Slashdot Mirror
California To Adopt First US Energy-Saving Rules For Computers (reuters.com)
California regulators were poised on Wednesday to adopt the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors -- devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state. From a report on Reuters: The state Energy Commission said that when fully implemented, the plan will save consumers $373 million a year and conserve as much electricity annually as it takes to power all San Francisco's homes. Final approval of the standards, expected at a meeting in Sacramento of the five-member commission, caps a nearly two-year planning process that had input from environmentalists, industry, scientists and consumer groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group that helped devise the standards, has said the new standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion in power generation by 700,000 tons a year. The California standards set a benchmark for a machine's overall energy use and leave manufacturers the flexibility to choose which efficiency measures to use to meet it -- an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
Does that mean California will ban the use of Java?
California regulators were poised on Wednesday to adopt the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors -- devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state.
Does these figures include or exclude the extra cooling needs due to the computers and monitors?
If your computer burns 200W, if you live in the South, you likely spend an additional 300+W on cooling to offset that heat production.
I don't know how much money that would actually save. I put a watt-miser on our 5-8 year old monitors at work and they don't even register, which means they're under 500ma.
Maybe I somehow absolutely missed it, but looking at both the summary and TFA, I cannot figure out just WHAT the hell these new "standards" even are.
And really, with manufacturers shoving tablets that "act as laptops" which are meant to be desktop replacements and can be charged over USB cable, is evenergy efficiency of new computers even a concern at all anymore?
as much electricity annually as it takes to power all San Francisco's homes
So what you're saying is that we could avoid all of this if we just cut off all SF homes from the grid? Has anyone considered this option as an alternative? I never liked those people anyway. And they seem to be exactly the kind of people who are against the free market and are likely behind this. It would serve them right to have them do without electricity.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
A few articles have pointed out this paradox, including an episode of Freakonomics. It's been noted by various historians and economists that as efficiency improves, consumption tends to increase. This known as the Jevons Paradox.
The most famous example of this was 19th century locomotives. As engines became more efficient, it made the use of locomotives more economical and spurred an increase in the use of locomotives, leading to ever-higher consumption of coal.
Not an outright ban, no. But what happens when they deem your computer not energy efficient enough? I'm guessing hefty fines and/or taxes, enough to make people like the OP want to leave.
All devices I've purchased have energy start compliance and saving features. Due to the annoyance of some features I have to disable them.
Like power saving brightness settings that adapt to the room lighting. Because I have to keep fucking with the brightness from what the TV perceives as light level in the room. E.G Window shining light into the room but not directly on the TV so it dims but overall room brightness is much higher.
Plus the time it took to get the right color and brightness / contrast I wanted. My computer is also high performance, and I used to notice significantly if a primary HDD powered down. It was a real pain. I have an SSD now and my storage drive I let spin down, but if they are nit picky on it, some content and programs cache significantly, which would let the HDD power down and it would drive me nuts getting lag spikes each time it spins up.
So I obviously adjust the power down time. I also notice the lag when the processor clocks down when it thinks it can, but it was wrong and clocks back up. I don't like stutter. If I'm playing a game it's a death. So I don't let my CPU clock down most of the time. Occasionally I adjust the power settings when I know I won't be doing anything intensive for days, and do shut my PC down when not in use.
But what else? Auto suspend? I mean that shit is annoying. It's been 20+ years and we still can't go to standby and back safely all the time depending on what programs are in use.
I will shit bricks if they expect me to pay the same amount for stuttering shitty low power / power saving hardware. They can fuck off I won't buy it.
FTFA:
The California standards set a benchmark for a machine's overall energy use and leave manufacturers the flexibility to choose which efficiency measures to use to meet it - an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
Really. I mean, really? So basically I (pretend I'm a manufacturer) can build a computer that has a slow processor that throttles constantly, a SSD drive for long-term storage that will cost more but not grant much benefit given the throttling of resources, a machine that enters hibernation-mode sleep after 30 seconds of non-use, a GPU that can have an entire video uploaded to it and plays it on its own with no other system resource usage beyond basic interface, or a new type of display that has near-zero loss (dreaming now).
I'm just saying.. that's what it sounds like. There's no "innovation" to be had in computers anymore; at least not ones that will screw with the power factor more and more, basically using more fossil fuel to use less fossil fuel?
Speaking of which, there's an idea.. How about a direct non-switching power supply that doesn't screw with the AC line harmonics and stores, in capacitors, what it will need for fast surges of use?
Alternate idea: turn ANY devices or lighting/etc off when you're not using it. Apparently that's not possible for some reason, so we have to start nibbling at things that eat smaller amounts of power rather than the largest consumers of electricity - HVAC and other AC motor-driven devices...? This is a bit fishy. There has to be another reason behind the pushing of law to accomplish something, unless it's basically a way to force consumers to do what saves power already instead of giving them the option not to do it if they don't feel like it.
Perhaps they'll do what was a major flop in Ohio - Emissions Testing, but in this case power use testing. You have to register with the state every piece of computer or computer-related equipment you have, and have to take it once/year to a station somewhere within 20 miles of you to be tested to ensure it meets the legislatively-set guidelines of efficiency. If not, you need to take it to a repair shop where they will correct the problem(s) (read: get you a new machine) and then you have to go back to have the "fixed" device tested. Repeat process until all limits are met and you get a cute little sticker that shows you're allowed to use the equipment for another 12 months. Oh, that's after you've paid the fee for each visit for inspection.
Oh, wait, I said that didn't work in Ohio. N/M.
P.S. It would be hilarious to see if this actually happens. My first finger points to the energy being used to power the facilities for testing, and the power used for the testing itself, offsetting the savings of the device(s) that save power. Typical "energy is imaginary when it's not being metered" crud.
P.P.S. This is coming from someone living in a house with solar panels w/ microinverters who has saved 84.1 kWh out of 1600 kWh used over three months.
So now not only do I have to leave the state to keep guns I've legally purchased, I have to leave to keep my fucking computer as well?
I use VMWare for energy efficiency. Sure, that box and the storage NAS use a ton of power. But when you divide by the 15 "computers" it is running, it's super-efficient!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You are more likely referring to the maximum load for all 3 of these. 90 W CPU's are labeled as such because that means they might reach as high as 90 W under a full load. However, many of these may not even be able to reach 75 W or 80 W when under a full load. And when you aren't encoding video or gaming, the load may be half that or way less.
I'm not a gamer, but I believe it is the same story for the GPU as well. Those high numbers are only reached while being taxed. They won't be anywhere near that while you are working on a spreadsheet.
Power supplies are also measured by the maximum amount of power they can supply. I can put a 1000 W PSU in my desktop, and it won't make it use any more power than it does now with a 300 W PSU. Ok, maybe a slight difference because of different efficiencies between the two, but they would be similar.
Lastly, the comment before yours was talking about "standby power". When a PC goes into standby mode, it is essentially turning everything off and keeping just enough power to keep information in RAM, and providing a tiny bit of power for other things. As soon as your start to use the PC again and wake it up, it will jump up in power usage.
At least my computer and monitor, out of the box, go to sleep after a while.
Please, , let them turn their attention to Cable and Satellite TV boxes that when turned "off" with the remote still pull 20+ watts. Let them turn their attention to items like the Roku 3, which didn't even have the concept of "off" (and which kept a moving logo on the screen permanently to keep your TV from turning off). Let them turn their attention to all the IOT thingies, for whom implementing low-power states is an even lower priority than providing basic security.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Is it a VW?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It should be noted the regulation is going to effectively ban open source operating systems in California.
The regulation requires a certification that includes testing of the OS's power management capabilities, which means only OS's with a big enough corporate backer to get them through the certification process are going to be legal.