Trade in and Save $50 with HP
Community Newsletter: Q&A: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics
- 1/30/08 12:54 AM
Environment impact
by Les Sharp - 1/28/08 8:22 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
That was not a question it was a sermon. There is a place for such discussions but this isn't it.
Energy Star Power Mode (Computers)
by tlh523 - 1/28/08 10:02 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Rebbeca, I reading some of the reponses there seems to be some anger out there concerning energy consumption/conservation. Perhaps when we run out of fossil fuels, many of these same people will say, why didn't we do somethign about it...Anyway I am getting off track...As you may know there are settings to tune the power consumption of computers to shut off monitors, disks, and have the computer enter into low power standby mode. Laptops are anothre choice as they are designed for low wattage use..While these options are far from perfect, it is an option...
Computer Power Conservation
by KimyesKim - 1/28/08 11:48 AM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hello all,
It really bothered me that we had 2 sets of computers and peripherals drawing power EVEN when they were powered off simply because they were plugged in to the wall, so I took it to a new level.
I found a power strip that will power off all your components (and not let them draw juice simply because they are still plugged in) with the computer CPU being the "control" device. So you plug the CPU in as the control device and the printer, scanner, external hard drive, light on the computer desk, whatever being the "slaves" to the control device.
What happens is that when I power off the CPU - everything else powers off automatically.
I also use in on my TV/Tivo/DVD/bose receiver set up. You can plug things in to the "always hot" plug (I use it for TIVO) I then use the Bose as the "control" - that way I can play CDs also without actually turning on the TV. I plug all the others into the "slave" slots.
Again, it keeps them from drawing juice simply becuase they are plugged in and I DID notice a reduction on my electric bill. Its great for those with kids that won't take the time to power down the peripherals!!
I bought mine at smarthomeusa.com:
http://www.smarthomeusa.com/Shop/Smart-Energy/Smart-Strip/
You couldn't find these at the stores when I bought mine - I think Target is trying to get them however.
Love them. Enjoy!!
Kim
Power
by tlh523 - 1/28/08 2:25 PM In reply to: Computer Power Conservation by KimyesKimhey thanks for the reference....I'll take a look at this....
Saving Energy with electronics
by Beral2 - 2/1/08 7:03 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I find it interesting that someone cares about energy saving and electronic equipment. Four years ago, I had a friend who bought a 42 inches plasma TV and I was a bit surprised then about energy consumption (about 400 watts). So, lately I had to buy a new tv and I choose a Panasonic LCD 32 inches mainly for its low energy consumption (about 140 watts). Sharp LCD TV are also very good in that matter: one of my friend bought last month a 46 inches and it spends less than 240 watts (Better than another one who bought a Sony LCD 1080P 40 inches 2 months ago that spends 300 watts).So, If you consider that millions of people will use these new TVs in a few years, the energy that could be saved with low energy equipment is very important.
In that matter, the worse is the following: people using a PS3 to see Bluray DVD are wasting energy. A typical PS3 uses 400 watts while an ordinary Bluray player spends around 30 or 40 watts (I own a Panasonic BD30 that spends only 25 watts). So, if everyone think a little bit more about energy saving, maybe the world would need less power plant and the quality of environment would be better.Thank you.
sigh... did you actually measure the power consumption?
by cwerdna - 2/2/08 11:59 PM In reply to: Saving Energy with electronics by Beral2Did you actually measure those figures that you're throwing around or are you just looking at labels on the back? Some of the Sharps have terrible power consumption and a couple use an insane amount of power while "off", to the tune of 40 and 76 watts. See http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html.
The PS3 does not draw 400 watts. From http://www.aeropause.com/archives/2007/12/profiles_in_power_the_ps3_360.php, it draws ~158 to 215 watts. The newer rev PS3s draw less, see http://electrimetric.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-revisions-of-playstation-3-and-xbox.html and http://www.gamebrink.com/blog/2007/11/12/40gb-playstation-3-consumes-70w-less.
Energy consumption
by Beral2 - 2/3/08 8:58 AM In reply to: sigh... did you actually measure the power consumption? by cwerdnaConcerning Sharp LCD 46 inches and Sony 40 inches LCD, I'm referring to recent products. Of course, in past models, the data could be less interesting. On numbers, I'm referring to the data indicated in the reference manual. Of course, energy spent could be less if for instance you lower the brilliance of the picture or things like that.Concerning the PS3, I own a PS3 since december 2006 (80GB model) and again I mention the data on the manual. Personally, I had never used in the past an electronic equipment that emit so much heat from the moment it is on. Of course, in the future Sony will surely sell PS3 with lower energy consumption. But my point is: If you buy a PS3 mainly for viewing Bluray DVD, it is a big waste of energy.(and furthermore, there is the problem with PBDE - polybromodophéniléthers - but this is another question) Thank you.
Save up to $35 per month putting your XP PC to S3 Sleep
by nomadsmg - 2/2/08 5:46 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Even older XP computers can properly set to go to "S3" Sleep, then when your away for a preset time, be it 20 minutes or hours, your computer will go into a energy saving type of standby mode. With just a touch of a mouse or key wakes almost instantly to where your screen was before. The same documents are still open, browsers are still at the same page, etc . . .
I suggest we all Google "S3 Sleep Computers" or something along those line and check it out. I saved at my Home about $40 per month between two computers that are kept in use all the time after reading a note about it Maxinum PC (a computer power users mag, even they are getting concerned with wasted PC energy bills).
Was real easy, just had to make a very simple BIOS adjustment and set a couple settings in windows. You need to be sure your PC is going into "S3", not S2 which not save near the same power.
Once again, all I can suggest is check it out and see what you think about it.
No Energy Savings in Cold Weather
by Marsdave - 2/2/08 6:07 PM In reply to: Save up to $35 per month putting your XP PC to S3 Sleep by nomadsmgYour electric bill may be lower when putting computers to sleep, using low-wattage light bulbs, etc, but when it's cold outside, all those devices act as little heaters, heating your house or apartment.
When they're turned off and not generating heat, your furnace has to make up the heat difference. That probably means using more gas or oil during cold weather.
Are you saving anything?? Electricity might be more expensive and save you money overall, but gas and oil are finite resources, usually purchased from other countries such as the Middle East.
In warm weather, reducing the heat from electronics is a good idea, of course - as long as you don't shorten the life of the device by turning it on and off repeatedly during the day....
The serenity prayer applies here...
by drlightman - 2/2/08 10:13 PM In reply to: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Dear Rebecca,
If you aren't familiar with it, the serenity prayer goes something like this: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change those I can and the wisdom to know the difference". While I commend the efforts of all who would protect and preserve our environment and scarce resources I fear they are tilting at windmills.
Some fifty years ago, while researching a high school science project, I became aware that our planet periodically shifts it's axis of rotation. Furthermore, the magnetic poles appear to reverse occasionally. In short, the result of an axis shift is to throw half the globe into a deep freeze while the other half goes under a heat lamp. This is a natural though little understood phenomenon. There does not appear to be much we can do about it at our present level of technology. The good news is it seems to happen only every couple hundred thousand or so years.
However, we much more frequently see the axis "wobble" a bit, about every 10 to 15 thousand years. This mechanism has been the main cause of our recurring "ice ages". Yes, there have been many and there will continue to be more. While there may be some disagreement on the interval, timing and amounts no evidence, to my knowledge, disputes these event's occurrence.
I include the foregoing simply to put into perspective the "global warming" scare. It is just that, a popular fairy tale. The effects of human produced emissions on a global scale are actually insignificant, barely measurable with our best technology. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that all of human civilization together could speed up or slow down these naturally occurring geological events.
Now that I've put in my two cent's worth on the Macro scale, a couple of observations. Having been in the maintenance field for all my adult life I can tell you 90% of all equipment failures occur either at start up or shut down. Always measure what you may save by what you might lose. Most computer systems today adhere to energy star guidelines. When in standby or hibernation they consume very little energy. My rather old systems (including 17" crt monitors) only use about 25 watts each in this condition. That is enough, though, to keep them healthy and content.
If you really want to conserve energy consider replacing all your incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent equivalents. Consider updating appliances, heating and cooling systems to newer and much more efficient models. This will save a lot more energy than merely shutting down your computer system. Many other tips can be found by searching on line sources. In short, it comes down to our personal choices, priorities and resources.
I haven't cited any references because all this information is easily found by most any search engine. If you are a fan of the History and Discovery channels you may have seen some of it already. Certainly you will find it in Scientific American and various academic publications, though you may need to go back some years. It's become politically incorrect to publish articles or include references inconsistent with "human caused global warming" "hysteri-theory" (my word).
"Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out", quoted often by a friend.
drlightman why don't you get an education
by solarcircle - 2/14/08 7:28 PM In reply to: The serenity prayer applies here... by drlightmanYou need to look at the large body of scientific evidence which is accepted by the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists. Calling it a global warming scare and a fairy tale just ignores the evidence which is overwhelming. People like you must just think it's somehow cool to ignore science and you remind me of the flat-earthers. I previously answered a post by another fool and will reprint it here:
jspeedo 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.
Carbon copy ?
by jer1041 - 2/15/08 1:01 PM In reply to: drlightman why don't you get an education by solarcircleYou just have to be AL (elgore) Gore or his clone. Can you see beyond the end of your nose? Do you follow the carrot around that's on the end of that stick? you took the global warming crap, hook, line, and sinker. It's really too bad there are so many people as gulible(sp) as you are. Let's all vote for the socialist approach to our problems, and let mommy gov-ment take care of us. Geez, there really are a lot of nuts out there, willing to give up our freedoms for this LIE.
like I said, get an education
by solarcircle - 2/15/08 7:23 PM In reply to: Carbon copy ? by jer1041If you think that Al Gore's exposition of the latest research is untrue and that what I said about Denmark getting a fifth of it's power from wind is untrue then please show us the research that refutes this. Don't just claim that it isn't true because you feel it - that's just ridiculous. Where is your scientific evidence - from sources other than the oil industry please.
Solarcircle - can we stick to facts and their debate
by jspeedo - 2/16/08 4:38 PM In reply to: like I said, get an education by solarcircleor is that your normal approach when you disagree with someone? Instead of debating facts, to resort to spiteful and uncivil remarks? And yet you get and quote “facts” from a movie? But I am full of it? And I need to get an education? You use worn out clichés like “big oil – big business – American War Machine” which do nothing to reinforce anything you wrote. Let’s stick to real facts. You said one fact I failed to mention? Heck there are millions I did not mention, as space does not permit listing more than a few. Notwithstanding here are a few: Notwithstanding here are a few: Denmark (your choice to compare to) for comparison is about twice the size of Massachusetts and has one million more people than Massachusetts. And yes as you said they have 20% renewable energy while the US is a measly 8 to 10%. So let’s compare the actual numbers these percentages represent: The US produces about 100 times the total amount of electric power as Denmark which makes the USA’s 8% about 10 times the total electric (yes total) power that Denmark produces. Simply put our renewable quantity is 10x their entire total. Did you know that in 2005, the United States installed more new wind energy capacity than any other country in the world? See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/
And from 2006 to 2007 the US increased wind power capacity from 11,575 MW to 16,586. That is a 33% increase! See:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_installed_capacity.asp#history
Should we compare Denmark’s electric rates to the US’s? At 30 cents a kWh they are three times higher than the US average of 10.4 cents – and depending on where you live up to six times higher. See:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/infocus/story;jsessionid=B1D1D91DC201BEA7321001E0CFE93827?id=46749
And
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/rep/index.html
Denmark is not as green as you may think as they have many of the same pollution issues as the US and for the same reasons. See:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2032.html
As for Al Gore’s movie, I wrote in the earlier post that his graphical portrayal of the CO2 to temperature rise is very much in dispute. Several scientists have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the group from which Mr. Gore obtained much of his ‘data’. Who recorded all that data from 100,000 years ago? It is modeled data pre mid 1800s. And the modeled data used in the projections commonly supported by Global Warming alarmists vary by up to 400%. If I get off 400% in most anything I do I will likely burn dinner, travel south when I want to go North (or maybe just go in a circle), and either go broke or make a fortune. If you look at only one of the links I am providing please go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1
I never once said do not conserve. And I take issue with the insinuation that these arguments (rather facts) just allow people and governments to rationalize the continuation of this oil fueled insanity. I never said I do not support renewable energy. What I did say was that the quantity of land required to build large wind farms is going to be enormous. The US produces about a fifth of the World’s entire electricity. To get the renewable percentages up considering the total amount of electric power the US produces will require massive amounts of land, there will be location siting issues (not in my backyard, etc.). I provide statistical comparisons between Denmark and the United States so perhaps we could see that a country the size of the US that produces 33% more electric power than the entire European Union would have massive amounts of land acquisition needed to support wind power - one must be very careful when comparing in percentages. Finally, one last thing about Denmark – they are also the largest manufacturer of wind turbines – no wonder their $$$ are used to purchase their own products. And please do not misunderstand or twist the reason for the last statement – it only makes economic sense they would develop as much wind power as possible. I would to.
Did you read the entire post? You yourself in your verbal attacks here and in other posts in this forum make a strong case for what I wrote about the vocal majority shouting down the minority and reinforce the need to learn the strong history lesson from the Eugenics Theorists. And resultant worldwide effects they had. Can you refrain from attacks and provide actual facts and their sources?
I am not pro anything but facts. I indeed believe we need to conserve – the earth’s oil is expected to be exhausted within a hundred years. We need to pursue renewable and alternative energy sources. We need the alternative sources even more than renewable because although they tickle the ear with their environmental qualities renewable they are not without their own issues
So what to do? As I said before turn down the heat, buy energy efficient appliances, and conserve when and where you can, because it’s common sense to be efficient and conserve. Do not be scared into a belief, or believe it because it is so popularized and in the majority. Conserve because it makes sense, someday all of the fossil fuels will be gone - and sooner than most realize. Oil reserves may be gone in our children's lifetime - anywhere from 50 - 100 years from now and coal in 225 - 300 years. All reason enough and fact enough to conserve and pursue viable energy alternatives. LOL
sticking to facts
by solarcircle - 2/16/08 4:59 PM In reply to: Solarcircle - can we stick to facts and their debate by jspeedojspeedo, the fact is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific evidence supports the finding that our burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming. Why waste time arguing over details when the ship is sinking? Dealing with global warming, pollution, extinction etc. is not high on any N. American political agenda. We have the tools to produce clean environmentally friendly power so why not use them? Wind power is only one of many such tools. An example is a Canadian company called Blue Energy which deals with tidal power production but isn't putting it's first installation in Canada but in Scotland. Where is the government support? Where is the infrastructure and support for electric vehicles and new technologies such as the revolutionary ezOne electric motor? cyclzone.com (I know the inventor) All these fool politicians want to talk about is carbon trading and unproven technologies such as carbon sequestration which will allow them to continue using oil. The Alberta government and their tar sands projects is a prime example of this insanity.
I'm afraid we will be attending the school of hard knocks in the very near future. We've already had a taste of some of those hard knocks already such a Katrina. Even the Ethiopian famine of the 80's can be traced to climate change.
I'm glad to hear that you support taking action for whatever reason. Please support that instead of useless controversy which only gives the flat-earth loonies more ammunition.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
