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.

Comments

idiots

[p51d007]

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.

Re:idiots

[lgw]

Actually, much of that is covered by UL, not the government, in the states.

Funny you mention smokestacks: my roommate in college was an Environmental Engineering major. He found government interference in the ability of engineers to improve (chemical) plant emissions so extreme that he quit the field entirely. The government is chiefly interested in forcing the plant to buy a particular scrubber conveniently only made in one state, or only by the company that donated the most to the committee members.

Truth in labeling, though, that's solidly legitimate government business. Redefining everything everywhere as "safety", and thus the governments business, however? Spoken like a true totalitarian.

Re:Why not tackle the carbon output at the source?

[Smidge204]

1) Nuclear power is stupidly expensive and environmentally dubious.

2) Improving efficiency would reduce power requirements, which not only would reduce the size and quantity of power plants required (regardless of type) but also improves economics in other ways.

3) Quite frankly, given the potential for abuse, environmental damage and public health hazards posed by nuclear power, government regulation is really the ONLY solution that would have sufficient clout and impartiality to be even remotely effective. Power plants have essentially zero incentive to do things properly, and huge financial incentive to cut corners that could result in severe and widespread problems.
=Smidge=