Community Newsletter: Q&A forum: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics

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.

It'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!

Well, 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.

Thanks 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

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.

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.

As 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.

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

On Myth Busters (TV show), they tested a variety of lights from fluorescent to LED to see how much start power versus running power to work out whether it was cheaper to leave the light on, or turn it off. The worst performer was the fluorescent at 30 seconds, i.e., if you're going to use startup power as an argument to leave it turned on, you must only be out of the room for less than 30 seconds.

They also stress-tested various lights to see how they handled being turned on and off. They set up a timer to switch the lights on and off every 2 minutes for (I think) sixty days. The only survivor was the LED lamp. This test was not very well monitored, and failed to include the expense of manufacture vs energy use/output.

Yours is not the only voice of concern. The EU (European Union) is now drafting legislation because of the drain on their power grid's resources and output.

Germany for example will very soon no longer allow devices to be sold that go into 'sleep' mode. Multiply their power drain by many devices and yumpteen million EU citizens - the impact is quite large. And, a lot of EU's domestic energy consumption comes from imported fossil fuels. And, safe nuclear energy (but where do you put that rubbish, Pierre?)

I see nothing wrong with getting up out of a chair or bed to turn off an appliance I don't immediately need: lights, computers, entertainment, etc. Alarms, phones, fridges, thermostats, etc. are necessary, but do we really need a toaster or dishwasher on call 24/7?

Rebecca,
There has been much research done by professionals and privately in regards to conserving energy with computers. i did some research myself awhile back ago to see where i was using energy and how to cut back (mainly to lower my electric bill). i bought a device which monitors power useage from an outlet (i got mine from amazon, here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/International-P4400-Power-Usage-Monitor/dp/B000ZNS5BS/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1200856867&sr=8-5)to do my research. i found out that while using my laptop at full power (playing games, watching movies, etc.)i was pulling about 150-200 watts an hour. for everyday use like surfing the web and reading emails i was averaging around 75-100 watts an hour. this was just for the laptop, not the monitor, speakers, and other periphials, which of course uses additional power. also, i learned that when powering my laptop up from being turned off, it took about 200 watts in that short time frame, whereas if i put it in sleep/hibernate mode it was only drawing about 1-2 watts an hour (also the same amount when turned off and charging). so basically, it uses more power to shut the laptop completely down and turn it back on than it does to put it in hibernation while not using it. our, if you have a laptop, you could unplug the power cable and use the battery only when powering on then plug it back in when the battery starts to get low. another thing to look at is your monitor. a 15" CRT type monitor (i still own one, i know, im ancient) uses approx. 15 watts per hour (wph) compared to a 15" LCD which uses about 30wph or a 19" LCD which takes around 45-50wph.

on to the other part of your question, i dont think many computer manufactures will work on making more effectient machines until the government starts to put the squeeze on, much like the automotive industry back in the day. i know there is a computer company that makes a very "green machine" (www.enanocomputers.com). i do not own one, but have seen them in use and they are nice machines that take little power to run.

all in all, i recommend to get a watt reader and experiment on your own and see how much power you are using and where, then make the appropiate sacrifices and cut backs to get a more efficient and power-saving work area. best of luck

-Paul

my apologies, i broke and had surgery, so am doped up on pain killers and not completely coherent. i forgot to mention and clarify that the device was hooked up to my power strip which also holds my monitor/speakers/other peripheals etc. when i hooked it up to my laptop alone it does only pull aroun 85wph on start up. thanks for pointing that out

Good question Rebecca. As an 'Older' person, I've learnt to turn off those appliances that I'm not using. I think you're right when you say that most people don't consider the bigger picture when buying our gadgets Etc'. I always turn off my Computer, or go into Standby and switch the Monitor off at the same time. Also, have you noticed that some appliances like Vacuum Cleaners nearly always are getting more powerful.Remember when 700watt cleaners were the norm?, now the things are up to 1600watts! Its the same with home Airconditioning,most new homes here have this built in.(Down Under)Just imagine the extra load that puts on Power Stations.
Apart from the obvious, what else should we do?.

i try and use as little energy as possible and i try to keep my stuff turned off 90% of the time unless if its my computer which i put in stand by whenever i will be away from my computer for more than ten minutes unless if I'm playing Xbox 360 in which case i just turn off the monitor. when my computer is shut down i make sure that the power bar is of or the computer is unplugged from the wall also try and use power bars every were you can because for some odd reason it is more power efficacy then plugging directly into the wall into an outlet.

Rebecca, first of all stop doing things that make you feel guilty. Turn off your computer if leaving it on makes you feel guilty.

Quit worrying about global warming. More and more scientists are disputing the claim that global warming is man-made. Climate change was here long before man, and will continue long after man is gone from the planet.

Finally, conservation is up to each individual. We all should be conservative when it comes to our natural resources, but don't carry it to an extreme. I don't consider power consumption when buying electronics. If I were that concerned I would just forego using them at all.