In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:
wrote:
Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general.
I'm a little surprised where TVs have popped up. If you thought an
excess of clocks was bad, you'll hate seeing a TV above the icemaker
door on the fridge. I wouldn't be surprised now to see one on the microwave!
I've seen those. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a joke,
but apparently they really are marketing them. I don't know where
to start with just how dumb an idea I think that is. Well, I won't
be buying one. I did see a prototype some years back where the
video screen on the door was to allow you to see inside without
opening the door, thus saving energy by not having the door open
while browsing, but that's not what seems to have made it to market.
It's starting to look like the efficiency gains of appliances is being
offset by phantom losses of a plethora of low duty cycle or unnecessary
bonus devices.
There are a lot "because we can" features on things. Mostly harmless,
but often enough it's a small power user. My microwave has a bunch
of pre-programmed cooking functions which I will never use, but at
least those don't seem to use any power if I ignore them.
or satellite receiver. My stereo receiver stays on 24/7 because it
has some issues with powering on after being turned off and is too
old to have any sort of standby mode or remote control, but I'll be
replacing that one of these days.
I'm not exactly sure where receiver technology is these days. Old style
receivers throw away a lot of power. The trend is toward energy
efficient because they are cheaper to manufacture, less heat sinking and
smaller overall size and a smaller power supply. With that said, there's
nothing quite like the sound from an old MacIntosh Tube or solid state amp.
Mine's solid state. No way I'd leave a tube amp on 24/7, though I guess
the "true audiophiles" do so the tubes stay warm. I assume new stuff
uses switching power supplies.
I think good design can eliminate much of this, and I see that there
is a one watt initiative aiming at keeping phantom power per device
under one watt.
That should be easily achievable if engineers can avoid that tendency
they have to add stuff because they think it's cool, without considering
if it's really going to be useful and at what cost.
I'm not sure where the future lies, but it seems increasingly obvious
that some steps need to be taken. A nearly free lunch like reducing
phantom losses through design seems like a good plan.
No argument here.
Personally, I'm more concerned over the big ticket energy users, like
heating and air conditioning and lighting.
Exactly. Though at lot of the low hanging fruit has been picked in
those areas.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.