker box, but IR drops in the wires will mean it's unregulated again by the time it gets to the outlet.
All you save by doing this is having a lot of rectifiers (and smoothing caps). You can replace them with one big rectifier and smoothing cap. It might be a win in the end. But it's hard to say
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
It's the government that is the waste, legislating for a negative benefit.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I believe there are over 320 million people in the US? So less than that even.
So true. A couple of years ago, I bought a wattmeter and measured pretty much everything. The result was incredible : while my LCD screen would switch from ~30 to 0.05 watts when in standby (with the LED yellow), my USB external drive would only go from 14 to 9 Watts ... when the power button was on "0".
Yes, a physical switch that makes you believe that the power is completely off (no noise no light) was actually only controlling the standby state of the drive, leaking 9 watts when powered off ! That should be illegal.
If your product has a plug, you wont get it sold in US stores without UL listing - liability fears have meant there's no need for government intervention here. (There have been problems with some direct consumer imports from China, but that's true in many countries.) UL doesn't handle all forms of product safety, but they're great at electrical and fire safety testing for products.
the way that Detroit automakers computed the cost/benefit ratio of lives lost versus cost of installing seatbelts
It's worth noting that the government-mandated rush to install airbags actually cost lives, as it took a couple years for the "no kids in the front seat" warnings to show up. (Though these days you're "old" if you remember when airbags were dangerous, kids were banned from the front seat, and minivans too old for airbags were valued as they could haul 1 more kid to soccer practice.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What is the actual cost for a device to implement this change?
I assume it's a few resistors/capictors rectifiers ?
What would the circuit look like ?
Can it actually cost as much as $1 per person ?
I look forward to personally saving $300M next year in electricity. Oh, you meant totally? Well, you are only saving me a buck, less than a penny every three days.
Like other climate solutions, I expect this to cause more climate harm than it is meant to mitigate.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
300 Million in savings/318.9 Million population (2014)
94 cents a year per person.
How much does the more efficient wall wart cost, and does it make sense to actually purchase said wall wart to solve a 1 dollar problem per person.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
First, let me say that I am all in favor of this change. Relatively modest engineering changes and updates to reflect currently available electronics components may only cost pennies and can actually save manufacturers money, but all too often the manufacturers shortsightedly avoid such NREs [Non-Recurring Engineering] costs in favor of more "marketable" changes. In their defense, it is not always obvious when to do such a review: annually seems excessive/wasteful but once a decade seems too long -- and if you set a goal of once per decade, it's easy to slip to once/11 years, 15 yrs or why bother? Legislation can be a useful spur to changes that benefit both the industry and the consumer.
But having said that...
Saving $300M amounts to less than $1 per man/woman/child in the US -- and that's over 30 years! So about $0.03/yr/person Less, when you consider that US population is projected to be over 400M by 2045.
Similarly, the current US housing stock is estimated to be 135M housing units per the 2013 National Housing profile, so 6.5M homes is about 5% of current stock (ignoring 30 years of future growth" and 1 year's consumption for 6.5M homes, spread over 30 years, is about 0.167% of home usage.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
<sarcasm> Damn, I hate it that lights don't turn themselves off when I don't want their light any more! </sarcasm>
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
All the wall warts these days are switched mode PSUs. Well, you find those in computers too, and there efficiency has been of big interest. So SPMS units have gone from complete trash 20 years ago that were 60-70% efficient at best with a power factor in the realm of .5-.7 to stuff today as high as 96% efficient with .99 power factor.
So now it is about implementation. It does generally cost more to make them more efficient. No real R&D needed though, not to meet any of these requirements, we already know how to make efficient PSUs.
More often than not nowadays phones don't even include a charger just a usb cord in the box and you are just expected to have a extra usb charger laying around somewhere.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
You find a 40"+ zero turn electric lawn mower you let me know that would be awesome.
Otherwise most of the robotic lawn mowers are not rated for a lawn as large as mine. I haven't seen any that are rated to do 2 acres. I wonder how long it would take for it to walk off if I did buy one.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
> the new efficiency standards are projected to save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs
Wow, that's gonna push me into a higher tax bracket...
But wait, how much more will wall warts cost, having to comply with these new standards?
[1] It's a standard ploy to use raw numbers without context when you're trying to make what is essentially a REALLY feeble point.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If you truly want to help the environment, don't have children (AKA Little Carbon Footprints) and for the love of god, stop exhaling.
The world will be a better place without you and your progeny.
How much is preventing more than 1.5m tonnes of CO2/year being emitted, plus the other pollution, worth?
You ask a question as if its a rational argument. Its not... its hand waving bullshit.
1,5 megatons of co2 per year is 1 / 20000th of global emissions.
Pour 4 cups of water. Now remove 1 drop of water. Whats that worth, asshole?
"His name was James Damore."
Efficiency gains come from thicker wire, better transformer steel and more of it, more conductive diodes, etc.. Each improvement of this sort not only improves efficiency but extends device life and reduces fire hazard. There's more to be gained here than raw efficiency.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
This consumer would like a 24v battery charger that is not a cheap piece of shit. Which one is it?
Surely there must be something between the manufacturer's overpriced $150 unit and $20 China-direct. How do you find a good one, not the cheap one at an inflated price!
Between the $20 piece of shit and the $150 that is TWICE as good at FIVE time the price it is kind of a gimme as to which one to use. LAsting twice as long and saves $2.00 a year in power won't make the sale.
Apparently UL listed isn't all that important now. The FIRE DETECTORS from Amazon are not UL-listed, nor would they pass. Sigh...the one thing I DIDN'T buy from China.
in winter you're going to use the sane amount of energy anyway
Actually the free market worked perfectly - consumers decided that the wasted energy wasn't important enough to worry about.
Now let me ask you a question. They claim $300M savings with this change, so 1$/person/year. What if the new energy efficient wall-warts cost 30% more than the old? or 50% or double. Haven't seen anyone posting about that.
Good point. Let's stick to truth in labeling, then: "These scissors are dangerous, don't run with them." :-)
Back in the day hospitals were full of lawnmower injuries until consumers got annoyed enough to tell governments to force lawnmower manufacturers to change their designs. Government regulation is often a "choice of consumers" as well. In a competitive market sometimes all manufacturers of a product sometimes make something the customer does not want because that's what everyone else is making. Without minimum standards you end up with 1980s Chinese quality and safety features.
The thick copper wire required for 5V unfortunately removes the "easy". Wiring up 12V lighting was bad enough with 100W or so per bulb.
Ohm didn't just have a guideline, it's a law. If you want to shove a lot of power down a line at 5V you start to need a lot of copper.
Will the cost of the power adapters stay the same? I am always annoyed by statistics citing energy savings for the consumer without considering the full picture. It's dishonest and unnecessary.
I assume it's a few resistors/capictors rectifiers ? What would the circuit look like ?
You assume incorrectly. While a lot of the inefficient wall warts targeted by this are probably just using a basic transformer + bridge rectifier + filter capacitor (and maybe a linear regulator) there are also a whole lot of inefficient switch mode wall warts as well. We're talking %50 power conversion efficiency and probably drawing 10% of their rated power just sitting there with nothing plugged in. There's no (ethical) reason a switch mode power supply cannot achieve 85% efficiency and have a standby mode drawing less than 1%, the only reason it doesn't happen is because it costs more to produce.
Antilock brakes on cars are there not because government regulations (well, they are now) but because someone invented better brakes (Mercedes IIRC). They sold it as a feature. People bought Benz cars because of it.
5 Star safety ratings aren't mandated by governments, but most cars today are safer because people won't buy a cheaper car that is only one star rating.
I've seen the following safety warning on heated hair curler "do not use on eyelashes" , I am pretty sure that isn't a government regulation, but I'll be you'd support such stupid warning labels because people are stupid, and do stupid shit. Lawnmowers are dangerous, including the old push mower (non-engine type) i had as a kid. I mean my gawd man ... exposed spinning blades of death! And yet, I managed to get into adulthood with ten fingers and ten toes!
Yes, we do need a nanny state because people are too stupid . Yup.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You really should have thought of that and a pile of other stuff before posting. Even the ASTM was kickstarted by government.
They used to be a lot more exposed than you seem to remember. Ask someone over fifty.
Also "nanny state"? Am I missing sarcasm or are you really that out of touch with reality. Take a look at Iran if you want to see what a stifling "nanny state" looks like.
It's also worth noting that Detroit fought tooth and nail against seatbelts, the battle went on for years, with auto executives making arguments against them that would have made a tobacco company blush.
Yes, regulation - like unions - can become too successful for their own good, but a black-or-white world is a cold place to live in.
And, repeating, cost/benefit analyses are all that keeps non-UL plugs off the shelves. If Wal-Mart decides that non-certified cut-rate cat food, er electrical plugs will sell profitably enough to exceed potential liability costs, expect to see non-UL plugs on Wal-Mart's shelves.
Antilock brakes on cars are there not because government regulations (well, they are now) but because someone invented better brakes (Mercedes IIRC). They sold it as a feature. People bought Benz cars because of it.
Hardly. People are obsessed with specific brands. No one bought a Mercedes because of ABS. They bought it because they like Mercedes, they make nice cars, they have the complete features they are looking at, nice engine, power, internal climate, good seats etc etc etc. The big difference here is that ABS is a minor cost insignificant component of an otherwise expensive car. When you are paying $50k for a car, what's a extra few thousand for the luxury version between friends?
Conversely energy efficient powesupplies are anywhere from %30 to %100 more expensive due to the limitations it places on component selection. (fun fact you can squeeze a good 5-10% efficiency out of computer power supplies just by swapping capacitors for ones with identical values from better manufacturers.
Side note: Mercedes has the dubious record of manufacturing the worst NCAP rated car of 2013, and Chev Aveos had a horrible 1 star in pre 2006 models which sold better than the subsequent 5star models.
5 Star safety ratings aren't mandated by governments, but most cars today are safer because people won't buy a cheaper car that is only one star rating.
Wrong. There were some great selling cars with horrible safety ratings. If safety was all we cared about we'd be driving small A class mercs and Volvos.
Also double wrong on the regulation. The resulting stars may not be mandated, but there is a metric fuckton of government regulation in vehicle safety which makes it very difficult to actually produce a truly unsafe car these days.
liability fears have meant there's no need for government intervention here.
Hahahahahhahahaah ha ha ha ahahaha ha. ... ha.
Phew I need a tissues. That brought me to tears.
It's worth noting that the government-mandated rush to install airbags actually cost lives, as it took a couple years for the "no kids in the front seat" warnings to show up.
Airbags hurt children, so no airbags were better? The premise is quantifiable with evidence, the entire sentence however is bullshit conjecture, and before you go on your anti-government rant you may want to produce actual numbers of how baby fatalities went up in those initial years. The cause of death may have changed, but you still came out ahead. But I get it, you're one of those people who think everything needs to be held back until it's 100% perfect and then the free market will make our planet a living utopia and we can all dance merrily.
It appears you are the one doing the hand-waving.
I think the idea is that you should be a conscious person already and aware of the environmental impacts and working to mitigate the issues associated with waste.
Let's presume for a moment I am an environmentally conscientious person which is actually true in my case. It does not matter because I have NO ability to compel companies to produce products that are energy efficient. Their economic self interest is in selling me a device and for that device to cost as little as possible. I have the option of not buying the device but in many cases by doing that I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face. It's hard for me to find out in advance who is being wasteful and who isn't. It's nearly impossible for me to communicate my displeasure to manufacturers in a way that will result in positive action. It is HUGELY inefficient and wasteful for me to try to monitor all these companies. It is far more sensible to use government for what it is good for which is to regulate companies whose economic incentives are contrary to the public good. If free market forces cannot effectively compel energy efficiency then the only viable option is to have government step in to force the issue.
I'm not particularly a fan of "Big Government" but situations like this are EXACTLY what government is actually useful for.
Motion sensors
_________
(words below this line don't count)
There's always a technical solution. Can plug the TV into a special strip that turns off the cable box/etc when it detects the TV is off (designed for PCs, to turn off peripherals when PC is off).
Hahahahahhahahaah ha ha ha ahahaha ha. ... ha.
Phew I need a tissues. That brought me to tears.
UL has worked for 100 years. When's the last time you heard of a new lamp, or radio, or other appliance catching fire when plugged in?
Why do you imagine it's not working? Do you have evidence? Or just a belief that all problems are made better by more government?
Airbags hurt children, so no airbags were better?
False dilemma. Early airbags killed children and the elderly. That was unnecessary - had airbags hit the market a few years later, we could have been at the same point today without killing early adopters.
Remember, airbags were initially pushed as a replacement for seatbelts. We know they don't work that way. Engineers at the time fully understood they don't work that way. Airbags are now understood as a "Supplemental Restraint System", and they serve that role well, but they were never going to work as a replacement for seatbelts.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Detroit fought seat belts because their customers didn't want them, and they didn't want to give the impression that their cars were particularly unsafe. Forcing products on an unwilling consumer base is something to think twice about - I think both the government and Detroit were in the right here - Detroit to resist until it was forced on all manufacturers, and the government to insist.
If Wal-Mart decides that non-certified cut-rate cat food, er electrical plugs will sell profitably enough to exceed potential liability costs, expect to see non-UL plugs on Wal-Mart's shelves.
As long as we have truth in labeling, I'm hesitant to say that's a bad thing. Maybe, if the risk of fire spreading to hurt people who didn't buy the non-listed products was there. But if you don't support the right of people to make stupid decisions and hurt themselves, you don't believe in freedom. That's what freedom is, after all, my right to do something you think is foolish, and vice versa.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"So I should waste my time monitoring devices "
No. As per the parent, you spend a fraction of a second flipping a switch.
If that is too much of a problem - for what is apparently only a minuscule savings even taken in total, since even the more efficient wall warts still have to do their primary job, charge and standby.
So your desire for regulation - to substitute for common sense, such as oh, say flipping a switch - nice.
There is such a thing as common sense regulation. There is also a layer of needless regulation with minimal benefit put in place for the willfull ignorant who want "something to be done" for a non -problem. A non-problem that results in regulations that have unintended consequences that are worse than the problem they purport to solve.
How much more cost and uncaptured damage to the environment will these new wall warts cause? Yes I know you think you know the answer based on TFA but how about - how robust will these new designs be? More complicated, more prone to failure? More prone to abuse by users because they perceive they don't "work right " in some way? Etc.
UL has worked for 100 years.
Yeah you've completely eliminated product recalls, house fires, and corporations doing dodgy stuff all because of what is effectively an insurance company determining safety standards. Don't get me wrong they are no worse than actual engineering standards, but to think that either situation is laughable. Just open the weekly paper to see a list of various products being recalled. Like say my Surface Charger that has a nice UL logo on it.
False dilemma. Early airbags killed children and the elderly.
Nope. Prove to me that the children or elderly wouldn't have died anyway. Then we can talk about the numbers of people saved vs the people killed. Had airbags hit the market a few years later we'd have a few years worth of higher road fatalities. I suppose seatbelts shouldn't have come out until pre-tensioners were invented, crumple zones should be removed on SUVs because a few owners buy the cars with bull-bars (or whatever the hell Americans call them).
Safety is an every improving concept. Safety standards are evergreen constantly being updated and changed. The idea that a product that saves people should be blocked because it is dangerous for a minority of the people is absurd.
5 Star safety ratings aren't mandated by governments
Uhh, what? It's the US government that mandates how the safety rating is to be achieved and measured! (That's why Volvo doesn't like it, they feel that you can either be safe on the road, i.e. in the real world, or max out your "stars", but not both. That's another issue though.)
Did you honestly think that the auto industry were allowed to do their own usual marketing spinn on how safe their products are? Not even close... This is too important, and hence to make the market work, the government mandates how safety should be measured and reported.
And as others have pointed out, no-one bought ABS when they first came out because it made cars safer. As a matter of fact it's well known that customers will not pay extra for safety, with ABS being a prime example. When I worked at SAAB just as anti-lock brakes were introduced they were an optional extra that cost the same as a aluminium rims (also an optional extra), something like 80-90% of customers spent the extra money on the rims, foregoing the ABS-brakes. Customers buying a SAAB or Volvo just requires the car to be safe, they're in general not willing to pay one dime extra, even when given the option.
Stefan Axelsson