Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and video
both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic_charger.jpg

Jonathan wrote:

Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and video
both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic_charger.jpg

The whole lot is dubious at best. Down right misleading would be closer
to the point.

Always a problem when you have non technocal maketing droids write
greenwash. Even if you ignore the 4kW phone charger, the advice to
landfill a working freezer on the *assumption* is is drastically less
efficent than your current one risky at best, and that is before you
look at the life cycle energy of disposing of the old one and producing
and supplying a new one.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28 Jan, 12:49, John Rumm wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and video
both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...thern_electric...

The whole lot is dubious at best. Down right misleading would be closer
to the point.

Always a problem when you have non technocal maketing droids write
greenwash. Even if you ignore the 4kW phone charger, the advice to
landfill a working freezer on the *assumption* is is drastically less
efficent than your current one risky at best, and that is before you
look at the life cycle energy of disposing of the old one and producing
and supplying a new one.


They must have looked awful hard to find an appliance that eats 85%
rated load on standby.

100kWh/day is more like a questionable erstimate of the entire
country's use, complete oblocks

Anyone still conscious knows they cna save money by turning down the
heat, and know why they dont do it.

The bit about freezers will normally be true of early 70s units and
faulty appliances, but just silly to suggest it applies to them all.


NT

wrote in message
oups.com...
On 28 Jan, 12:49, John Rumm wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that
use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and
video
both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...thern_electric...

The whole lot is dubious at best. Down right misleading would be closer
to the point.

Always a problem when you have non technocal maketing droids write
greenwash. Even if you ignore the 4kW phone charger, the advice to
landfill a working freezer on the *assumption* is is drastically less
efficent than your current one risky at best, and that is before you
look at the life cycle energy of disposing of the old one and producing
and supplying a new one.


They must have looked awful hard to find an appliance that eats 85%
rated load on standby.

100kWh/day is more like a questionable erstimate of the entire
country's use, complete oblocks

Anyone still conscious knows they cna save money by turning down the
heat, and know why they dont do it.

The bit about freezers will normally be true of early 70s units and
faulty appliances, but just silly to suggest it applies to them all.

Just like it's silly for all the media (and government agencies)
to continually say that *everyone* can save hundreds by
switching supplier. Just how many times can I go araound
this loop. Can I get to the point where someone will pay me
for taking their electric?

tim

Jonathan wrote:
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and
video
both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic_charger.jpg

Its part of the 'good lie' which has become more common as of late. It
doesnt matter if the information they tell you is misleading, or just plain
incorrect, if it is in a good cause (as judged by them) then it is ok.

Gaz

"Gaz" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that
use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and
video
both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic_charger.jpg

Its part of the 'good lie' which has become more common as of late. It
doesnt matter if the information they tell you is misleading, or just
plain incorrect, if it is in a good cause (as judged by them) then it is
ok.

Gaz

Many gullible people remember this crap. My TV only uses 0.8 of a watt on
standby (not that I leave it on standby often). I am getting fed up of the
greenies making everyone feel guilty about everything - there are bigger
issues - like the pollution made in China by their dirty power stations and
processes (producing goods for us that are then shipped half way around the
world); destruction of rainforests, etc.

People are only too happy to point their finger and tut everytime a
politician of member of royal family use a car or aeroplane - but miss
issues that are statistically more significant.

Maybe the publicity dept got the decimal point in the wrong place

Should it not have been 100 x 10 to the power of -3 or 100mW, but then
the publicity dept thought we are a generating company and do not deal
in such small numbers, and dropped the minus sign and made it into
100kW.

Or maybe the typist thought the engineers notes had just got a pencil
mark on it, and did not transfer the minus sign ???

It does make you wonder how many eyes (on multi thousand pay packets)
read that bit of paper before being published.

Dear ukagent:

"ukagent" wrote in message
...
Maybe the publicity dept got the decimal point in
the wrong place

Or maybe the typist thought the engineers notes
had just got a pencil mark on it, and did not transfer
the minus sign ???

It may have been extrapolated to their entire customer base,
assuming each account had a similar device.

David A. Smith

ukagent wrote:
Maybe the publicity dept got the decimal point in the wrong place

Should it not have been 100 x 10 to the power of -3 or 100mW, but then
the publicity dept thought we are a generating company and do not deal
in such small numbers, and dropped the minus sign and made it into
100kW.

Or maybe the typist thought the engineers notes had just got a pencil
mark on it, and did not transfer the minus sign ???

It does make you wonder how many eyes (on multi thousand pay packets)
read that bit of paper before being published.

I have one of those energy monitors from Maplin, my mobile phone
chargers use nothing when not plugged into the phone.

I have one of those energy monitors from Maplin, my mobile phone
chargers use nothing when not plugged into the phone.

They will use a small amount. I expect its too low to show on the monitor.

Dave

"Dave R" wrote in message
k...
ukagent wrote:
Maybe the publicity dept got the decimal point in the wrong place Should
it not have been 100 x 10 to the power of -3 or 100mW, but then
the publicity dept thought we are a generating company and do not deal
in such small numbers, and dropped the minus sign and made it into
100kW.

Or maybe the typist thought the engineers notes had just got a pencil
mark on it, and did not transfer the minus sign ???

It does make you wonder how many eyes (on multi thousand pay packets)
read that bit of paper before being published.

I have one of those energy monitors from Maplin, my mobile phone chargers
use nothing when not plugged into the phone.

Is that the £26.99 one on the Maplin website?. How accurate is it at low
current?

"John" wrote in message
...

Gaz

Many gullible people remember this crap. My TV only uses 0.8 of a watt on
standby (not that I leave it on standby often).

What make and model is that? Is the 0.8W figure your own measured value, or
a manufacturer figure?

"OG" wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...

Gaz

Many gullible people remember this crap. My TV only uses 0.8 of a watt on
standby (not that I leave it on standby often).

What make and model is that? Is the 0.8W figure your own measured value,
or a manufacturer figure?

I don't know about his TV but Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on
standby - that seems very low and makes you inclined to question all of the
figures being bandied around by the Government!

Roger

"OG" wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...

Gaz

Many gullible people remember this crap. My TV only uses 0.8 of a watt on
standby (not that I leave it on standby often).

What make and model is that? Is the 0.8W figure your own measured value,
or a manufacturer figure?



JVC AV-28WFT1EK - Approx 4 years old - 28 inch CRT Flat Screen.

There is now a standard governing stand-by.

This might be of interest:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/...ive/795944.pdf

"John" wrote in message
...
This might be of interest:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/...ive/795944.pdf





Another good site:



http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/fr...thenight01.pdf

Dave R wrote:

I have one of those energy monitors from Maplin, my mobile phone
chargers use nothing when not plugged into the phone.

It is worth noting that many modern phone chargers are switched mode
power supplies. Many of these will in effect turn off when there is no
load.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

Clearly shome mistake.

It might be interesting to know just how many million of these 'little black
boxes' (wall warts) are plugged in 24/7 and how much power is used to keep
them energised - even when the mobile is away being used.

I have three little black boxes, but it is hardly worth worrying about when
I'm running a 2 KW electric fire, an immersion heater, a washing machine and
a tumble drier.

Roger R

Roger R wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

Clearly shome mistake.

It might be interesting to know just how many million of these 'little black
boxes' (wall warts) are plugged in 24/7 and how much power is used to keep
them energised - even when the mobile is away being used.

I have three little black boxes, but it is hardly worth worrying about when
I'm running a 2 KW electric fire, an immersion heater, a washing machine and
a tumble drier.

Roger R


The moment you are running the elctric fire, the wallwarts are zero
carbon opportunity cost, since you are using electrical power to heat
anyway.

The same goes for full water kettles, inefficient incandescent lamps and
the like.

One can imagine that if we had a fully integrated nuclear electric power
generation scenario, that use of electrical heating and wasteful
electrical products would be positively beneficial, if it meant that we
didn't need to use gas or oil to heat our homes.

I can see it now "Government initiative to replace CFL lamps with
'combined heat and light' lamps" .. "wasting energy is green" says
Greenpeace.."Rock star buys 500KW electric sports car"

and so on..

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Dave R wrote:

I have one of those energy monitors from Maplin, my mobile phone chargers
use nothing when not plugged into the phone.

It is worth noting that many modern phone chargers are switched mode power
supplies. Many of these will in effect turn off when there is no load.


One test is whether it warms up at all when its not charging.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

My chargers both say they use about 21mA max.

Also, point 3 seems a little dubious too - AFAIK, the only things that use
any significant power on standby are digiboxes.
Surely the rest just take enough to keep the coil energised? My TV and
video both use 4 watts on standby.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic_charger.jpg


They got a k in by mistake. Typical chargers will use about 100Whrs per
day.

On 29 Jan, 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger R wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

The moment you are running the elctric fire, the wallwarts are zero
carbon opportunity cost, since you are using electrical power to heat
anyway.

The same goes for full water kettles, inefficient incandescent lamps and
the like.

One can imagine that if we had a fully integrated nuclear electric power
generation scenario, that use of electrical heating and wasteful
electrical products would be positively beneficial, if it meant that we
didn't need to use gas or oil to heat our homes.

I can see it now "Government initiative to replace CFL lamps with
'combined heat and light' lamps" .. "wasting energy is green" says
Greenpeace.."Rock star buys 500KW electric sports car"

and so on..

Energy from non-oil sources keeps creping down in cost. If this trend
continues, one day it'll be so cheap that materials will be the more
valued thing, not energy, and it cavity wall insulation might even one
day become seen as a waste of good materials.

But not in my lifetime.


NT

wrote:
On 29 Jan, 11:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger R wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

The moment you are running the elctric fire, the wallwarts are zero
carbon opportunity cost, since you are using electrical power to heat
anyway.

The same goes for full water kettles, inefficient incandescent lamps and
the like.

One can imagine that if we had a fully integrated nuclear electric power
generation scenario, that use of electrical heating and wasteful
electrical products would be positively beneficial, if it meant that we
didn't need to use gas or oil to heat our homes.

I can see it now "Government initiative to replace CFL lamps with
'combined heat and light' lamps" .. "wasting energy is green" says
Greenpeace.."Rock star buys 500KW electric sports car"

and so on..

Energy from non-oil sources keeps creping down in cost. If this trend
continues, one day it'll be so cheap that materials will be the more
valued thing, not energy, and it cavity wall insulation might even one
day become seen as a waste of good materials.

But not in my lifetime.



Well not knowing yor age, and state of health, and the likelihood of
medical advances in geriatrics, thats is a fairly hard thing to be
definite about..

...but as far as energy goes, once the technologies for non carbon based
electricity come on stream, I think it will be a very rapid
transition..a decade or two at most.
Thse things are all driven by accounting: If the cost of a new nuclear
power station is less than the opportunity cost of continuing running a
gas power station..guess what. They will shut off the gas one.


NT

In message , Roger Matthews
writes

Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on standby - that seems very low
and makes you inclined to question all of the figures being bandied
around by the Government!

I'm so green I don't use a flushing loo but consider my TVs left on
standby to provide background heating.

--
dave @ stejonda

"dave @ stejonda" wrote in
message ...
In message , Roger Matthews
writes

Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on standby - that seems very low and
makes you inclined to question all of the figures being bandied around by
the Government!

I'm so green I don't use a flushing loo but consider my TVs left on
standby to provide background heating.

--
dave @ stejonda

Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

The Green Campaigners are out of touch

John wrote:
"dave @ stejonda" wrote in
message ...
In message , Roger Matthews
writes

Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on standby - that seems very low and
makes you inclined to question all of the figures being bandied around by
the Government!

I'm so green I don't use a flushing loo but consider my TVs left on
standby to provide background heating.

--
dave @ stejonda

Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

The Green Campaigners are out of touch


0.8w*24hr/day*300,000,000 TV's = 5,760,000,000kw-hr/day in tv's only.
Now add in cell phone chargers, computers, and stereos. All that energy
wasted so we save 1sec when we want to get our daily dose of
mind-numbing drivel.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:44:25 UTC, lyttlec wrote:

John wrote:
"dave @ stejonda" wrote in
message ...
In message , Roger Matthews
writes

Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on standby - that seems very low and
makes you inclined to question all of the figures being bandied around by
the Government!

I'm so green I don't use a flushing loo but consider my TVs left on
standby to provide background heating.

--
dave @ stejonda

Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

The Green Campaigners are out of touch


0.8w*24hr/day*300,000,000 TV's = 5,760,000,000kw-hr/day in tv's only.
Now add in cell phone chargers, computers, and stereos. All that energy
wasted so we save 1sec when we want to get our daily dose of
mind-numbing drivel.

You're another one who likes to distort the truth, then? You might make
it a bit more convincing by at least trying to do the calculation
correctly.

0.8w*24hr/day = 19.2 watt/hours per day for one TV. Multiply that by
300,000,000 (where did you get the 5 TVs for every man, woman and child
in the country from?, but we'll leave that one) and you get 5,760,000
kwH per day.

So, you're three orders of magnitude out (a factor of 1000, in other
words). That's using a false assumption of 5 TVs each for everyone in
the UK; perhaps you meant some bigger area, but who knows? you
conveniently left that out.

Add in the fact that for a lot of that 24 hours the TV would be on
anyway. Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

Greenwash. And highly unconvincing greenwash.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:44:25 UTC, lyttlec wrote:

John wrote:
"dave @ stejonda" wrote
in
message ...
In message , Roger Matthews
writes

Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on standby - that seems very low
and
makes you inclined to question all of the figures being bandied
around by
the Government!

I'm so green I don't use a flushing loo but consider my TVs left on
standby to provide background heating.

--
dave @ stejonda

Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for
some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

The Green Campaigners are out of touch


0.8w*24hr/day*300,000,000 TV's = 5,760,000,000kw-hr/day in tv's only.
Now add in cell phone chargers, computers, and stereos. All that energy
wasted so we save 1sec when we want to get our daily dose of
mind-numbing drivel.

You're another one who likes to distort the truth, then? You might make
it a bit more convincing by at least trying to do the calculation
correctly.

0.8w*24hr/day = 19.2 watt/hours per day for one TV. Multiply that by
300,000,000 (where did you get the 5 TVs for every man, woman and child
in the country from?, but we'll leave that one) and you get 5,760,000
kwH per day.

So, you're three orders of magnitude out (a factor of 1000, in other
words). That's using a false assumption of 5 TVs each for everyone in
the UK; perhaps you meant some bigger area, but who knows? you
conveniently left that out.

Add in the fact that for a lot of that 24 hours the TV would be on
anyway. Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

Greenwash. And highly unconvincing greenwash.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Well done Bob.

Where I live the council are proposing Wind Turbines and local businesses
are "lined up" to take the Green Electricity". What is conveniently
forgotten is the fact that power Stations need to be kept spinning for when
the wind drops - unless the businesses are content with power only on good
days.

Incidentally, most people I know only uses standby for quite short periods
during the evening. The sets get powered down at bed time and left off until
the late afternoon viewing period.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:44:25 UTC, lyttlec wrote:

John wrote:
"dave @ stejonda" wrote in
message ...
In message , Roger Matthews
writes

Sony say that my LCD 23" uses 0.7W on standby - that seems very low and
makes you inclined to question all of the figures being bandied around by
the Government!

I'm so green I don't use a flushing loo but consider my TVs left on
standby to provide background heating.

--
dave @ stejonda
Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

The Green Campaigners are out of touch


0.8w*24hr/day*300,000,000 TV's = 5,760,000,000kw-hr/day in tv's only.
Now add in cell phone chargers, computers, and stereos. All that energy
wasted so we save 1sec when we want to get our daily dose of
mind-numbing drivel.

You're another one who likes to distort the truth, then? You might make
it a bit more convincing by at least trying to do the calculation
correctly.

0.8w*24hr/day = 19.2 watt/hours per day for one TV. Multiply that by
300,000,000 (where did you get the 5 TVs for every man, woman and child
in the country from?, but we'll leave that one) and you get 5,760,000
kwH per day.

So, you're three orders of magnitude out (a factor of 1000, in other
words). That's using a false assumption of 5 TVs each for everyone in
the UK; perhaps you meant some bigger area, but who knows? you
conveniently left that out.

Add in the fact that for a lot of that 24 hours the TV would be on
anyway. Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

Greenwash. And highly unconvincing greenwash.

Ok, I did type kw-hr when I did mean w-hr. my bad.
OTOH, I should have used 600,000,000 for the number of TVs. The current
estimate for the US population is just over 300,000,000 and we have
closer to tvs per person. I know several families of three that have one
in each bedroom, one in the kitchen, one in the living room, one in the
den. Even if no one ever watches the one in the guest room, it is still
using 0.8W. So the correct number is 11,520,000 watt-hours/day. That
translates to about 3,417,600 pounds(1709tons) of coal/year, 24,000
pounds of SO2, 1600 tons of CO2 (coal is mostly carbon).

Have you ever noticed that during a blackout, the power sort of fade out
rather than goes off all at once? Thats because of all the wallwarts and
tv sets discharging into the grid.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:03:41 UTC, lyttlec wrote:

0.8w*24hr/day*300,000,000 TV's = 5,760,000,000kw-hr/day in tv's only.
Now add in cell phone chargers, computers, and stereos. All that energy
wasted so we save 1sec when we want to get our daily dose of
mind-numbing drivel.

You're another one who likes to distort the truth, then? You might make
it a bit more convincing by at least trying to do the calculation
correctly.

0.8w*24hr/day = 19.2 watt/hours per day for one TV. Multiply that by
300,000,000 (where did you get the 5 TVs for every man, woman and child
in the country from?, but we'll leave that one) and you get 5,760,000
kwH per day.

So, you're three orders of magnitude out (a factor of 1000, in other
words). That's using a false assumption of 5 TVs each for everyone in
the UK; perhaps you meant some bigger area, but who knows? you
conveniently left that out.

Add in the fact that for a lot of that 24 hours the TV would be on
anyway. Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

Greenwash. And highly unconvincing greenwash.

Ok, I did type kw-hr when I did mean w-hr. my bad.

All very well, but it makes a hell of a difference. "Sorry, guv, made a
mistake. But it's really bad anyway".

OTOH, I should have used 600,000,000 for the number of TVs. The current
estimate for the US population is just over 300,000,000 and we have
closer to tvs per person.

So, you're in the USA; I suspected as much. But try to make it clear;
this is a UK newsgroup after all.

Two TVs for every man, woman, child and baby? Well, we always knew the
Yanks were wasteful. And as for pollution: can we say "Bush - Kyoto"?

I know several families of three that have one
in each bedroom, one in the kitchen, one in the living room, one in the
den. Even if no one ever watches the one in the guest room, it is still
using 0.8W.

If it's switched on at all. My experience is that yes, TVs get left on
standby. But not 24/7. At least not in the UK. Typical day; TV is
switched on when we get up. It goes off when I leave for work (I'm last
out). Goes on when the kids come in. On and off during the evening,
possibly on standby sometimes. Total time on standby probably less than
an hour or two each day. You can't count the time when it's actually
being watched, unless you are bent on distorting the figures.

So the correct number is 11,520,000 watt-hours/day.

No; 11,520,000 kWh/day (11,520 MWh/day). Do try to keep up.

Or approximately 1000MWh per day, in reality (dividing by 12 since it's
really about 2 hours/day on average; some will be more, some less).
Actually, that's probably a high estimate; I can't see very many people
leaving (say) the guest room TV on when there is no guest. And are there
*really* that many - two for everyone?

That's for the USA. For the UK (this is a UK newsgroup) it's about a
fifth of that. So, 200MWh per day. Worst case - I doubt we have as many
as the USA. Be generous and say half. So a (probably high) figure is
100MWh per day.

Our last electricity bill shows we used 30 kWh/day; we might use a bit
more than most, but let's say on average it's a third of that. So,
10,000 homes worth of electricity. Out of probably about 20 million,
that's not a lot. Even less if you count industry, which is very power
hungry.

So, just scare mongering figures really.

That
translates to about 3,417,600 pounds(1709tons) of coal/year, 24,000
pounds of SO2, 1600 tons of CO2 (coal is mostly carbon).

Actually, it's a damn sight more CO2 than that since there isn't a one
to one relation.

Have you ever noticed that during a blackout, the power sort of fade out
rather than goes off all at once? Thats because of all the wallwarts and
tv sets discharging into the grid.

I'd like to hear technical justification for that. I've not seen it, and
I guess it depends on what caused the blackout anyway.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 14 Feb 2007 18:03:57 GMT someone who may be "Bob Eager"
wrote this:-

Add in the fact that for a lot of that 24 hours the TV would be on
anyway.

Rather depends on the household. I suspect that many are only
watched for a few hours a day, as most people have better things to
do with their time.

Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

An increasing number probably do. However, this is only since
campaigns against leaving things on standby started. However, it is
probably true that houses where televisions are watched a lot are
also the ones where they are left on standby when not on.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:43:59 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

An increasing number probably do. However, this is only since
campaigns against leaving things on standby started.

There have been campaigns for a long time now, mainly from the fire
service.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:03:41 UTC, lyttlec wrote:

0.8w*24hr/day*300,000,000 TV's = 5,760,000,000kw-hr/day in tv's only.
Now add in cell phone chargers, computers, and stereos. All that energy
wasted so we save 1sec when we want to get our daily dose of
mind-numbing drivel.
You're another one who likes to distort the truth, then? You might make
it a bit more convincing by at least trying to do the calculation
correctly.

0.8w*24hr/day = 19.2 watt/hours per day for one TV. Multiply that by
300,000,000 (where did you get the 5 TVs for every man, woman and child
in the country from?, but we'll leave that one) and you get 5,760,000
kwH per day.

So, you're three orders of magnitude out (a factor of 1000, in other
words). That's using a false assumption of 5 TVs each for everyone in
the UK; perhaps you meant some bigger area, but who knows? you
conveniently left that out.

Add in the fact that for a lot of that 24 hours the TV would be on
anyway. Then also the fact that many people turn the TV off when asleep
or not at home.

Greenwash. And highly unconvincing greenwash.

Ok, I did type kw-hr when I did mean w-hr. my bad.

All very well, but it makes a hell of a difference. "Sorry, guv, made a
mistake. But it's really bad anyway".

OTOH, I should have used 600,000,000 for the number of TVs. The current
estimate for the US population is just over 300,000,000 and we have
closer to tvs per person.

So, you're in the USA; I suspected as much. But try to make it clear;
this is a UK newsgroup after all.

I assume you still get billed for on-peak vs. off-peak power? I once
built a wind power system for a friend of mine in the UK. Cut his peak
power usage charges in half.
In the US, I built one for a dairy farm that cut his peak-power by 10%,
and his total bill by over 80%. His total monthly rate was determined by
a 20minute peak. Some simple changes to his local wiring ( so he
couldn't start the welder in his shop while the silage augers were
running) and adding a wind power system to pump and pre-heat water was
all it took.
Two TVs for every man, woman, child and baby? Well, we always knew the
Yanks were wasteful.
The Brits isn't any better. There are just fewer of them. To your
credit, power rates there do encourage a bit more conservation.
And as for pollution: can we say "Bush - Kyoto"?

Both suck. Ignore anything any government says. The real solution is
simple : turn it off, and ask yourself if you ever need to turn it on again.
I know several families of three that have one
in each bedroom, one in the kitchen, one in the living room, one in the
den. Even if no one ever watches the one in the guest room, it is still
using 0.8W.

If it's switched on at all. My experience is that yes, TVs get left on
standby. But not 24/7. At least not in the UK. Typical day; TV is
switched on when we get up. It goes off when I leave for work (I'm last
out). Goes on when the kids come in. On and off during the evening,
possibly on standby sometimes. Total time on standby probably less than
an hour or two each day. You can't count the time when it's actually
being watched, unless you are bent on distorting the figures.

As long as it is plugged into the wall, it is on standby. The on-off
switch no longer turn them off. On one Phillips TV series I worked on,
the on-off switch simply blanked the video and sound. Every thing else
was powered up. Power use in 'on" and "off" was almost exactly the same.
So the correct number is 11,520,000 watt-hours/day.

No; 11,520,000 kWh/day (11,520 MWh/day). Do try to keep up.

Or approximately 1000MWh per day, in reality (dividing by 12 since it's
really about 2 hours/day on average; some will be more, some less).
Actually, that's probably a high estimate; I can't see very many people
leaving (say) the guest room TV on when there is no guest. And are there
*really* that many - two for everyone?

Yes, two for everyone. Counting the ones at home, in the bars (the
coffee shop where I am now has two running), airports, the displays
running in the stores, etc., etc.
That's for the USA. For the UK (this is a UK newsgroup) it's about a
fifth of that. So, 200MWh per day. Worst case - I doubt we have as many
as the USA. Be generous and say half. So a (probably high) figure is
100MWh per day.
100MWh/day is still a sizable power plant.

Our last electricity bill shows we used 30 kWh/day; we might use a bit
more than most, but let's say on average it's a third of that. So,
10,000 homes worth of electricity. Out of probably about 20 million,
that's not a lot. Even less if you count industry, which is very power
hungry.
So it's ok to be wasteful because someone else is worse? You can throw
your Starbucks cup on the street because it's only one cup?

So, just scare mongering figures really.
Not scare mongering, just shaming you. I spend one day a week picking up
trash out of the nice creek that crosses my farm. I pick up over hundred
pounds per month of plastic soda bottles, foam cups, plastic bags from
the grocer. I carry cloth bags to the grocer, which confuses the clerks
no end. Even though I avoid plastic as much as possible ( only buying
beer in aluminum cans or re-usable kegs), I still calculated that I use
the equivalent of one barrel of oil per year in plastic. That translate
to almost a million barrels per day here. Based on my last visit to the
UK (just before 9/11), you aren't all that much better there.

That
translates to about 3,417,600 pounds(1709tons) of coal/year, 24,000
pounds of SO2, 1600 tons of CO2 (coal is mostly carbon).

Actually, it's a damn sight more CO2 than that since there isn't a one
to one relation.
Correct, but you get the picture. Carbon + O2 weighs more than the coal
(carbon + ash + sulfur +...)

Have you ever noticed that during a blackout, the power sort of fade out
rather than goes off all at once? Thats because of all the wallwarts and
tv sets discharging into the grid.

I'd like to hear technical justification for that. I've not seen it, and
I guess it depends on what caused the blackout anyway.
sure. In the past the biggest contributor was electric clocks which
change from motors to generators when the grid is lost. Now it is energy
stored in power supplies. Wall warts have transformers that store energy
that gets dumped back into the grid when grid power is lost. Anything
with a ps does the same. The per-unit energy is less now that we use
switching ps rather than the older inductor (transformer) based designs,
but we have lots more units.

Look up inductors and capicators in an elementary circuit analysis text.
One exercise will probably be to build an r-l-c circuit and measure the
voltage across the elements when power is connected and disconnected.
Another thing to try is to start up an AC motor and monitor the voltage
across the power terminals when the power is disconnected.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:47:20 UTC, lyttlec wrote:

I assume you still get billed for on-peak vs. off-peak power?

Most people aren't. Others may clarify.

As long as it is plugged into the wall, it is on standby. The on-off
switch no longer turn them off.

You're generalising. I have a Philips TV with a fully mecahnical on/off
switch. Two years old. Off means off. I've measured it.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
"John" writes:
Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

Ancient Sony 25" (4:3) CRT here, which when run through a plugin power
meter, registers absolutely flat 0 on standby. Not a flicker. I guess
that means 0.something, but considering the newer Panny 29"WS flickers
from 0W to 1W on standby with the same meter, it must be 0.somethingsmall.

The Green Campaigners are out of touch

Duh, yeah.
--
SAm.

Sam Nelson wrote:
In article ,
"John" writes:
Many manufacturers have been aspiring to the "1 Watt Initiative" for some
years.

Even my old 28" CRT only uses 0.8w on standby.

Ancient Sony 25" (4:3) CRT here, which when run through a plugin power
meter, registers absolutely flat 0 on standby. Not a flicker. I guess
that means 0.something, but considering the newer Panny 29"WS flickers
from 0W to 1W on standby with the same meter, it must be 0.somethingsmall.

That probably only means that your meter has a resolution of 1W, so the
Sony uses 0.5W on standby, and the Panny something close to 0.5W. Check
the power switches. If the switch has a solid click and you can't then
turn on the set with the remote, then off means off. If you can turn the
set on using the remote, it still draws power when off. If you see or
hear a spark when you unplug the set while "off", then it is still
drawing power when "off."
The Green Campaigners are out of touch

Duh, yeah.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:17:59 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Have a look - how can they get it so wrong by a magnitude of.....???

Because they are cretins.

You can't get that much power out of a 13A socket in a day: it is more
than 13 amps.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!