Community Newsletter: Q&A: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics
- 1/30/08 12:54 AM
Small Contributions
by firefly-18 - 1/19/08 4:34 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
With all the talk about global warming and the world running low on oil and to an extent coal, I have tried to make simple adjustments with the way I use technology to use less power. On my computer, I make sure the speakers are switched off - no standby light on - and likewise with the monitor. I also turn off the television at the wall. It takes almost no time to do these things and when you consider the amount of time these electronics are left idle with standby lights on, the amount of electricity being saved will eventually add up to make a slight difference. Even if it doesn't change anything, I am guilt free when it comes to using electricity.
Oh, Please
by jer1041 - 2/7/08 8:27 PM In reply to: Small Contributions by firefly-18There is NO manmade global warming, we are not running out of oil, the United States has some of the largest deposits of CLEAN coal in the world. We gotta get over this false (earth in the balance) pretense, and start living our lives again. Drill for our own oil, make cars that people feel safe in and actually desire to own. The politicians and the news media are trying to scare the HELL out of us, with one thing in mind......CONTROL.They want your money and they want it NOW. They are afraid of your freedom, and want it gone. If you let any of it go, you will never get it back. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and see what we have already lost. get your head out of your ... and use it to think once in a while. stop following these FOOLS and their lies. Hang on to your guns...... (another freedom they want gone, and for one reason....CONTROL. and NO, I do not belive in BLACK HELICOPTERS.....YET.
Control of what?
by Britti79 - 2/8/08 12:45 AM In reply to: Oh, Please by jer1041It's one thing to say 'there is NO...' global warming etc., but writing words in capitals doesn't give them any more credibility. If you want people to believe you, how about explaining why all the hype is wrong? Blanket statements like 'they want your money and they want it NOW' don't explain anything - who wants our money, how is making us use less electricity achieving that? Maybe it's an American thing, this thinking that everything comes down to freedom? I don't get it. I know US history has had struggles for freedom and independence and abolishment of slavery etc. etc. which many European nations know little or nothing of, but surely not everything is about freedom? If 'freedom' to you means you can sit in a big car and drive as much as you like, then times aren't that bad!
yah, OK yer right.....
by jer1041 - 2/8/08 9:57 AM In reply to: Control of what? by Britti79They don't want control, all they are doing is trying to protect us. they always have what's best for you and I in mind. Our esteemed Senators and Congressmen are not invested in Global warming. They are truly so caring, that they just want us to be safe. We are but little children who need mommy and daddy to look out for us and protect us from the "evil doers" (you know, corporations that provide us with jobs and stuff). UN "good", Socialism "good". Free enterprise "bad", capitalism "bad". Do you live in a shoe? Do you see what all this global whining crap is doing to the price of fuel, food. it's costing us our freedoms and our money. In turn we ask mommy for more government help, as in socialized medicine, smoking bans, gun bans,fear of what we can say in public, the new push to control "talk radio". There is the control.......jeesch are you really so blind????? Or maybe, you're just not paying attention.
I must be blind!
by Britti79 - 2/8/08 3:48 PM In reply to: yah, OK yer right..... by jer1041Well, hey, maybe I am blind! But I do enjoy life inside my shoe, I just redecorated with a new insole 
I'm afraid I miss where the line runs between sarcasm and seriousness in your post! I personally have little to no faith in your 'esteemed Senators and Congressmen' to be doing anything but looking after their own interests, not even yours (the US public) and definitely not the world's interests. I'm not sure what it is they're doing for you to 'be safe'. And yes I do see the price of food, fuel etc. going up (you guys want to come over here to Europe, you've always had fuel way cheaper than us!) but I don't see how that's down to the global warming 'whining'. I'm no economist, but as I understand it the cost of fuel goes up when the supply is dwindling or expected to dwindle for whatever reason - oil rigs getting beaten up by hurricanes, US planes bombing the crap out of oil-producing countries, whatever. Or simply drying up in a location that has previously provided lots of oil (and yes, I do believe the 'hype' that it will one day run out - it's a natural resource that doesn't replenish itself so it's bound to!)
Still not understanding how the global warming debate is associated with banning guns or smoking either. Go and ravage your body with nicotine if you like, but asking smokers to stop inflicting it on others who really don't wish to smell like an ashtray seems fair to me, as does trying to cut down the ridiculous amount of gun deaths in the US. Sorry if my views are radical or make me 'blind'. Choose to believe what you will, but calling me blind for actually believing the plausible argument that we might actually be doing some damage to the environment with our excessive energy consumption is interesting if you can't actually explain why you feel this is all a big con.
Maybe it's my apparent inability to comprehend some simple truth you've stumbled upon, but I can't see how we have to ask the government for help because of global warming or how they're controlling us or taking away our 'freedoms' (well, yours, as I'm not under the governing of your politicians). I'm sorry if you think I'm stupid for not getting it, but I really don't! What freedoms are being taken away by heeding advice on combating global warming? As far as I can see, guns and smoking are separate issues, not related to climate change. Are you talking about the 'freedom' to waste electricity and leave your V8 engine running? I don't want to argue, I just think that if you feel bold enough to rubbish numerous scientific studies that most people (including EU governments) seem to be taking seriously, you must have thought it through and have some clear argument. Otherwise it just sounds like you're lashing out angrily because you don't want to be made to think about it, like a child who's scolded for doing something they probably know is wrong but don't want to admit.
No you are not blind but please read on -
by jspeedo - 2/8/08 9:44 PM In reply to: I must be blind! by Britti79Britti - These days it seems hard to have civil conversations, good people are becoming scarce as common sense, brotherly love, compassion, respect for facts, and a respect for history are ignored as we run head-long into the millenium. Anyway here goes ...
A couple of practical energy saving tips and a lengthy caution:
1. Power consumption by computers and TVs is minimal as compared to Electric Heat (any kind - resistance, heat pump, portables), Dryers, Hot Water Heaters, hair dryers, anything involving heat. Next would be larger motor loads in the home - refrigerators, freezers, and washing machines (but more because of hot water used). So if you want to conserve set your thermostat lower in the winter and higher in the summer – only turn on the lighting you need and efficiently plan your cooking and clothes drying. See posts by marsdave for a longer list
2. Constantly turning off electronic components and light bulbs will shorten their life. Energizing electrical components places stress on them. Just about every light bulb I’ve ever replaced blew out when I turned it on - the reason is the stress of energizing the filament.
A caution that just because something is widely believed, accepted by those in power (governments), addressed in the media almost daily, its opponents are often looked upon with scorn, and it is popularized by many in the scientific community does not make it fact.
It is easy to point fingers and make this political and then rabbit trail into eveery political pet peeve one may have as the poster before you did and you then responded in kind with some harshness of your own, however I wish we would stick to facts. You mentioned scientific studies (which ones?) and governments taking them seriously. I have worked in technical fields for 35 years as a technician and engineer, I learned long ago to respect the laws of physics, statistics, and proven fact and refute what is not real science. We all believe that our position is the right one or we would not take sides. The theory that global warming is entirely caused by humans has not been proven. Yes, we are in some sort of warming trend that began in the mid 1800’s, which was preceded by a four-hundred year cold spell. But we do not know why with certainty. It may be a natural cycle of the earth, or just a phenomenon; and nobody knows how much man may be contributing to it if any at all. Current computer model predictions vary by 400% on how much warming may occur in the next 100 years – that is proof in itself no one knows for sure. It concerns me when governments (EU or USA or our friends all over the globe) begin to weigh in without actual facts - it is the mixing of politics with science that results in well-hyped pseudo science. The theory of global warming concludes that rising CO2 levels (caused by using fossil fuels) are causing a rise in global temperature but did you know that the correlation of rising CO2 levels to rising temperatures is just the opposite and not what is believed and promoted by global warming theorists? In fact the rising temps came first, not the rising CO2 attributed to usage of fossil fuel. Several scientists recently appeared on ABC’s 20/20 to state their case and explain why they left the Concerned Scientists group over this very issue. As true scientists they could not tolerate a gross misuse of facts and the state of fear. The scientists who are truthful and painstakingly adhering to time proven scientific research methodologies do not fully understand what is in process currently on the earth. Additionally, it is scientifically and statistically unsound to apply 100 years of weather data and extrapolate it and apply it to a planet at least 10,000 years old if not billions. Many of the graphs used to support global warming eliminate data from the 1800’s because it does not support their position. Take some time to do some real research – remember the most vocal scientist or theory proponent is not necessarily the most accurate. Please read the following paragraph and study on your own.
What follows is a fairly recent example of science gone bad – when facts are ignored and the opponents are shouted down and ridiculed. Maybe this will help us all consider where we go for information and what we accept as fact? Ever hear of Eugenics? It is (was) a theory that is now known to be so embarrassing it is not discussed much. It basically postulated that a crisis in the gene pool would lead to the deterioration of the human race. So in the early 1900’s leading scientists of the day convinced political leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Winston Churchill, among others) and other famous people of the day (Alexander Graham Bell, H. G. Wells, Leland Stanford – founder of Stanford) to support studies that were performed at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton and in Europe as well. The research went on for years – anyone opposing it was shouted down and called blind to reality, ignorant, and uncaring for the future. Sound familiar? Well this research led directly to conclusions that inferior races were putting the human race at risk – need I tell the conclusion? These scientists backed by their governments led to singling out races. Especially so by the Germans. What happened - a World War and the near annihilation of a race. After WW II no one was a eugenicist anymore and it was no longer taught in the hallowed halls of America and Europe’s Universities – but this did happen and it did wreak catastrophe on the Human Race just not in the way the proponents of this fear mongering and pseudo-science thought it would. Will global warming purists push that far - I doubt it but the point is the majority may rule in politics but the majority is not always right - when we abandon time proven science and scientific methodologies we open ourselves to inaccurate if not horrific results.
So what should we do? Turn down the heat, buy energy efficient appliances, and conserve when and where you can, because of course it’s common sense to be efficient and conserve. I was taught that before Going Green and Global Warming were first spoken and became so popular - heck so were my parents - they had to share bath water with their siblings when they were kids, they found uses for everything on the farm – nothing was wasted. Do not be scared into a belief, or because it is so popularized, it has almost been glamorized to be green - as if you win something. Conserve because it makes common sense to - someday all of the fossil fuels of the earth will be gone - and sooner than most think oil reserves may be gone in our children's lifetime - anywhere from 50 - 100 years and coal in 225 - 300 years. That is reason enough and fact enough to conserve and pursue viable energy alternatives. One last side note and I apologize in advance to believers in wind power. To replace just one large coal or nuclear plant would require enough land to take up almost the entire coast of California - yes let's use it where we can but it is not a panacea. Where we need our scientific efforts is development od new technologies for energy and perfection of current ones including nuclear. I have great admiration for Britain - if not for your country and America and our brave leaders and men and women during WWII, freedom and all it brings to us (including the ability to debate and be civil) would not be ours - let's learn from history and embrace it. LOL
Keeping the debate civil - sorry if I was rude!
by Britti79 - 2/10/08 1:59 PM In reply to: No you are not blind but please read on - by jspeedoThanks for that jspeedo. How about we call it stumbling in the dark instead of being blind then, or the blind leading the blind, because who actually knows what to believe?
I apologise if there was harshness in my previous post. I admit to being a little annoyed at what seemed to be more of the same kind of general ranting, when my whole point was that I'd like to know where it's coming from. As in, why is the global warming talk controlling and taking away our freedom. So that's why I was not really impressed with being asked if I was blind etc. and still receiving no further enlightenment on the issue! As I said, shouting stuff without justifying it doesn't really make for good debate
So thank you for giving me some information to think about. The thing is, I know I'm not a scientist and I have no idea what gases come out of my car or fireplace unless someone tells me. If almost everyone seems to say the same things, and laws are passed that back that up, you can kind of see why I'd be inclined to believe it. But that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fallibility of the information, it's just that there's no real way of knowing any better. You suggest to think about what you believe, do our own research and so on, but how can I know whose numbers and figures to believe?
My years of studying media left me more than aware that there is hardly anything in the media that can truly be called impartial. Anybody telling a story or reporting on an event automatically puts themselves into it - either intentionally or inadvertently. Some tabloid papers use words like 'monster' and 'fiend' when reporting on an alleged attack of some kind, for example, which is effectively judging the people involved without hearing their story. As another example, the difference between the channels reporting on the war in Iraq a few years ago was immense - I can't recall which it was that we had access to back then, either CNN or Sky News, and I'd watch and then flick over to hear BBC News 24 reporting on the same bombing raid or whatever. The choice of words and angles makes a big difference; for example, Sky or CNN (which I guess was American?) would take an 'our boys did good' kind of approach, if I remember right - a successful raid in Iraq eliminated key targets, blah blah blah, whilst the same event on BBC News went for 'x number of CIVILIANS were killed in YET ANOTHER raid in Iraq last night...' and so on. The civilan angle focuses on the negative and effectively condemns the raid, phrases like 'yet another' (with the accompanying tone of voice) are laden with meaning, etc. You see my point?
So when scientists go on TV wearing the customary white doctor's jacket (the media way of signifying that someone is, indeed, an expert in their field!) they're going to put whatever slant they themselves subscribe to, yet we lap it up without realising. Me included, even though I'm somehow aware of this. So where does one go to find impartial information? A previous poster listed, with links, a load of organisations who agreed on global warming (I think the post was titled sth like Ahem, Global Warming is not a myth), and when confronted by those kinds of sources it's hard not to be taken in. Which is why I think that anybody who genuinely feels that the whole thing is rubbish, should please give the rest of us some explanation as to why, so that we could all be convinced. Otherwise it can sound like they're just getting angry at having their lifestyles, hobbies or whatever challenged. I, for one, would be a whole lot happier being convinced that my 4x4's fuel consumption is a matter for my wallet to worry about and nothing more! That way I can go on feeling like a fool for wasting money but not feel guilty for destroying the earth for future generations if that's the case!
Thanks again jspeedo for giving some info here
jspeedo you are full of it
by solarcircle - 2/14/08 7:18 PM In reply to: No you are not blind but please read on - by jspeedojspeedo says "To replace just one large coal or nuclear plant would require enough land to take up almost the entire coast of California"
Here is a fact that he didn't mention:
Wind power is also important in Denmark because it is a green, clean and renewable energy. Scandinavians are known for their advanced environmental policies, and wind power has given the Danes a way to reduce their dependency on polluting fuels: 20% of Denmark’s electricity consumption is covered by clean electricity produced at Danish wind farms. At times, wind power supply is able to cover the total electricity consumption of the whole west of Denmark.
A study done by Greenpeace has shown that double all of N. America's projected energy needs for the year 2050 can be produced with green energy sources.
He also stated "Additionally, it is scientifically and statistically unsound to apply 100 years of weather data and extrapolate it and apply it to a planet at least 10,000 years" Look no further than Al Gore's film to see that research has looked back over 100,000 years and found that there has never in all that time been c02 levels with matching temperatures as high as they are now. Graphs show that the rise in C02 since the beginning of the industrial revolution are closely matched by a rising temperature. There is plenty of scientific evidence - if you don't mind seeing it.
Even if it is uncertain, shouldn't we, for the sake of our children, err on the side of caution? And aren't there many other reasons, including avoiding war and air pollution, to find alternatives. It just makes sense but his arguments don't serve to better our condition but just allow people and governments to rationalize the continuation of this oil fueled insanity. I want to drive a clean, quiet, cheap and environmentally sound electric car possibly fueled by hydrogen produced by wind or tidal power. We have the technology already. Don't believe this minority position which is backed by big oil and big business and the American war machine.
All modern ATX computers
by strickjh2005 - 1/19/08 6:57 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Are APM compatible. Advanced power management allows you to make profiles that turn off unnecessary hardware. Plasma consumes less energy than CTR/ Cathode tube. They have less waste by volume and by mass. The LCDs require less energy. Cutting usage by as much as half.
CPUs are getting more powerful and their maximum wattage is higher but transaction/watt is much higher with the newer technology. IS it better to have a 100 watt system that needs 20 minutes to do a task or a 400 watt system that only needs 3 minutes and then cuts down to a lower usage?
CPUs HAVE to become more energy efficient. The wasted electricity goes to heat. This heat has to be removed and that costs even more energy. The thermal limits on electronics force manufacturers to reduce waste heat. Making them more efficient.
A hard drive of the 3.5 in standard whether 4.1gb or 500gb use the same amount of electricity. So clearly a 500gb drive is better since you will only need 1 drive to store 500 gb versus several giant NAS enclosures with perhaps 28 4 gb drives, all linked together with giant fans to cool them all.
SO I guess my point is that the better the tech gets, the less tech you need to get the job done. The ROHS compliant standard is becoming very popular. It means that the product was made without lead or reduced lead manufacturing.
I personally have my computer set up to turn off the monitor after 10 minutes of inactivity. The hard drives also turn off after 20 minutes and I have disabled indexing so that I am not thrashing my drives constantly. The computer then sleeps after an hour so that all my stuff is still open, but only consumes 3-6 watts to keep the RAM running.
As energy becomes more expensive we will see the emergence of more energy efficient electronics simply because the server market demands it.
Very good idea
by Dango517 - 1/20/08 2:53 AM In reply to: All modern ATX computers by strickjh2005Monitors are major power consumers in PC systems.
"I personally have my computer set up to turn off the monitor after 10 minutes of inactivity" from post #62.
Vista has many advanced setting in power management to disable other components as well. Start> Control Panel> Power Management> see, "Change when to turn off display"> "Change power settings". After changing these if the photo rings or the boss calls and keeps you away from the computer too long, things get turned off. If they don't, this is nothing more then energy waste.
Sometimes I feel that we are fighting a losing battle
by rsimanski - 1/19/08 8:15 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Sometimes I think that the consumer electronics industry is moving in the opposite direction and making it even more difficult for us to conserve energy than it was before.
There are some motherboards that sport the Energy Star logo, and many monitors as well, but I suspect that all that this means is that the BIOS or monitor has power management features. Because of all of the possible ways in which a PC can be configured, it's almost impossible to designate a complete PC as Energy-Star compliant.
It's true that you can configure a PC to go into hibernation or sleep mode if it isn't used for a certain period of time, but there are situations where you cannot do this. As an example, I set up a Windows XP workstation as a file server for a client with a small peer-to-peer network. I had to disable the power management features on the file server because when it was in hibernation or sleep mode, attempts to access its files from another workstation failed.
There's also the question of wear and tear on hard drives. I would think that spinning up and down is harder on a drive than running steadily. If that is the case, and I don't know for certain that it is, what is the cost of having to replace a drive prematurely in comparison with the energy savings of having it spin down when not in use?
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that many electronics today can't be turned off completely except by disconnecting the power cord. Many of these products are always in a standby mode. Printers are a good example. They may not be drawing much current, but they certain must be drawing some. Why can't manufacturers put on/off switches on their products again? How much trouble is it to remember to turn on your printer in the morning before you boot your computer? Of course you can always connect it to a surge suppressor with its own on/off switch, but that assumes that there's nothing connected to the suppressor that has to be on all of the time--in my case, the base station for my cordless phones.
The DVD player attached to my home entertainment system is another culprit. It's always in standby mode. About the only reason for this that I can think of is that I can open the tray without having to remember to press the power switch first. I suppose that it also means that I can turn the unit on and off with my remote control without actually having to get off my butt to hit the power switch. Of course, I still have to get off my butt to load the DVD that I want to watch, so who cares? Believe me, I would gladly trade these so-called conveniences for a lower electric bill.
Now look at all of the devices that have clocks in them. In my kitchen alone, my stove and my microwave have built-in clocks. Why? I don't need them. If I want to know the time, I have a wrist watch that synchronizes with the atomic clock, as well as a battery-operated wall clock in the dining room that I can see from the kitchen.
As for the new compact fluorescent (CF) light bulbs, I'd love to try them. There's one slight problem, however: Most of my lamps take three-way bulbs. A three-way bulb has two filaments. Placing a single-filament tungsten bulb in a lamp socket that's designed for two filaments can damage the socket.
I would suspect that the same thing would happen with one of the CF bulbs. So before CF bulbs can become a viable option for many people, the industry will either have to design a three-way version or make major changes in the lamps that it sells to the public.
What about programmable thermostats? I've read that they can help to cut your heating and air conditioning bill by making the house cooler at night. But there's a drawback to this: Frequent changes in temperature can damage furniture because they cause the wood to expand and contract. I'm not so sure that these changes are good for humans, either, especially if you have small children.
Also, lowering the temperature at night means that the HVAC system has to work harder in the morning to return the house to the desired daytime temperature. Might it not be better to let the house reach a comfortable temperature and leave it that way?
My house has three ceiling fans. When I had a heat pump installed six years ago, the technician advised me to keep the HVAC and ceiling fans running all of the time to keep the entire house, including the rooms at the end of the ventilation system, at an even temperature.The HVAC fan has been running constantly since then and the ceiling fans are running most of the time. My electric bill dropped almost in half after I got the heat pump and has stayed low ever since.
One thing that I do recommend is installing a motion-sensing light by your front door. The street lighting in my town house community is dreadful, and many of my neighbors leave their front lights on all night, probably because of this. I replaced mine with a motion-sensing model about six years ago, and it's a big help when I come home after dark.
Getting back to personal computers, there's no question that the power requirements of PCs have increased substantially in the past five years or so. The original IBM PC had a 65-watt power supply. The PC-AT and clones needed 150 watts. By 1994, when I bought a 486, you needed 250 watts. Early Pentium systems needed about 300 watts. Now you need something close to 500 watts for a properly-configured business workstation and much more than that for a gaming system.
There may be an indirect benefit to this, at least in the wintertime. My home office is in a 9 by 12 room. My PC does a nice job of keeping the room quite warm. If I'm running two PCs at the same time, it gets quite toasty. This means that I have to keep the rest of the house on the cool side. In the summertime, of course, this extra heat becomes a problem, so I guess that it comes out a wash.
ouple ideas for you.
by strickjh2005 - 1/20/08 10:39 AM In reply to: Sometimes I feel that we are fighting a losing battle by rsimanskiI have one 3 way bulb as well. I replaced it with a high end halogen. It gives off more light/watt than a regular bulb. So I only use the 50 watt setting when I would normally use the 100 watt.
A power supply rated for 500 watts is the maximum output, not what it draws all the time. If your computer only needs 250 watts then the PSU may draw 280 watts.
And most gaming computers do not exceed 500 watts. The only time you need something more is when you are running two graphics cards in SLI and have two CPUs on one board.
very interesting post
by bus - 1/24/08 5:44 PM In reply to: Sometimes I feel that we are fighting a losing battle by rsimanskiAs to programmable thermostat for home heating and cooling needs, I would make note that it's the way you use them. The idea is to keep the space at a moderate temperature when not in use and then to bring the temperature to a desired set-point gradely. Basically, when you are at work the house cools down then the thermostat brings the heat up in time for you to get home. When you go to bed the temperature can be reduced while you are under the covers. As to the wood damage, I have been using programmable thermostats for the past 30 years and have seen no damage to my wood furniture and at the same time have enjoyed the cost savings. I save about 50% of my oil consumption by using a programmable thermostat versus leaving the house a 65 degrees F all day. However, if you are home all the time or have a health issue, I would stay with a standard thermostat.
I too have a small office that is not located in my home. I recently switched back to using CRT monitors. Seems dumb but I found I could turn off the space heater I was using and ended up reducing over all power consumption. The space heater was heating the whole office when all I needed was just a little more heat near me. In the summer I will go back to using my LCD monitors to keep cooling needs as low as possible. Live and learn.
Personal responsability
by lari.acosta - 1/19/08 9:50 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
of course, our personal responsability should account for us DOING something. we need to stop the small talk and take action. what can I say? search around the internet for simple solutions and choose the ones you can carry out at home, work, etc. maybe suspend your PC when you are not gonna use it for a while. recycle old iPods, cell phones, computer parts, etc. look for ways to save energy. there are many things that can and SHOULD be done.
Low Consumption Electronics
by SUPERSHELL - 1/19/08 10:12 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
It is inevitable in the design of electronics that each newer device is more efficient than the previous version. Any flat screen monitor or TV is very much more efficient than the old CRT devices. It is in the best interest of the device designers to make them more efficient, because if they are more efficient, the internal power supplies can be smaller and less expensive to build.
Most electronics and also florescent lights lights are more efficient if they are left on most of the time rather than turning them on and off several times a day, Besides they will last longer if they are not constantly turned on and off. This is not true of incandescent lights, but none of us are using them any more are we?
I turn off my monitor screen at night, but leave the computer running and it automatically goes into sleep mode after 10 minutes of non use. If I am going away for several days, I turn everything off.
Your worry should be about the proliferation of devices: Do we really need a computer on the front door of our refrigerator? As we add more and more electronic devices we increase use of energy.
I would suggest that worry about this subject is not productive, and you use your personal energy to solve some of the problems of human inefficiency in both government and the large private companies, now there's something to worry about
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
