Community Newsletter: Q&A: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics
- 1/30/08 12:54 AM
Everyone's Job To Use Common Sense
by kwilsonjr - 1/25/08 11:27 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
The manufacturers of electronic appliances that use AC from the power grid should be held to accountable energy efficiency standards. If 120volt @ 10 watts is all they need, should they be allowed to use a cheaper component in the manufacturing process that requires an additional 20 watts, just because it's cheaper?
I use a lot of electricity. I'm an ejunkie. Got to have the latest gadgets and most powerful PC I can get. When my 15amp service breaker for the living room started tripping daily (thanks for encouraging me to get those battery backups CNET), I took an eye opening look at my power consumption.
There were power supply warts (transformers) plugged into the power strip behind my desk from a long unused calculator, camera and one from an old external DVD burner that has since been discarded (in the dumpster, shame on me).
My incandescent desk lamp blared its 100 watts at me night and day while I worked. I work from home. The living room standing floor lamps each had a 150 watt bulb. Everywhere I looked I found wasted energy.
I took steps and replaced those incandescent bulbs with energy saving fluorescent. I stored those warts for future need (the ejunkies motto "you can never have enough power supplies"). I went around unplugging everything that was rarely used but left plugged in.
I also dumped my 56" projection TV from 1999 and when it came time to replace it, I decided on LCD vs plasma because of the power savings.
It is up to each one of us to think about the impact each electronic item we buy will have on our energy budget. That 15 amp breaker has become my energy budget cap. Are you living alone and sucking up enough electricity for a family of 5? Time to make some cuts in your ebudget.
So to answer your question, it is up to us and it is up to them. We need to establish a partnership and let them know 'yes, we will gladly buy your products, but it has to fit my ebudget'
Everyone's Job to Use Common Sense
by Marsdave - 1/25/08 11:47 PM In reply to: Everyone's Job To Use Common Sense by kwilsonjrWilson - If you did all this during cold weather (unplugging many things, switching to low power devices, etc) with your furnace kicking in, from time to time, you saved nothing in energy. All those items were helping to keep your house or apartment warm. Your energy savings = zero during cold weather.
Furnace?
by kwilsonjr - 1/26/08 7:21 AM In reply to: Everyone's Job to Use Common Sense by MarsdaveFurnace? What's that? I live in Southern California. When it gets 'cold' here I put on a long sleeved shirt.
Act consciosly when it means consuming resources
by turkerc - 1/25/08 11:49 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
The future of Earth does not seem promising, when one observes the fires, floods, and melting glacier, in recent years. But if every people acts accordingly, may be we have a chance(which doesn't seem realistic). I am an electronics engineer in Turkey. May be becouse we are using one of the most expensive electricity here, I wanted to check what I can do with my consumption. What I did, was simply shut all the electric devices that were on standby, timers, TV, audio sets, microwave ovens, satellite receivers, etc. The result was amazing. My electricity bill decreased by about 25-30%. This decrease happened not for one month, but for consecutive months. So, if my bill has decreased, that means an increase in my money, less energy consumption, less sonsumption of Earth resources. If every house acts like this, there will be a huge saving. Another development is the green devices or A class energy devices. Governments should get less tax from people who buy these kind of devices (normaly these devices are more expensive compared to other class devices).
How Much Electricity?
by Marsdave - 1/26/08 12:03 AM In reply to: Act consciosly when it means consuming resources by turkercTurkerc - How many kilowatt hours per month did you save by unplugging those devices? Also, please list them. Thanks.
How much electricity
by turkerc - 1/26/08 9:52 AM In reply to: How Much Electricity? by Marsdavearound 70 kWh. the devices are: clock/timer, three TVs, two satellite receiver, microwave oven-timer, gas oven timer devices. The savings depends on the number of devices on standby. but in any case there will be considerable savings if every house acts accordingly. this is similar to dripping of water from taps. one house can save tons of water in one year.
saving electricity
by vitasx - 1/26/08 12:54 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
i do not turn of my PC. but about environmental issues we need to worry about humankind not the planet after we destroy ourself the planet will recover. global warming is an issue for humankind, but for the planet it is nothing new. we are making the planet not habitable for humans. we should use more hydroelectric or nuclear power stations and use more fuel efficient cars protect forests and oceans if WE HUMANS want to survive. because in this rate we will be an extincted species and the planet will linger on.
Power requirements
by jjtotten - 1/26/08 12:55 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Rebecca: I think that it is great that some of us consider the power usage of the various items which we purchase. I believe that the concern about the power requirements of modern TVs which are mostly solid state are less than the old tube type. From what I understand most TVs have been solid state for several years and other than the picture tube I don't think that you can even purchase tube type TVs now. Of course I have not purchased one for quite some time.
As for global warming I think that it is actually happening. However with a little research about the topic it is fairly easy to see that this is a normal cycle that the earth has gone through previously. In a recent trip to Alaska where the glaciers have receded considerably the geologic record clearly indicates that they are back to the point that they were 400,000 years ago indicating that this is a natural cycle that took place many years before man came on the scene. I wonder who was to blame at that time? A little further research also indicates that while the northern ice packs are decreasing the southern ice packs are increasing. Although there may be some flooding in low lands it will not be the first time and people are very adaptable when it comes to that sort of challenge. Many generations of people have survived in the "flood plane" and have prospered. In my mind the great alarm about global warming and man's contribution to is typical of those who only consider "worst case" possibilities and then attempt to convince the rest of us that it will happen. Seldom do "worst case" events happen. There appears to be a great push to alarm people in order to justify money for various research projects. Not that all research is bad, but lets spend our money on things that could really be solved. Hundreds of thousands of people die each year in Africa of diseases that can be prevented. Just fresh clean water being available is the solution to at least some of them.
It was not too many years ago that I remember clearly that the scientific community was attempting to convince us that there was an impending ice age right around the corner. It didn't sell very well though and now we have a huge global warming "sales job" to replace it. It is very clear to me that there is not a real agreement by scientists about the whole situation and the press had taken it and run with it in an attempt to "make" news rather than "report" news. Recently 100 of the best minds in the field of global weather have disagreed with the "hype" about the cause of the supposed disaster that we are facing if we don't do something right now.
Just how far "scientists" will go to put forth their ideas is demonstrated in an interesting book that I read several years ago,
"The Population Bomb" according to this scientist it would be only a few years before we would have so many people on the earth that we would all be standing shoulder to shoulder covering the whole planet. Of course this never happened, in fact nothing even close to it. This is, in my mind, an example of a scientist attempting to put forth his own bias rather than sticking to the field in which he was trained. His solution was government population control. He did not get a very large following, but he is still advocating the same sort of solutions that he proposed in the 60s and looks at the "global warming" hype as justification for his previous ideas.
Personally I believe that there is too much "Junk Science" in the world attempting to convince us that the natural cycles of the earth are now the fault of people and our use of natural resources in abandon. Should we conserve, of course, that is only good economics for families and nations. From some of the reading that I have done I have come to the conclusion that no matter how much money we throw at the present "natural cycle" we will not change it. Am I biased, of course and it has come about by watching the warnings about terrible things that have never happened. Global warming is just another example in my mind.
Saving power? excellent question
by peripo - 1/26/08 1:06 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
That's a great question, and one I've pondered myself.
Last year I was alarmed when I was going over old power bills and noticed that in 2004 my power bills were approximately 98/month. In 2006 they averaged $169/month (yes the cost of power had certainly risen but bear with me.
I decided to do something about it. The first thing I did was look at my usage in the obvious places - kitchen and laundry. I replaced all my old equipment, air conditioners, washer, dryer, dishwasher, microwave, fridge, freezer and small appliances. And that made a difference certainly - bills in the first half of 2007 reduced (allowing for a 35% hike in power costs in that time) to $161/month.
Clearly I'd saved something but more was needed. So in July (and I confess a burgeoning loathing of all things microsoft had a good deal to do with it) I replaced my laptop with a MacBook. That reduced the next bill by another $1.10/month. Then the biggy. In September I replaced my Dell Precision 360 with an iMac 22", and started turning the powerboard that everything on my desk is connected to off at the wall when not in use.
Since then my bills have been around $146/month. Now all I have to do is save some more pennies to replace the other 2 desktop PCs in my home and look forward to even more savings.
One of the big problems today is that everything we use seems to have a clock or a little pilot light or something in it. Seperately they don't use very much power, but if you take a reading of your meter for a week with all these things turned on and then a week where you unplug everything when not in use (that includes TV DVD and VCR etc) I think you'll be amazed how much power they're using while just passively waiting for the next time you want to switch them on.
Saving Electricity??
by Marsdave - 1/26/08 1:18 AM In reply to: Saving power? excellent question by peripoPosting the size of your monthly electric bill without the kilowatt hours is useless. The point of the thread was to see how to save energy with electronics - although that concept is far too narrow and misinterpreted.
How many KW hours per month did you save?
How many months per year does your home or apartment require heat from a furnace (no energy savings there...)?
How much did it cost you to replace all those items?
How much energy did it take to replace those items?
you missed the point
by peripo - 1/26/08 1:46 AM In reply to: Saving Electricity?? by MarsdaveI figured anyone reading my post wouldn't want anal nitty gritty - that dollar demonstration would give an adequate idea of power savings involved.
The exercise certainly cost more than the savings in power bills to date - but since most of the equipment was old and needed replacement it was going to happen anyway.
The object of the exercise was and is to save on the amount of power used by replacing old power hungry equipment with new stuff. I don't have kwatt/hr figures because I tossed it all out but as an approximation the saving is about 35%
As for heating bills - we don't have any. Our home was designed specially for our climate and to be energy efficient. We have a cavity brick and very well insulated home with double glazing - and we live in a temperate climate. The airconditioners are because the temperature sits around 26C/80F for 2 months of the year and we use them in the bedrooms - nowhere else.
Hoping that explains it sufficiently to those who demand something other than a dollar demonstration of useage.
I missed the point?????
by Marsdave - 1/26/08 2:07 AM In reply to: you missed the point by peripoI certainly did NOT miss the point. The point was how to save energy using consumer electronics, and you have supplied us with nothing but guesses as to energy saved. Dollars saved are a good thing, but bear little relation to total ENERGY saved. Dollars are not energy. You are sloppy with your information.
Of course, money is important too - both in savings and in dollars spent to achieve greater efficiency and lower power sonsumption. I realize that. But you haven't told us how much it cost you to suddenly and serendipitously replace all those items.
The fact that your home requires no "furnace" heating is good. Apparently, all your power savings are therefore real since electronics are apparently not required for heating your home. Many people live in colder regions, however, so your case would apply only to those who live in a similar or warmer environment.
agreed
by cwerdna - 1/26/08 1:58 AM In reply to: Saving Electricity?? by MarsdaveThere's WAY too much variation in electrical prices around the US. Ripoff PG&E usually charges me roughly $0.12 per kwh in California. When I lived in WA state, Pugset Sound Energy was about 1/2 the price and Seattle City and Light was even cheaper.
I've compared notes before w/WA and CA folks about 1-2 years ago and found the 1/2 price was still true. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html shows the huge variance.
My last monthly electrical bill w/PG&E was $4.82 for 10 kwh (price was really high because I hit a minimum). I think they actually misread my meter (they've done it before). My monthly electric bills in the past year have ranged from $4.51 for 39 kwh to $37.75 for 314 kwh.
don't just guess, huge variances, you need to MEASURE
by cwerdna - 1/26/08 1:52 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Sigh... I haven't had time to read all the replies by there's a lot of misinformation and guessing in this thread.
Sure, laptops use generally less power but desktops don't necessarily consume "300 watts". My Athlon 64 3200+ machine w/450W Antec PSU, 2 hard drives and 2 video cards draws ~101 watts at idle and ~130 when CPU is maxed out by distributed.net client.
The last I checked, my Thinkpad T61p w/2.2 ghz Core 2 Duo 7500 draws ~37 watts at idle w/a fairly high usage power plan in Vista. IIRC, I couldn't get it under 20 watts while on (using more conservative power plan) even w/LCD off.
One can see some of my other measurements at http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/17498-kill-watt-rocks-2.html#post227651.
Using a "smaller" slower machine doesn't necessarily mean lower power usage either. Some CPUs like the Pentium Ds were power pigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_D_microprocessors). I have a machine at work w/a power pig Pentium D 830. Compare to many of the MUCH faster and lower power usage Core 2 Duo as at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors.
If people really want to know and also reduce their usage, they should MEASURE by buying something like http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html.
Having the Energy Star logo on TV doesn't necessarily mean squat. You can read about the criteria via the links at the right side of http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=TV. There's a huge variation in on and standby power usage amongst TVs. CNet themselves did some measurements. See http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=arw.
paying for the energy
by alec246 - 1/26/08 2:31 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
hi, rebecca, you cant blame the people for not saveing energy, after all they pay for it,it should start with the big energy companys,and the companys who make all the kismos and gagets tvs all electrical stuff,they should be finding new ways to lower power use,why do they allways start on the ordinary people,to solve globel warming,theres a lot they can do with solar panels now, but you never about them,and they dont tell you that plasma tvs use a lot of energy,because a lot of people would stop buying them,its all about politics and jobs,what i say is as long as im paying for my energy,its the goverments jod,to solve globel warming, thats what they are elected for,they can make laws to change anything,regards alec
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
