At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of electricity
that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but can't find one.

Any ideas (Shouldn't have shredded old bills)?

Whilst this campaigning is going on some areas are buying stuff whilst other
ends of the factory are dumping stuff - leading to un-necessary production
of furniture, tools and other equipment. But it is nice to look through
glossy catalogues and buy new stuff if you are so empowered!

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 UTC, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per household for stuff on standby.

I get very annoyed about this figure, which is (a) probably ancient (b)
wrong to start with. Proably worked out once (wrongly) in the past, and
forever quoted.

Our 28 inch (sorry!) TV uses nominally 8 watts on standby. Seems to be
in that ball park if I measure it. Let's call it 10W.

OK, that's approximately 250Wh over 24 hours, or 1kWh over 4 days.
That's approximately 90kWh a year.

Take an approximate cost of 10p per kWh. This will vary, but again a
ballpark figure. That makes £9.00 per year - let's round it up to £10 as
the cost per kWh is a little low, perhaps.

So, £10 per year if you leave the TV on standby ALL of the time. In
reality, some of that time, it will be switched on; let's say about 5
hours a day on average, or 20% of the time. You can't count that time as
'wasted standby' time, so that brings the cost per year down to £8. Even
lower if you actually turn it off for the night.

Now, that's only for one appliance, but it's the one everyone quotes and
indeed seems to imply that it's responsible for £50 on it's own.
Selective quoting. It's also the most power hungry.

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

John wrote:
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of electricity
that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but can't find one.

Any ideas (Shouldn't have shredded old bills)?

Whilst this campaigning is going on some areas are buying stuff whilst other
ends of the factory are dumping stuff - leading to un-necessary production
of furniture, tools and other equipment. But it is nice to look through
glossy catalogues and buy new stuff if you are so empowered!

Just had a letter from nPower (which hasn't yet made it to the
shredder) stating their current rates for their online domestic account
customers:-

15.92p/unit up to and including 728 kWh/year
8.18p/unit over 728 kWh/year

Both prices exclude vat at 5%

I've no idea what businesses pay for power. I guess heavy users like
aluminium smelters are able to negotiate a better rate. :-)

They say average domestic electricity usage is 3300 kWh/year, but I
think mine is more like 5000 kWh/year. Either way, you could work out
an effective single unit rate charge for the purposes of deciding how
much your standby consumption was costing.

I must admit to becoming more conscious of this sort of stuff myself.
The only problem is that occasionally using the tumble dryer for an
extra hour or so on a rainy day blows the 'standby' issue out of the
window.

Mike

"John" wrote in message
...
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

No it's not. But all the tiny, apparently unimportant issues such as this
add up.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt
on standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between
bed time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

It might for some people.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of
electricity that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but
can't find one.

Ask your electricity supplier.

Whilst this campaigning is going on some areas are buying stuff whilst
other ends of the factory are dumping stuff - leading to un-necessary
production of furniture, tools and other equipment.

Indeed. We're still a consuming society despite paying lip service to saving
energy.

But it is nice to look through glossy catalogues and buy new stuff if you
are so empowered!

I could but I don't like it. I did see some beautiful bed linen the other
day, if we were starting from scratch I'd be tempted (mind you, we were
utterly skint when we were starting out!). There's no point in buying more
though when we have enough to see us out.

I hate shopping :-(

Mary

"John" wrote in message
...

snip


I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt
on standby. I guess this is becoming typical -



Assuming that you're correct about 0.8W:
leaving it on standby for 24hrs x 365 days= 7 KwH per year!


and I only use standby if I switch off during normal viewing times (so it
is completely off between bed time and early evening)

My figures is for leaving the thing on standby - ALL THE TIME- your usage
may vary

Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per household for stuff on
standby.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of
electricity that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but
can't find one.


Elektrickery seems to be about 12p per KwH - {Band A , Band B, Economy 7
...., I couldn't be bothered to try to calculate a 'typical charge) but fror
the 7~ 8 wH per year; that's Eight Quid a Year! (per device)

Any ideas (Shouldn't have shredded old bills)?


--

Brian

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 UTC, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per household for stuff on
standby.

I get very annoyed about this figure, which is (a) probably ancient (b)
wrong to start with. Proably worked out once (wrongly) in the past, and
forever quoted.

snip sums

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

I agree. But why do people have to be persuaded to save energy by appealing
to their pockets?

Mary

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:41:57 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

I agree. But why do people have to be persuaded to save energy by appealing
to their pockets?

Probably because of lies such as the above. If they can't be trusted to
give truthful figures, why should perople believe anything else they
say? And the disdainful attitude of many of those who advocate green
policies. They shoot themselves in the foot because of the patronising
attitude shown by many.

Sad, but there we are.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

John wrote:
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of electricity
that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but can't find one.

Any ideas (Shouldn't have shredded old bills)?

Whilst this campaigning is going on some areas are buying stuff whilst other
ends of the factory are dumping stuff - leading to un-necessary production
of furniture, tools and other equipment. But it is nice to look through
glossy catalogues and buy new stuff if you are so empowered!


I watched the news last night and there was some energy saving guff going on.
some bright spark had deduced that his toaster was eating energy at a rate
he wasn't happy with so to save energy they threw the toaster in the bin.

didn't freecycle it, didn't take it to the tip, they threw it in the bin which, presumably,
would either end up in landfill or the subsequent collection and sorting of it would
probably use more energy than the toaster would have done in a year.

"." wrote in message
...
John wrote:
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt
on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between
bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of
electricity
that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but can't find
one.

Any ideas (Shouldn't have shredded old bills)?

Whilst this campaigning is going on some areas are buying stuff whilst
other
ends of the factory are dumping stuff - leading to un-necessary
production
of furniture, tools and other equipment. But it is nice to look through
glossy catalogues and buy new stuff if you are so empowered!


I watched the news last night and there was some energy saving guff going
on.
some bright spark had deduced that his toaster was eating energy at a rate
he wasn't happy with so to save energy they threw the toaster in the bin.

didn't freecycle it, didn't take it to the tip, they threw it in the bin
which, presumably,
would either end up in landfill or the subsequent collection and sorting
of it would
probably use more energy than the toaster would have done in a year.


I didn't see the article you've described; but:
after the director called 'Cut!', 'That's a wrap!" the cameraman's lighting
man, turned off his bank of spots, plugged his batteries into mains-outlets
to recharge them, while the presenter filled in his expenses claim form
indenting for a new toaster that they'd seen in Harrods .. and they all
drove off in their 4x4 'Chelsea Tractor' to collect it.

Cynical? Moi?

--

Brian

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:41:57 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

I agree. But why do people have to be persuaded to save energy by
appealing
to their pockets?

Probably because of lies such as the above.

Oh no - the first question asked when a new economy saving unit is
advertised is: how much (money) will it save?

It's how such things are sold.

When people get to know that we have a solar water heater it's the first
question most of them ask. The questioners can't believe that we neither
know nor care.

Mary

On 24 Oct 2006 16:36:29 GMT Bob Eager wrote :
So, £10 per year if you leave the TV on standby ALL of the time. In
reality, some of that time, it will be switched on; let's say about 5
hours a day on average, or 20% of the time. You can't count that time as
'wasted standby' time, so that brings the cost per year down to £8. Even
lower if you actually turn it off for the night.

Now, that's only for one appliance, but it's the one everyone quotes and
indeed seems to imply that it's responsible for £50 on it's own.
Selective quoting. It's also the most power hungry.

£8 for one TV. Two per household on average these days I suspect. Add a
VCR, DVD player, 2 DECT phones, digital radio off a mains adaptor and I'm
probably heading for £50. I do turn off the adaptor to my ADSL router when
I'm not using it, but that's more for security than power saving - I
suspect that lots of people leave them on.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:00:05 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On 24 Oct 2006 16:36:29 GMT Bob Eager wrote :
So, £10 per year if you leave the TV on standby ALL of the time. In
reality, some of that time, it will be switched on; let's say about 5
hours a day on average, or 20% of the time. You can't count that time as
'wasted standby' time, so that brings the cost per year down to £8. Even
lower if you actually turn it off for the night.

Now, that's only for one appliance, but it's the one everyone quotes and
indeed seems to imply that it's responsible for £50 on it's own.
Selective quoting. It's also the most power hungry.

£8 for one TV. Two per household on average these days I suspect. Add a
VCR, DVD player, 2 DECT phones, digital radio off a mains adaptor and I'm
probably heading for £50. I do turn off the adaptor to my ADSL router when
I'm not using it, but that's more for security than power saving - I
suspect that lots of people leave them on.

I agree...although I doubt that all of them use that much each. But
there's a strong implication, in the publicity, that the figure is *per
appliance*.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:39:50 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


I could but I don't like it. I did see some beautiful bed linen the other
day, if we were starting from scratch I'd be tempted (mind you, we were
utterly skint when we were starting out!). There's no point in buying more
though when we have enough to see us out.

So your relatives can pile it all into black bags and try and carboot
it and then end up taking it to the charity shop after its been in
their garage for 6 months.

They won't bother to wash your clothes before they send them either.



I hate shopping :-(


I like looking. Gives me an idea of what prices to write on the stuff
at the charity shop.

Mary



--
http://www.halloweenfreebies.co.uk
http://www.bingohoroscope.co.uk
http://www.simfreebies.co.uk

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 GMT, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.


But insulating your hot water tank still only saves you £10 a year
even years after they started promoting insulation.
--
http://www.halloweenfreebies.co.uk
http://www.bingohoroscope.co.uk
http://www.simfreebies.co.uk

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:41:57 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

I agree. But why do people have to be persuaded to save energy by
appealing
to their pockets?

Probably because of lies such as the above. If they can't be trusted to
give truthful figures, why should perople believe anything else they
say? And the disdainful attitude of many of those who advocate green
policies. They shoot themselves in the foot because of the patronising
attitude shown by many.

Sad, but there we are.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Good response Bob. Thanks, I enjoyed it - likewise the later article about
the toaster.

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"." wrote in message
...
John wrote:
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt
on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between
bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

I have been looking for some sort of ball park cost per unit of
electricity
that I can put into a response to our Environmental guy but can't find
one.

Any ideas (Shouldn't have shredded old bills)?

Whilst this campaigning is going on some areas are buying stuff whilst
other
ends of the factory are dumping stuff - leading to un-necessary
production
of furniture, tools and other equipment. But it is nice to look through
glossy catalogues and buy new stuff if you are so empowered!


I watched the news last night and there was some energy saving guff going
on.
some bright spark had deduced that his toaster was eating energy at a rate
he wasn't happy with so to save energy they threw the toaster in the bin.

didn't freecycle it, didn't take it to the tip, they threw it in the bin
which, presumably,
would either end up in landfill or the subsequent collection and sorting
of it would
probably use more energy than the toaster would have done in a year.


I didn't see the article you've described; but:
after the director called 'Cut!', 'That's a wrap!" the cameraman's lighting
man, turned off his bank of spots, plugged his batteries into mains-outlets
to recharge them, while the presenter filled in his expenses claim form
indenting for a new toaster that they'd seen in Harrods .. and they all
drove off in their 4x4 'Chelsea Tractor' to collect it.

Cynical? Moi?

experienced more like :-)

On 24 Oct 2006 10:15:17 -0700, " wrote:

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

Because the campaigners know they can't win if they say that to
achieve what they want all fuel must be pushed up in price to a point
where large numbers of elderly and poor die of hypothermia each year
and transport (other than by government approved train) becomes a
luxury only politicians and green campaigners can afford.

They have to try to get enough people into a frame of mind where they
will actually be prepared to tolerate draconian measures - and scare
stories and fake figures is the way to start greenwashing them.

To achieve this you use scientific measure, such as "if all UK
households turned appliances off rather than putting them on standby
it would save the energy produced by two-and-a-half 700 megawatt
power stations each year" or "If 10 percent of the world's cell phone
owners [unplugged their chargers when not in use], it would reduce
energy consumption by an amount equivalent to that used by 60,000
European homes per year."

Using these babytalk figures you can easily hide the truth. For
example most phone chargers are switched mode and consume under half
a watt when the battery is charged. A very few linear types from
days of yore will consume 5W even when unplugged from the phone.
Guess which figure is used to work out the "60,000 homes a year"
figure.

Real facts have to be hidden, otherwise it becomes rather too easy to
disprove the propaganda.

Generating more electricity is obviously a really big no-no as this
would inevitably involve nuclear energy and that is the ultimate hate
object of the leaders of the various greenygroups.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter Parry wrote:
On 24 Oct 2006 10:15:17 -0700, " wrote:

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

Because the campaigners know they can't win if they say that to
achieve what they want all fuel must be pushed up in price to a point
where large numbers of elderly and poor die of hypothermia each year
and transport (other than by government approved train) becomes a
luxury only politicians and green campaigners can afford.

Sounds a bit straw mannish to me. Whats needed is to make things
efficient, stop the waste. Theres no point in getting draconian when a
lot can be saved by isulation and a bit of basic sense.

Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers, national
holidays are more relaxing than international, etc etc.

Why do eople ask ohw much it saves?
1. Because its an easy way to measure energy saving.
2. Because it also tells you the payback, which is the simplest way to
work out whether it really saves any energy at all..


NT

wrote:


The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

Absolute camel dung !!

The real biggies are China, America and India.

anything anyone in this country does to "stop climate change" will
have absolutely zero effect on the global situation so light that bulb,
leave that TV on all night and, most importantly, go on as many air
journeys and car journeys you can before the 'antis' get their way
and stop everyone doing what they are doing.

Let's stop somebody from doing something!
Everybody does too much.
People seem to think they've a right to eat and drink,
Talk and walk and respirate and rink,
Bicycle and bathe and such.

So let's have lots of little regulations,
Let's make laws and jobs for our relations,
There's too much kissing at the railway stations--

Let's find out what everyone is doing,
And then stop everyone from doing it.

A.P. Herbert's Ballads for Broadbrows

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 GMT, "John"
wrote:

At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

Anything like this sold into the Japanese market must have a standby
power of less than a watt:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=japanese+standby+1W&btnG=Google+Sea rch&meta=

Whereas we in the UK accept any old crap I expect.

cheers,
Pete.

Mary Fisher wrote:

I agree. But why do people have to be persuaded to save energy by appealing
to their pockets?

Because for some that is the only way you will get them to put up with
the inconveniance of turning it off fully.

(note that not all TVs have a hard on/off switch - hence this may
require crawling behind piles of AV gear, looking for the switch on the
socket)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"mogga" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:39:50 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


I could but I don't like it. I did see some beautiful bed linen the other
day, if we were starting from scratch I'd be tempted (mind you, we were
utterly skint when we were starting out!). There's no point in buying more
though when we have enough to see us out.

So your relatives can pile it all into black bags and try and carboot
it and then end up taking it to the charity shop after its been in
their garage for 6 months.

Our relatives (our children) are intelligent enough to look through for what
they can use and give anything which is usable by like-minded people to
charity shops. There's nothing wrong with that.

They won't bother to wash your clothes before they send them either.

Oh yes they would - the few things which needed washing. Our 'children' are
very responsible people.



I hate shopping :-(


I like looking. Gives me an idea of what prices to write on the stuff
at the charity shop.

I hate even looking. There's much more to life.

Mary

"mogga" wrote in message
...



But insulating your hot water tank still only saves you £10 a year
even years after they started promoting insulation.

Whether that's true or not, doesn't it matter that it's saving waste?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

That doesn't mean that it's not worth doing. The sum total of all the
minuscule savings can add up to quite a lot, globablly.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:17:28 GMT, "John"

Whereas we in the UK accept any old crap I expect.

Speak for yourself :-)

cheers,
Pete.

Mary Fisher wrote:

Oh no - the first question asked when a new economy saving unit is
advertised is: how much (money) will it save?

Which, if that is being promoted as its primary purpose, would be the
main question to ask I would have thought.

It's how such things are sold.

When people get to know that we have a solar water heater it's the first
question most of them ask. The questioners can't believe that we neither
know nor care.

I can accept you may not care that much about the cost. However I find
it interesting that you don't know how much energy it is saving[1].
Otherwise how do you know you have not just installed something that
will never repay its environmental cost?


[1] perhaps you are monitoring it but have not had it installed long
enough yet to get a decent picture of the effect over the year...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

mogga wrote:

But insulating your hot water tank still only saves you £10 a year
even years after they started promoting insulation.

And where does the heat lost from the tank go?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mary Fisher wrote:

I hate shopping :-(


I like looking. Gives me an idea of what prices to write on the stuff
at the charity shop.

I hate even looking. There's much more to life.

Mary

I take it you're referring to Usenet? What with you being the 7th
all-time highest poster to uk.d-i-y (4th highest this month!).... :-)

Where do you find the time?! Or, more to the point, how do you justify
spending it here?!

Mathew

In message , John
writes
At the place where I work they are embarking on a campaign on energy
reduction (no issues here) but they keep beating on about TVs left on
standby. Apparently it is going to destroy the planet.

I checked my 4 year old (CRT) TV - it claims to use only 0.8 of a watt on
standby. I guess this is becoming typical - and I only use standby if I
switch off during normal viewing times (so it is completely off between bed
time and early evening) Yet the publicity being used claims £50 per
household for stuff on standby.

Are all the lights and computers switched off when not in use ?

makes me laugh turning your TV off instead of putting it on standby will
save the planet

.... but all these office buildings running lights and PCs 24/7 really
don't impact


--
geoff

John Rumm wrote:
mogga wrote:

But insulating your hot water tank still only saves you £10 a year
even years after they started promoting insulation.


And where does the heat lost from the tank go?

A lot of it goes into the loft and out, if as is common the cold tank is
over the airing cupboard with no insulation under (to stop it from
freezing) and a thin layer on top and round the sides.

Of course some goes into the house, but that's only any use when you
would be heating the house anyway - do you really want an extra heat
source in the summer?

Chris

--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with btinternet dot com

On 2006-10-24 18:15:17 +0100, " said:

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

It's called soft targetting - just like fluorescent light bulbs and
other stuff that one might have at home which in reality makes little
difference other than a feel good factor.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:10:23 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-24 18:15:17 +0100, " said:

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

It's called soft targetting - just like fluorescent light bulbs and
other stuff that one might have at home which in reality makes little
difference other than a feel good factor.

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On 2006-10-24 23:17:35 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:10:23 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-24 18:15:17 +0100, " said:

I wonder why there is this attempt to direct attention onto a trivial
area of energy consumption.

The real biggies are air travel, domestic heating and car usage.

The smallest reduction in consumption in any one of those areas would
dwarf the total elimination of standby electricity consumption.

It's called soft targetting - just like fluorescent light bulbs and
other stuff that one might have at home which in reality makes little
difference other than a feel good factor.

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Very short. You would have to be addicted to large volumes of crap TV
to want to go to Torremolinos in the first place so it would hardly
ever be in standby.

On 24 Oct 2006 22:17:35 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:


Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Torremolinos, hah. Do you have any idea how many thousands of
greenies went to Kyoto and Buenos Aires and Montreal and every other
monthly worldwide enviro-conference where they all voted to make
everyone else uses video-conferencing?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Well, lets have a go...

Google earth recons the distance from Gatwick is 1025 miles...

lets go on a 777, with a passenger capacity of 440 people flying cattle
class. Max range about 6000 miles, max fuel load 120,000 L - so call it
a 1/3rd of a tank there and back. So 40,000 L of fuel, or 90 L (or
about 80kg) per passenger. Lets say we get 42MJ/kg that gives us 3360MJ
of energy.

Your TV on standby consuming 0.8W running 24/7 365 will use about 25MJ...

So the moral of the storey is skip this years flight, you can have your
TV on standby for the next 134 years instead.

(give or take an order of magnitude!)

Oh and don't forget the drive to the airport and back could use half as
much again!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2006-10-24 23:57:13 +0100, John Rumm said:

Bob Eager wrote:

Anyone want to work out how long a TV has to be left on standby to equal
one trip to Torremolinos?? :-)

Well, lets have a go...

Google earth recons the distance from Gatwick is 1025 miles...


lets go on a 777, with a passenger capacity of 440 people flying cattle
class. Max range about 6000 miles, max fuel load 120,000 L - so call it
a 1/3rd of a tank there and back. So 40,000 L of fuel, or 90 L (or
about 80kg) per passenger. Lets say we get 42MJ/kg that gives us 3360MJ
of energy.

Your TV on standby consuming 0.8W running 24/7 365 will use about 25MJ...

So the moral of the storey is skip this years flight, you can have your
TV on standby for the next 134 years instead.

(give or take an order of magnitude!)

Oh and don't forget the drive to the airport and back could use half as
much again!

Even left on all day, it would probably run for over a year, and there
would be enough left over for several shell suits through not having
been to Torremolinos and bringing back yet another straw donkey and
sombrero.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
The figures given are total greenwash. Not to say you shouldn't turn it
off (we do) but let's get there by quoting truthful figures.

They were claiming the same sort of thing leaving a phone charger plugged
in while not in use.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
. wrote:
I didn't see the article you've described; but: after the director
called 'Cut!', 'That's a wrap!" the cameraman's lighting man, turned
off his bank of spots, plugged his batteries into mains-outlets to
recharge them, while the presenter filled in his expenses claim form
indenting for a new toaster that they'd seen in Harrods .. and they
all drove off in their 4x4 'Chelsea Tractor' to collect it.

Cynical? Moi?

experienced more like :-)

Naw - 'we' have our own camera car - the talent travels separately. ;-)

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
wrote:
Cars are pointlessly overpowered to appeal to immature buyers,

But use rather less fuel than underpowered cars of yore.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.