In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:

Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than off(there's
wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power when off).

Well, sure, like my toaster. It doesn't use any current when it's
not being used.

I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic controls
uses but I found this.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html

After all, I knew that the
oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.

I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) =
120 (watt-hours)

Now divide that by 5 to get a more realistic value . . .

How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes

This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2
minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.

I probably use my microwave in the 5 to 10 minutes per day range.

That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses twice
the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and check my
late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill a watt meter.

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

SteveB wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
Hmmm,
No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!
In the 21 years we had our old oven we never used the timed start. I
don't remember if the one before that had that feature or not. Never had
the need. One of my criteria for our new range was minimal electronics.
Don't need them, don't want them. I expect the Bertazzoni will last 50
years with maybe an igniter of the convection fan needing replacement in
that time. That's OK though as I'm not going to last another 50 years.
Different strokes...that's why they make more than one.

Trouble is, it's damn near impossible to buy anything today WITHOUT all the
bells and whistles that crap out on you soon after purchase, creating an
obscenely inflated estimate for repair or replacing.

Just give me the simple stuff, please.

Well, it's been going since '84 so far...

--

wrote:
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:

Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than off(there's
wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power when off).

Well, sure, like my toaster. It doesn't use any current when it's
not being used.

I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic controls
uses but I found this.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html

After all, I knew that the
oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.

I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
away from them.


How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) =
120 (watt-hours)

Now divide that by 5 to get a more realistic value . . .

How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes

This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2
minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.

I probably use my microwave in the 5 to 10 minutes per day range.

That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses twice
the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and check my
late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill a watt meter.

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.

Oh blah blah blah.

For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
energy.

What does yours use?

I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.

I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
have a limited future.

Jeff


Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Jeff wrote:
wrote:
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:

Now, I would say that most stoves use more energy on than
off(there's wide range here, I'm sure my old Jennaire uses no power
when off).

Well, sure, like my toaster. It doesn't use any current when it's
not being used.

I don't know how much power a typical stove with electronic
controls uses but I found this.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/transformers.html

After all, I knew that the
oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.

I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend
is away from them.


How much energy the clock uses in a day: 5 (watts) x 24
(hours) = 120 (watt-hours)

Now divide that by 5 to get a more realistic value . . .

How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2
minutes

This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than
7.2 minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.

I probably use my microwave in the 5 to 10 minutes per day range.

That sounds perhaps even low to me and it is possible it uses
twice the power while off. I suppose I could dig out my amprobe and
check my late model name brand microwave since I don't have a kill
a watt meter.

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.

Oh blah blah blah.

For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had
the same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the
in use energy.

What does yours use?

I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they
aren't trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device
while in operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the
low drain devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable
boxes certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.

I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable
by better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall
warts have a limited future.

You're wrong. They will continue to be used because they are
the best approach, particularly when they are switch mode.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
Hmmm,
No kidding! But if the clock is disconnected can't do timed use of oven!

In the 21 years we had our old oven we never used the timed start. I
don't remember if the one before that had that feature or not. Never had
the need. One of my criteria for our new range was minimal electronics.
Don't need them, don't want them. I expect the Bertazzoni will last 50
years with maybe an igniter of the convection fan needing replacement in
that time. That's OK though as I'm not going to last another 50 years.

Different strokes...that's why they make more than one.

Trouble is, it's damn near impossible to buy anything today WITHOUT all the
bells and whistles that crap out on you soon after purchase, creating an
obscenely inflated estimate for repair or replacing.

Just give me the simple stuff, please.

Steve

On 6/2/2008 12:58 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from
coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by
that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). But I don't understand why you seem so
sre that we'll be using this decidedly non-green source when so many
other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing
practical power but also doing it economically. (Specifically: solar
photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tide [being proposed for the San
Francisco Bay Area], cogeneration, recovered landfill methane,
small-head hydro, etc.)

Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing
better matches between sources and loads.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

"Jeff" wrote in message
m...
SteveB wrote:
I think if we all disconnected all the lights we have that run 24/7 and
all these little clocks that we could make as much difference as AlGore
does with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how
much electricity their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a
quarter for a year's usage.

Hmm, I see you've snipped all context to make your point.

The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and accounts
for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed economies. Many
appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).

Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level the
playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom drain. And
that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return on
investment is quick.

You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly would
rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some people can
deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with
the rationale of going to war in Iraq.

Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.

Jeff


Steve

Yeah. We need more laws.

Steve

"Seerialmom" wrote in message

So having done this...was your electric bill substantially smaller the
next month?


Actually I have been working on saving on my electric bill for many years
now. One year I might buy a new Energy Star appliance. The next install more
insulation. Year after that put everything on power strips, etc.

So I have not noticed any one big drop in my electric use at any one time.
(Except when I replaced an old window air conditioner with a new one.)
Basically my electric use has been slowly dropping as I learn about saving
electricity on misc.consumers.frugal-living or
http://www.energystar.gov then make a few changes here and there.

"KLS" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:18:32 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

New range has no clock, no electronics, no circuit
board, just plenty of power to cook with. www.bertazzoni-italia.com
We
got the black 30"

Black and SS. They have 7 other colors too. The paint is applied at the
same place that Lamborghinis and Ferraris are painted. Same quality too.

Very nice. How/why did you decide on this instead of Blue Star,
Viking, or Wolf? FYI, my sister selected Wolf because she felt it
would be easier to clean than Viking (don't think she looked at Blue
Star).

Never looked at Blue Star. One reason was price. $2500 versus $4200.
Bertazzoni has a more direct distribution system, thus a lower cost. In my
case, we have propane. The serviceman for the propane says Wolf can be
difficult to get setup right. One place had a Jenn-Air on the floor that
listed for $3900. Looked like a $900 range that they tacked on some fancy
grates and big price tag.

I had never heard of the brand before, but they have been in business for
over 125 years, still family owned. They are family new to the US and I
suspect that is another reason for the price as they want to build market
share. We though tit was a good value and we really liked the styling.

SteveB wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
m...
SteveB wrote:
I think if we all disconnected all the lights we have that run 24/7 and
all these little clocks that we could make as much difference as AlGore
does with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how
much electricity their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a
quarter for a year's usage.
Hmm, I see you've snipped all context to make your point.

The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and accounts
for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed economies. Many
appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).

Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level the
playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom drain. And
that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return on
investment is quick.

You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly would
rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some people can
deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with
the rationale of going to war in Iraq.

Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.

Jeff

Steve

Yeah. We need more laws.

Regulation is not a bad thing.

It's very hard for a company to do something for the long term good when
doing that puts it at a short term competitive disadvantage. That's why
regulations that are evenly applied to all competitors work. And why
voluntary targets don't.

We've had 7 years of corporate free reign under George W Bush. Few would
think the results are impressive. Fewer still would believe that we have
made progress toward solving the problems that loom.

Jeff

Steve

wrote in message

kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to
power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."

Sure it is. At the end of the billing cycles, do you pay more for the on
time or the off time?

"Seerialmom" wrote in message

...However, I do know that my microwave, TV(s), vcr(s), cable box
(es) etc. do. But I don't feel like reprogramming everytime I want to
use them, so I let them continue to feast.


Right. I had an old component stereo main amplifier which would lose its
settings if I removed the power from it. So in that case I put everything
else on a power strip and turned those off, but left the main amplifier
plugged in. Then it did not lose its settings. Later I got a new model which
remembers its settings and this is now on the power strip. I turn off power
to it when not in use.

So if it is something which is a pain to reset after it is unplugged, then
leave it plugged in. If your not using the clock and it remembers its other
settings when power is removed, then put that on a power strip and remove
power when not in use. If you use the clock/timer, leave it plugged in.

Note: Do not unplug a VCR with the tape still inside! Always eject the tape
first before removing power. Otherwise the tape can jamb.

wrote:
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:


Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).


Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just
pure BS.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

If e.g. a PC uses 5 watts "off" and 200 watts "on" it's not rocket
science to figure out what fraction of time it must be used for the
"on" power to equal or exceed the "off" power. I suspect plenty of
PC's don't make the cut (or do, but just barely).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Rod Speed wrote:

Jeff wrote

wrote

Jeff wrote


Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).


Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power


From the US department of Energy:


"Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most appliances
that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers,
and kitchen appliances. In the average home, 75% of the electricity
used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
turned off. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using
a power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all
power to the appliance."[4]


Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.

75% is more than 25%.



It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.


Or that you have never ever had a clue.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff wrote
wrote
Jeff wrote

Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).

Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power

From the US department of Energy:

"Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when
they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most
appliances that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions,
stereos, computers, and kitchen appliances. In the average home,
75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed
while the products are turned off. This can be avoided by
unplugging the appliance or using a power strip and using the
switch on the power strip to cut all power to the appliance."[4]

Doesnt say anything like your stupid claim at the top.

75% is more than 25%.

That aint the % the original stupid claim was made about.

It would seem the only government office you believe in is the OVP.

Or that you have never ever had a clue.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote
wrote

In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned
off.

That is not the same as "appliances use more power 'off' than on."

Sure it is.

Nope, home electronics aint the same thing as appliances.

At the end of the billing cycles, do you pay more for the on time or the off time?

You pay more for the on time with APPLIANCES.

CJT wrote
wrote
Jeff wrote

Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).

Uh, cite? No, never mind, the above statement is just pure BS.

If e.g. a PC uses 5 watts "off" and 200 watts "on" it's not rocket
science to figure out what fraction of time it must be used for the
"on" power to equal or exceed the "off" power. I suspect plenty of PC's don't make the cut (or do, but just barely).

Pity the original claim was made about APPLIANCES where thats almost never true.

Jeff wrote
SteveB wrote
Jeff wrote
SteveB wrote

I think if we all disconnected all the lights we have that run
24/7 and all these little clocks that we could make as much
difference as AlGore does with his global warming theories. If anyone is concerned about how much electricity
their clock uses, contact me, and I will send you a quarter for a year's usage. Hmm, I see you've snipped all
context to make your point.

The real point is that phantom power loss is not negligible and
accounts for 5% to 10% worldwide. Higher in more developed
economies. Many appliance use more power "off" than on (collectively).

Now, you will probably object to any regulation that would level
the playing field and require all manufacturers to reduce phantom
drain. And that's a real shame as the technology already exists and the return on investment is quick.

You can't consume your way out of every problem. You certainly
would rather do nothing about global warming. It's funny how some
people can deny the human component of global warming and yet have no problem with the rationale of going to war in
Iraq.

Also note that I've never advocated removing the clock from the range.

Yeah. We need more laws.

Regulation is not a bad thing.

Depends entirely on how its done.

It's very hard for a company to do something for the long term good
when doing that puts it at a short term competitive disadvantage.

You havent established that it does with that last.

That's why regulations that are evenly applied to all competitors work.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.

And why voluntary targets don't.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont.

We've had 7 years of corporate free reign under George W Bush.

Lie.

Few would think the results are impressive.

Most arent qualfied to have an opinion on that particular question.

Fewer still would believe that we have made progress toward solving the problems that loom.

Irrelevant to what is feasible with regulation.

David Nebenzahl wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). But I don't understand why you seem so sre that we'll be using this decidedly
non-green source when so many other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing practical power
but also doing it economically.

The reason is that they dont.

(Specifically: solar photovoltaic, wind, tide [being proposed for the San Francisco Bay Area],

None of those provide base load power.

geothermal,

That isnt available to enough countrys to be able
to provide the bulk of their base load power.

cogeneration, recovered landfill methane, small-head hydro, etc.)

Cant provide anything like what any modern first world country needs.

Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing better matches between sources and loads.

The entire power system of a modern first world country is never
about that anymore. Its actually about using the entire system to help
with the deficiencys of all of those allegedly green power sources.

In article , wrote:

I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.

how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount
of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're
talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.


It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water

BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours

ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.

now...let's do the math...

365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year

If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760
watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__
conservative and generous to your case.

8760 360

THEREFO
It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock
as to boil a gallon of water.

surprised? Time is a funny thing...

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

In article ,
max wrote:

In article , wrote:

I doubt the LED clock on my stove uses as much energy
in 1 year as one burner uses to boil a pot of water in 5 minutes.

how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount
of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're
talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.


It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water

BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours

ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.

now...let's do the math...

365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year

If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760
watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__
conservative and generous to your case.

8760 360

THEREFO
It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock
as to boil a gallon of water.

surprised? Time is a funny thing...

i got interrupted and forgot what i was doing. dammit.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

In article , dpb wrote:

All true but it's still hard to believe the "average house" over 75% in
standby, even for electronics. Maybe I have a hard time thinking that
because I'm sure my house is far below average in numbers of these
devices so I suspect my estimate of "average" is skewed as compared to
the sample mean.

That's not what the article said. This is: "In the average home, 75% of the
electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
turned off."

That's not saying that 75% of the total electricity use in the home is used to
power electronic equipment on standby. It's saying that 75% of the electricity
used to power electronic equipment -- which is surely only a fairly small
fraction of total use -- is consumed while the equipment is on standby. Seems
reasonable to me.

In article , "Rod Speed" wrote:

And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home? Only if the
"average home" doesn't have refrigerators, clothes dryers, air conditioners,
furnaces, etc.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

All true but it's still hard to believe the "average house" over 75% in
standby, even for electronics. Maybe I have a hard time thinking that
because I'm sure my house is far below average in numbers of these
devices so I suspect my estimate of "average" is skewed as compared to
the sample mean.

That's not what the article said. This is: "In the average home, 75% of the
electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are
turned off."
....

That is what I inferred, if you'll simply read what I wrote, but my
incredulity still exists as noted even for that mix...

--

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from
coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by
that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...solves C sequestration, can regenerate more fuel than burned,
etc., etc., etc., ...

--

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/2/2008 12:58 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from
coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by
that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green
sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). ...

See above...removes almost all the issues the greens are complaining
about in an economical, reliable form.

... But I don't understand why you seem so
sre that we'll be using this decidedly non-green source when so many
other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing
practical power but also doing it economically. (Specifically: solar
photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tide [being proposed for the San
Francisco Bay Area], cogeneration, recovered landfill methane,
small-head hydro, etc.)

'Cause they don't have the energy density and reliability required for
replacement of baseload generation on the scale required. Every where
I've been the sun still goes down at night when lights are wanted, wind
isn't reliable (I just published in earlier thread results of analysis
of large wind farm in W KS which is highest US area for wind suitability
and it has only produced at less than half installed capacity on average
for six years with several _months_ of operation at roughly 20%).

The other sources you listed are even smaller contributors and are even
more limited in their availabilities other than waste methane which is,
while widely distributed, still a relatively small source.

The problem w/ the "green" plans has always been and remains one of
confusing wishing for it to be so w/ making it actually work in
practical and economical manner. These all have their place but there
is still a need and will always unless there is some truly revolutionary
breakthrough for baseload, 24/7 reliable generation.

Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing
better matches between sources and loads.
....

Can you say expensive?

--

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:
wrote:
I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
;-)

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.

Oh blah blah blah.

For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
energy.

That sounds believable, and since you actually measured I'll accept that.

I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.

Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks
in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the
coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a
safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there
that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.

Again, I'm probably not typical as I only have 1 TV and no cable box
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. That receiver also exhibits some
elements of poor design, in my opinion. For example it has a pair
of lights which indicate a "high blend" function is either on or off.
This function is automatic and there is no user control to defeat it,
so why do I need a pair of lights to tell me about it? I see a lot
of stuff like that which I consider a waste of both materials and
power.

I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
have a limited future.

Really, I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. 5% sounds reasonable.
Even 10% would not surprise me. I just don't like alarmist language
and exageration when real facts and reasonable arguments should be enough.
And, I will say that you, Jeff, are not who I'm talking about being
alarmist.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"val189" wrote in message
I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
power
strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights, oven light, and
rip out the range hood while you're at it.

Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?

I think he's talking about electronics plugged into the strips, not the
strips themselves

Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged
into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC
(real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When
the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small,
non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS
RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult
to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC
and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago
where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was
turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).

wrote:
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:
wrote:
I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.

You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses. Non switching
regulators typically throw away half or more of the power. The trend is
away from them.

Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads.
;-)

In other words, he didn't want to test to find out his "estimate" was
bogus. He probably knew it was high.

Oh blah blah blah.

For my late model GE smallish microwave, it uses 3 watts on idle. That
required winding 30 turns on an amprobe, measuring the current and
dividing by 30 and then multiplying by the line voltage. If you had the
same MW and used it 5 minutes the phantom energy is equal to the in use
energy.

That sounds believable, and since you actually measured I'll accept that.

I have never recommended removing clocks from anything, quite the
contrary. But just because they are necessary does not mean they aren't
trivial. Considering that a microwave is a high drain device while in
operation just shows the depth of the problem for all the low drain
devices that probably have higher idle drain. The old cable boxes
certainly spring to mind. So does anything run by a wall wart.

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!

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.

I don't need or want extra clocks
in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the
coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a
safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there
that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.

Again, I'm probably not typical as I only have 1 TV and no cable box
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.

Everyone needs some indulgence!

That receiver also exhibits some
elements of poor design, in my opinion. For example it has a pair
of lights which indicate a "high blend" function is either on or off.
This function is automatic and there is no user control to defeat it,
so why do I need a pair of lights to tell me about it? I see a lot
of stuff like that which I consider a waste of both materials and
power.


The disturbing trend is what is typical. There's an explosion of small
electronic devices and an explosion of electronics in all devices, like
your coffee maker. So phantom power is on the increase. Radically on the
increase.

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.

I have no problem in believing that at least 5% of the energy used in
this country is phantom losses. Probably half of that is recoverable by
better design. With the cost of copper what it is, I'd think wall warts
have a limited future.

Really, I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. 5% sounds reasonable.
Even 10% would not surprise me. I just don't like alarmist language
and exageration when real facts and reasonable arguments should be enough.
And, I will say that you, Jeff, are not who I'm talking about being
alarmist.


Thanks. I think we just got of on the wrong foot!

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.

Personally, I'm more concerned over the big ticket energy users, like
heating and air conditioning and lighting.

Jeff

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

On Jun 1, 5:37 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
[snip]
The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the
fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small amounts
of electricity, and when added together constitute a significant
fraction of energy usage.

The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
see above) is a good thing to do.

I think the point being made in this discussion is also how much
people are being penny wise and pound (dollar) foolish.

Before one worries about how much electricity is being wasted by LEDs
and clocks and small electrics that are in standby (these days it
seems nothing is every truly and completely turned off) one should
worry how much energy they are wasting in their high-draw devices such
as the hot water heater, the refrigerator, the stove, etc.

Once someone has addressed the unnecessary losses there (are you
keeping your water heater on too high a setting? are you standing
there staring into the 'fridge with the door open thinking about what
to eat?) then they should feel free to also eliminate the small losses.

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.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:24:56 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"val189" wrote in message
I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off the
power
strips when not in use. These things use electricity all the time...
Now.....you be SURE to disconnect the fridge lights, oven light, and
rip out the range hood while you're at it.

Never knew about power strips...anyone care to dispute that?

I think he's talking about electronics plugged into the strips, not the
strips themselves

Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged
into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC
(real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When
the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small,
non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS
RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult
to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC
and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago
where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was
turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).

Some computers (including the one I'm using right now) still have hard
power switches that turn everything off (electrically identical to
unplugging).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message
from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
demonstrate."

On 6/3/2008 8:00 AM spake thus:

In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff wrote:

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.

Don't blame the engineers here; blame the marketroids who have visions
of dollar signs dancing in their eyes on account of all those kewl new
features.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be scraping
the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I
hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting
most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving
normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal
transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that
they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And
for that matter the workforce.

But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers that
the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was
unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be scraping
the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I
hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting
most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving
normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal
transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that
they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

The word used was "sell" in all reporting I saw...

Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And
for that matter the workforce.

But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers that
the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was
unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Market forces will direct--if allowed.

--

"Kyle" wrote in message
...
On Jun 1, 5:37 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
[snip]
The fact that the burners use a lot more electricity doesn't change the
fact that things like clocks, wall warts, etc., still use small amounts
of electricity, and when added together constitute a significant
fraction of energy usage.

The point is that if the clock isn't serving any useful purpose, then
disconnecting it to save electricity (an admittedly small amount, but
see above) is a good thing to do.

I think the point being made in this discussion is also how much
people are being penny wise and pound (dollar) foolish.

Before one worries about how much electricity is being wasted by LEDs
and clocks and small electrics that are in standby (these days it
seems nothing is every truly and completely turned off) one should
worry how much energy they are wasting in their high-draw devices such
as the hot water heater, the refrigerator, the stove, etc.

Once someone has addressed the unnecessary losses there (are you
keeping your water heater on too high a setting? are you standing
there staring into the 'fridge with the door open thinking about what
to eat?) then they should feel free to also eliminate the small losses.

I had one (early) DVD player that, when turned off, merely turned off the LED on
the front panel. The power supply was still fully supplying power to the board
and drive, even when turned off.

Jeff wrote:
George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be scraping
the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I
hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting
most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little things
like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving
normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal
transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that
they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And
for that matter the workforce.


A buddy and I went to the New York car show earlier this year and GMs
entire focus was on big, piggy fluffed up trucks. We asked their
representative if he didn't feel silly offering such vehicles and he
told us that GM had made big investments into alternative energy and
$1/gallon fuel from recycled tires was coming soon...


But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers that
the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was
unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Jeff

dpb wrote:
Jeff wrote:
George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be
scraping the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well
at least I hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should
be getting most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
things like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as
driving normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for
personal transportation. I good example of that is todays GM
announcement that they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

The word used was "sell" in all reporting I saw...


They might do better by just quietly turning off the lights in the plant
and forgetting they ever offered such a stupid vehicle for non military use.


Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And
for that matter the workforce.

But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers
that the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was
unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Market forces will direct--if allowed.

--

dpb wrote:
Jeff wrote:
George wrote:
Pipedown wrote:
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be
scraping the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well
at least I hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should
be getting most of our electricity from various green sources.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
The clock on my range has never kept correct time, yet it keeps
running and using electricity. (Small amount, but many little
things like this can add up.)

So I pulled my electric range out from the wall, unplugged it, and
disconnected the clock. (Only do this if you know what you are doing.)

I already have many electronic things on power strips and turn off
the power strips when not in use. These things use electricity all
the time...




I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards
efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as
driving normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for
personal transportation. I good example of that is todays GM
announcement that they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.

And possibly discontinuing the Hummer.

The word used was "sell" in all reporting I saw...

Right you are.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2133975.story

"At this point, we are considering all options for the Hummer brand,"
Wagoner said. "Everything from a complete revamp of the product lineup
to partial or complete sale of the brand."

No possible buyer has been named for the division, which was for a few
years -- when gasoline cost less than $3 a gallon -- one of GM's
strongest. Last week, GM stock hit a 26-year low, falling to $17.38. At
11:15 this morning, the stock was unchanged at $17.43.

Can you imagine the pain this market driven force is causing GM? And
for that matter the workforce.

But rational analysis should have told all the car manufacturers
that the ramp up in sales (propped along by all kinds of gimmicks) was
unsustainable. Now, there's a word for the future, "unsustainable".

Market forces will direct--if allowed.

Of course.

But, have you not noticed the destruction wrought? The lack of any
standards or accountability for securitizing sub prime loans springs
immediately to mind. That little fiasco is going to dwarf the S&L
cleanup in scope.

It also seems likely that if the government had pushed SUVs with the
100% write down on up to $100K that that little bubble wouldn't be
bursting so large now.

Capital markets benefit by sensible regulation. '29 springs to mind.
Thats why post credit meltdown, that the Fed is now inside all the large
investment banks, watching...


Jeff
--

Doug Miller wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jeff wrote

In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home
electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

And is dubious with some of the home electronics like TVs and
computers, which just happen to be the main uses of power in
the average home even with just the home electronics.

TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home?

Didnt say anything like that.

I said that those are the main power users OF THE HOME ELECTRONICS.

Only if the "average home" doesn't have refrigerators,
clothes dryers, air conditioners, furnaces, etc.