Buy Microsoft Office Home & Student
Community Newsletter: Q&A: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics
- 1/30/08 12:54 AM
Hibernating the PC
by Britti79 - 1/26/08 3:07 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I am concerned, too - for the sake of the environment, and for the sake of my wallet!
The problem I have is that whenever I try to hibernate my XP PC, it restarts itself! Sometimes immediately, sometimes after a while... It really winds me up! As I understand it, the hibernation feature effectively shuts it down, as far as power consumption is concerned anyway. At least, when I eventually get fed up with the constant hibernate-self restart cycle and pull the plug out of the wall, when I reconnect it later it still resumes from the hibernation. So I'm guessing it is properly off when it's (successfully!) hibernated.
So how can I stop it restarting itself all the time? There's a wireless modem/router plugged in which I suspect to be the problem, and I can't turn that off because then no-one else could use the net in the house. Is there any way I can tell Windows not to accept the modem's activity as a trigger for restarting? I don't want to be continuously shutting down as I'm self-employed, and though I don't have to be on the machine all the time I do need to have it quickly available sometimes and it takes forever to start up from scratch (how can an almost new, dual processor HP machine seem slower than a 3 year old Dell it replaced?!)
restart from hibernation
by Al Whitmire - 1/26/08 6:37 PM In reply to: Hibernating the PC by Britti79Hi Britti79,
There is a dialog box somewhere in the control panel that has a box that says "Allow this device to bring the computer out of standby" I believe that box is checked on your computer. that would explain why it is doing that.Here is how to find it on my computer runniing Windows XP SP-2;
Click on "Start"
Click on "Control Panel"
Select "Performance and Maintenance"
Select "system"
Select "hardware"
Select "device manager"
click on "network adapters"
double click on your wireless network adapter
click on "Power Management"
My computer has two boxes there, one is "allow the computer to turn off this device to save power" however the one we are interested in says "Allow this device to bring the computer out of standby"
If this box is "checked" click on it to remove the checkmark.
That may fix your problem.
I know this sounds complicated but really it's not(you could ask a friend to help if you don't feel comfortable)
Hope this helps. Regards
Al Whitmire
restart during hibernation
by Britti79 - 1/28/08 12:19 PM In reply to: restart from hibernation by Al WhitmireThanks Al
My PC didn't actually have quite those options when I got as far as Power Management (on the Intel 82566DM Gigabit Network Connection, hope that's the right place!). It had a load of stuff about waking up though - 'Wake on LAN', 'Wake on Magic Packet' and other such strange sounding stuff! (Magic Packets? Sounds like something illegal you buy on street corners!) Many of them were ticked, so I unticked them as no-one else on the network (or any other activity outside of me pressing the power button!) needs to be able to power up the PC 
I'm hoping this will help, let's see!
Thanks again!
Power Options
by tlh523 - 1/28/08 2:31 PM In reply to: restart during hibernation by Britti79The options that I mentioned are selected on the display/screensaver options or through control panel - power options (On windows XP)...I don't do MACs 
I think the options that you mentioned are on the network card for waking a device up from standby mode...
Electricity Use
by Prof321 - 1/26/08 5:03 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I don't have an answer, but I deplore the insulting messages your query caused to crawl out of the wordwork.
Electronics products should use less energy.
by Jeff Alterman - 1/26/08 5:35 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I'm certainly not against energy efficient computers. Let's say a computer like mine (Dell Dimension 8400) that has a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 HT processor, 1 GB of memory and a 160 GB hard drive. It uses a maximum of 7 amps at 115 volts which translates into 805 watts. When the computing demands are low, I wouldn't be surprised that the computer uses less energy than when the computing demands are high. I have a 20.1" LCD monitor that probably uses considerably less electricity than a CRT monitor. If I bought a new computer with a Core Duo processor. It would probably use more energy than my current computer. Perhaps they can make a gaming computer in such a way so that when it is just being used on the Internet, it can use less power than when it is being used as a gaming computer.
Speaking of the plasma TVs. People should consider if they really need a large plasma TV, when a smaller LCD TV might be the ticket and would use less energy. Perhaps an energy rating can be applied to consumer electronics products so that consumers can buy the most energy efficient electronics products that will meet their needs.
sigh, you need to measure the power usage
by cwerdna - 1/26/08 5:50 PM In reply to: Electronics products should use less energy. by Jeff AltermanI'm 100% sure that your machine will NEVER draw 805 watts even if you max out the CPU and video card and somehow get the hard drive to spinup during that time. You need to measure it w/something like a Kill-A-Watt.
IIRC, my work Dell Precision 350 w/3 ghz P4 HT draws ~100 watts at idle and under 150 when CPU is totally maxed out.
My home Athlon 64 3200+ w/2 hard drive and 2 video cards draws 101 watts at idle and 130 when the CPU is maxed out. See http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/17498-kill-watt-rocks-2.html#post227651 for my other readings.
It took Anandtech w/an insane test system (Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.33GHz w/THREE NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra video cards in an SLI setup and a OCZ 1 kilowatt PSU) to hit 800 watts from the plug (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3183&p=5). With only 1 video card, the power usage was WAY less.
Forget feeling guilty
by 109245051 - 1/26/08 5:35 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I think this environment thing has gone to far. I enjoy what I want to do. Man can make a fool of himself thinking he can change the climent, but he is not that string yet.
We havew all the energy we need we are just to self centered to use it.
Environmental Impact New virus old
by willisjohn - 1/26/08 5:45 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Ok, the short and simple version. First of all newer electronics do not take more energy now than older ones did. If you look on the back of TVs, computers, etc. You will find a label stating the amout of wattage necessary to run the device at full power. My old green machine computer had a 400 watt power supply, and the monitor had a usage of 250 watt. My newest computer running windows Vista a high end video card has a 350 watt power supply and the 22 inch LCD monitor uses 150 watts of power. Do the math newer electronics take much less power than older ones. My 42 inch Plasma screen acually helps heat my family room because of the heat that comes from it, Heat is energy and thus, wattage and power. The new 50 inch LCD High definition dispays do not put out very much heat thus less energy. A old 24 inch tv used more wattage than the new 50 inch LCDs. So, I hope this satisfied you. Manufactures are doing their part on lowering the use of electricity.
sigh, yet another person who hasn't actually measured usage
by cwerdna - 1/26/08 6:19 PM In reply to: Environmental Impact New virus old by willisjohnSee my post at http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/17498-kill-watt-rocks-2.html#post227651.
I've done measurements of my Dell 2001FP and 2005FPW 20" LCDs. They take 37 and 39-40 watts resepectively. I seriously doubt your 22 inch LCD draws 150 watts as even my 21" CRT didn't draw that with an all white screen.
Your assertion "a old 24 inch tv used more wattage than the new 50 inch LCDs" seems bogus too. Just for kicks, I plugged back in my 27" CRT TV that I don't use anymore from 1997. I saw power usage go between 80 watts (black screen) to 150 watts. It (not surprisingly, since it's a CRT) would vary a lot depending on what was on screen. All the 47" and above LCDs at http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html drew at least 200 watts, in some cases above 300.
You need to MEASURE. A power supply's max output rating has little to do w/how much a computer actually uses.
electricity conservation
by Al Whitmire - 1/26/08 6:14 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi Rebecca,
I believe it is good to consider saving/conserving power.
What we have done is change out all the incandesent lights with the new power saving types. I can see a savings of a few dollars each month and I do not need to change them out so often. Have hot had one of them burn out after four months.
If you purchase these be sure it states "6500 K" on the package. the 6500 K lamps produce a bright white light. Most of them are 3000 K to 5000 K and they give off a sickly yellow light that you will not like.
These days everything must be bigger, faster and more powerful.
You really do not need a high-powered computer for anything except games and some graphic apps. The new Vista needs a lot more power than XP ever did and it operates slower.
A Linux system is faster and much "leaner" than other systems but is going to take some time to learn.
Some other power saving tips:
Make sure your home has adequate insullation.
Caulk all your windows to prevent air leakage.
Energy star appliances (when you need to replace them.
Install new seals on your doors to prevent air leakage.
Fix leaky faucets (especially hot water faucets)
Heating water uses about 20-30 percent of natural gas energy.
Wash your clothes in cool water whenever possible.
Computers do not use as much energy as most appliances and some people turn them off when they are not using them and some don't.
I turn mine off overnight and if I know I won't be using it anymore that day.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
Hope this helps raise some questions and leads to some answers.
Al Whitmire
efficient technology
by snowcrashuk - 1/26/08 8:18 PM In reply to: electricity conservation by Al WhitmireLots of modern processors etc are more efficient, requiring less power to run them. One major area that could be improved is the rate at which computer equipment becomes an antique, meaning people want to upgrade to the fastest, latest technology and are left with boxes of old cards and motherboards ( I have boxes of stuff even going back to pentium 1 through slot 1 to socket 478.....etc etc) as far as I'm aware there are very few places that will recycle computer parts, perhaps discounts for recyclers could work! I know there's alot about recycling printer cartridges but surely there's a more efficient way to deal with obsolete hardware since we're buying newer hardware more and more frequently! as for the carbon footprint of our computers, perhaps more people should turn them off when not being used, but then again think of the resources we'd need if we couldn't send email ( all that paper we'd suddenly need, then postal services to deliver them in trucks and planes etc etc!! ). In my opinion the more technology advances the more it'll balance up the pros and cons of running the technology.
Just Do What You Can....
by GaryT1950 - 1/26/08 9:24 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi Rebecca,
WOW - After reading many of the posts in answer to your question it sure got deep, complicated, angry, political, et al..
My personal belief is to use what you need and to save what/when, and where you can. Doing this will reduce your personal 'carbon footprint', help the planet, save you your hard earned money, and maybe even make you feel better about what and how much you use.
Some savings examples:
1) If you can't turn off your PC for whatever reason, try 'standby' or 'hibernate' instead. These settings use a lot less power and have a shorter boot time than a cold start - especially 'standby' (my machine takes about 10 seconds to fully reboot from standby).
2) Replace as many light bulbs (incandescent) as you can with compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs. A 60 watt equivalent CF bulb uses only about 13 watts of electricity to produce the same amount of light (lumens) as a regular 60 watt light bulb, thus saving 47 watts per hour of use (uses about 78% less electricity). These CF bulbs also run much cooler, so they help reduce coolings costs during the summer months as well. The only downside is that they contain some mercury, so when they burn out in about 7 to 10 years you will need to send them to the same place as old computers, tvs, etc. for recycling. In my home I have replaced 27 lights with CF bulbs so far and have noticed a significant reduction in my electric bill.
3) Set your thermostat a little lower in the winter (wear more clothes), and a little higher in the summer (wear less/lighter clothing, use ceiling fans, etc,). That will make a big impact on your 'carbon footprint' and leave more $$ in your pocket.
4) Walk or use public transportation sometimes instead of driving your vehicle again making the footprint smaller and the wallet fatter.
Living a life where you use what you need and save where you can will cause you to do your personal part in helping out the old Earth....and yourself. You can rightfully feel good about what you've done and smugly smile as you take that ocean cruise paid for with what you've saved.
Pax,
GaryT1950
Something I haven't seen so far...
by quietpro - 1/26/08 9:44 PM In reply to: Just Do What You Can.... by GaryT1950For all the nitwits who say conserving energy is foolish, well, there's probably little hope for you. Is it just coincidence that most of you can't spell and use terrible grammar?
Anyway, back on point, another BIG potential energy saver for most is to install a programmable thermostat for your home. You can buy one for $25 at Walmart and make your money back in a month or two if you use it properly. In case you're unfamiliar, the programmable thermostat can be set to turn your heat and AC up or down at predetermined times. So, while you're sleeping and under your warm blanket, the heat can be turned off. But, it will come back on and warm your home before you have to get out of bed. Also, you can program it to turn your heat/AC off while you're at work but bring everything back to the temperature you like before you get home. You can set and forget it and realize huge savings in your heating and cooling bills (which are a major factor in a home's energy useage).
Another energy saver to consider is a tankless water heater. These heat water as it's used rather than heating massive amounts in advance and storing it. These are becoming more prominent in the U.S. but are widespread in other countries. They also take less space which could be an added benefit for those who are short on storage space.
Yes I agree way too political however...
by jspeedo - 1/26/08 11:21 PM In reply to: Just Do What You Can.... by GaryT1950Gary,
You make several great points, and by all means we all should do what we can to minimize waste in every aspect - especially energy usage and garbage.
However our reasons are not in synch - as an engineer and one who respects the laws of physics, statistics and proven fact I must refute what is not real science. It is not politics and not complicated (unless you make it so) or even angry - but rather common sense combined with fact will lead to truth. I cannot (and would not) apologize for the angry responses in many posts from both sides, however several very well meaning posts have tried to distinguish between fact and pseudo science. Going all the way back to MsDoright who defended jakejr7 in post 33 from 1/26/08 09:11am it is the mixing of politics with science that is resulting in well hyped pseudo science. You used the term "carbon footprint" which is for sure a widely used term these days. But what does it really mean and what is its real impact? Did you know that the correlation of rising CO2 levels to rising temperatures is not what is commonly perpetuated by global warming theorists? The rising temps came first, not the rising CO2 attributed to usage of fossil fuel. Several scientists recently appeared on 20/20 to state their case why they left the Concerned Scientists group over this very issue. Scientists do not fully understand it all yet. It is scientifically and statistically unsound to apply 100 years of weather data and extrapolate 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. Yes we are in some sort of warming trend that began mid 1800’s, which was preceded by a four-hundred year cold spell. 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. Take some time to do some real research – remember the most vocal scientist or theory proponent is not necessarily the most accurate.
Will a fairly recent example of science gone bad – when facts are ignored and the opponents are shouted down and ridiculed 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) and then funded by Carnegie and Rockefeller studies were performed at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and John Hopkins. The research went on for over 50 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? Just a World War and the near annihilation of a race. After WW II no one was eugenicist anymore and it was no longer taught in the hallowed halls of America’s and Europe’s Universities – but this did happen and it did wreak catastrophe on the Human Race just not as the proponents thought.
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.
Now turn down the heat, turn off what you are not using, buy energy efficient appliances, and conserve when you can, because as you said and I agree...
Living a life where you use what you need and save where you can will cause you to do your personal part in helping out the old Earth....and yourself. You can rightfully feel good about what you've done and smugly smile as you take that ocean cruise paid for with what you've saved.
(Well those Cruise Ships do burn a lot of fossil fuel)
LOL,
John
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
