Energy Saving on Standby ..How good are your boxes?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:32:31 +0000, Ian Rawlings wrote:

I'd love a battery-powered car that fires up its engine every time you
so much as move the damned thing... It gets mid to upper 40's in the
MPG stakes, even my old Audi A4 can do that, and the Fiat Lupo 3L (not
sold in this country) and a similar car from Audi (can't remember
model designation) used lean-burn diesels to get real-world figures of
100MPG motorway driving and 60MPG on city driving. Their gadgetry was
kept to a minimum as was their trim level. A much better way forward
but not pushed by the car industry for some reason.

Was not that because the EU said, under pressure from German cat manufactures,
that you HAD to use a cat? Rather than say this is the max emission level and
we don't care how you achieve it.

--

Regards

Dave Saville

NB Remove -nospam for good email address

Bill Wright wrote:
"Geoff Lane" wrote in message
...
Saving emissions can go to extremes, not watching the TV could save quite
a bit, don't listen to radio or music. Don't go on holiday, stay at home.

The green extremists want to reduce our standard of living to satisfy their
pseudo-religious puritan urges. It fits in with their anti-capitalist
leftist philosophy. To them environmentalism is a nice convenient
justification for their unsocial obsessions. I look forward to the day when
the craze dies down and we start to make a realistic assessment of global
warming and what can be done about it. Then we will start to build whatever
infrastructure will be necessary to keep ourselves nice and comfortable as
the climate goes through its cycle. That's what we need to do, because there
isn't a hope in hell of reducing emissions enough to make a significant
difference, and that's assuming that global warming due to human activity is
itself significant.

As someone that slags of your paying customers for listening to the
woman that works in the chip shop about digital TV issues - perhaps you
can explain why an aerial installer should punch above your weight in
socio and geo politics.

My guess is that ten years from now the wilder extremes
of environmentalism will be forgotten, and the world will start to get real.

The world is real Bill.

It's a bit of a craze at the moment, let's face it. It's an easy way to fill
newspapers and TV programmes, and it's an easy way for daft people to get a
little glow of smugness when they put their bottles in the bottle bank (so
they can be taken to China in a gas-guzzing freighter to make hardcore).

It was a loonatic fringe decades ago - but even then it was real. The
clean air act was a real act facing a real problem, likewise CFC ban,
lead in petrol, dioxins in the water supply, mercury in fish. All these
were causes championed by your so-called "green extremists" purely to
"satisfy their pseudo-religious puritan urges" - Bill it is you that
needs to get real. All these bans did not bring the downfall of
capitalism, it just meant that corporations and individuals make
slightly less money - but somehow they still managed didn't they Bill.


Bill please go form your own blog and keep your rants their, you will
almost certainly get a huge fanbase of other paranoid loons and
extremists. I suggest you start out with a huge rant about banning lead
in solder it would the perfect irony.

On Feb 26, 12:55 am, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
Low wattage bulbs, and abolishing standby on TVs, is equally questionable.
Did you know that all the energy wasted actually appears as heat in your
home? So the only time it is actually wasted is in the summer, when your
central heating is switched off and you don't want the heat. During the

Not strictly true though, is it. Firstly, most standby's are powering
some polling receiving circuitry waiting for a signal. And then
there's the LED which is emitting light energy which will dissipate
through windows. And what about the efficiency of the unit? Surely
if the most efficient way to heat something was through small scale
electric powered devices, then we'd have loads of these STBs providing
our heat and light. But we don't, we use more efficient sources like
gas powered boilers.

Plus, "the only time it is wasted is in the summer" - my heating is
only used for about 4 months of the year, and that's because I live in
an old home which isn't very well insulated. So for more than 2/3 of
the year it is using energy unnecessarily. And what about through the
night? Presumably you allow the heat to drop overnight by switching
off the heating, yet the STB (or TV, or whatever) is still putting out
small amounts of heat.

This is odd for me, I'm usually on the other side of this debate (my
sister works for the Tyndall Centre in Manchester as a research fellow
working on climate change etc, so I get a lively debate from her!),
but there's no point in countering the exaggerated claims of the
climate change lobby with equally exaggerated claims on the other
side.

Matt

Steve Thackery wrote:
Absolutely agree, we can't uninvent the wheel but we can make it more
efficient.

But we're fixing the wrong problem!

The UK produces 2% of the world's CO2 emissions. So at a practical level,
even if we all went back to a 17th century lifestyle it wouldn't make a jot
of difference to the climate. So that's that argument dealt with.

The problem is that some countries are producing more CO2 per capita
than can be sustained, including us.

Noone is proposing reverting back to a 17th century lifestyle.
Suggesting riduculous claims is a cheap short term shot, but just makes
you look like you are ranting and makes one suspect you really do not
understand the issues.


The other argument - if we don't do it, how can we expect America and the
developing Far East to do it, is equally weak. Do you seriously think
America or China give a flying f**k what we do here in the UK? We are
nothing to them. To think that we have any influence over nations like
that, when they are fixated on economic self interests, is naive in the
extreme.

Again, "naive in the extreme" - classic rant.

How big do you need to be to influence the US/China/India/S.America? You
are assuming you are having to force them to change you our sole benefit
- why is that?


The bottom line is this: we are an insignificant player in the world of CO2
producers. I hate to say this, but there is NOTHING we can do, here in the
UK, to save the earth from climate change. And nothing we do will make any
difference.

Per capita we are a significant producer. As part ot the EU we are a
huge producer. I see you ignore the EU - probably because you hate the
concept. I think you will find the EU is pretty supportive of the aim of
reducing CO2.

Your whole argument seems to be that we are small and are the only
people interested in reducing C02 - why did you chose that basis as your
argument when it is so obviously flawed.


The real danger is that we believe the rubbish our government is feeding us.

Why rubbish? It is v.easy to call something rubbish yet fail to state
what and why. Why don't you state these things?

We all stop using standby and think we've done our bit, but in reality we've
done nothing! That's pretty much as bad as pretending there isn't a problem
in the first place, like Bush has done until recently.

Standy etc are free gains and make people more aware of the problem. You
tell them to install a condensing boiler - they may think - oh yes we
should, but tell them something they can get of their arse and do
immediataly, easily and for free and you have created a
"mini-eco-warrior" - suddenly they have done something it has become
their concern, they may then research more find out what else they can do.


What we should be concentrating on is finding ways of adapting to climate
change. THAT is where we should be investing our money and our research
resources.

Any one with any sense will be doing both.


Also, the 'religion' of climate change is massively simplistic in its
missives.

So is calling things a "religion", just a cheap shot really and pointless.

For instance, although the exact figures are probably debatable,
it is now accepted that more CO2 is produced in manufacturing a car than it
produces during its lifetime. So the push towards making more fuel
efficient (thus low CO2) cars might be a massive mistake.

Utter crap. Scapping old cars and making new ones would be a massive
mistake, but once a car is end-of-life only an idiot would call it a
mistake not to replace it with an equally inefficient one. Why you
decide on end-of-life depends of course on the figures.

Perhaps the
government should be encouraging us to stick to our current gas guzzlers so
we don't need to manufacture new cars! This isn't necessarily a fact, but
it damn near could be, and certainly needs looking in to.

There is quite a reasonable deterrent/incentive to stick to your current
car already - they are hugely expensive.


Low wattage bulbs, and abolishing standby on TVs, is equally questionable.
Did you know that all the energy wasted actually appears as heat in your
home? So the only time it is actually wasted is in the summer, when your
central heating is switched off and you don't want the heat. During the
winter it merely reduces the load on your central heating system. The
figures we get fed don't reflect that reality, though.

I have my heating on for only a few months of the year - but again light
bulb are things people can do themselves. Oh and why not prevent waste
in the 3 remaining seasons?


Plant a tree to reduce your carbon footprint? Rubbish. A tree absorbs tons
of CO2 when it is growing, true. But when it dies, or gets burned, it
releases the whole lot bacik into the atmosphere again. Net effect: nil.

Nobody is suggesting burning it, though if you burned it rather than a
fossil fuel want to do the net effect calculation again.


You know, perhaps the best arguments for energy conservation and
diversification are political rather than ecological. We are incredibly
dependent on the Middle East for our oil and - before long - on Russia for
our gas. This makes us incredibly vulnerable. They could both hold a gun
to our heads. Do you want to trust our economic and physical well-being to
Putin or his successors?

So, stop believing the ******** we are being fed by Blair about climate
change and what we can do to stop it. Instead, start thinking seriously
about diversifying our energy sources.

You are clearly not really thinking seriously. You are kind of
anti-goverment yet have not managed to give a single valid example.

I am seeing a lot of ******** and rubbish though.

Thick

Ian Rawlings wrote:
On 2007-02-26, Steve Thackery wrote:

Also, the 'religion' of climate change is massively simplistic in its
missives. For instance, although the exact figures are probably debatable,
it is now accepted that more CO2 is produced in manufacturing a car than it
produces during its lifetime. So the push towards making more fuel
efficient (thus low CO2) cars might be a massive mistake.

Pet hate of mine. Hybrid cars cost far more to make than conventional
cars due to the large amounts of energy-expensive materials in them
and the large amounts of poisonous chemicals used to make them. Their
ingredients list looks like an environmental blacklist. One of the
most expensive assemblies, the large bank of batteries, need replacing
every few years. They are an absolute triumph of marketing.

Best thing to do might be to work from home and avoid the commute,
although you do run the danger of increasing the need for heating your
home, which is one of the biggest uses of energy so might end up being
worse!

Best thing is to travel to work using low-carbon means - that being your
legs. Live too far from work - move closer.




Low wattage bulbs, and abolishing standby on TVs, is equally
questionable.

Low wattage bulbs are ace, I've not had to change a bulb in 5 years ;-)

Bill Wright wrote:
"Beck" [email protected] wrote in message
...
I bought a new TV last week and was astonished to find there is no proper
OFF switch on it. Its either on or allowed in standby.
If I wanted it properly off I need to pull the mains out of the back.
Because I do not want to be climing round the back of my TV to turn it off
each time, I am put in a position where it is constantly on standby. Now
it might only be 2watts or whatever on standby, but thats 2watts too much
when it would be better if I could actually switch the bloody thing off.
2watts may not seem alot but when millions of TVs do the same in standby
it amounts to alot of wasted energy.
No, it's peanuts compared to all the emissions from vehicles stood in queues
because of the bus lanes.

I imagine they are stuck behind other stationary vehicles not stuck
behind bus lanes.

Bill you are really becoming a bitter old man.

On 2007-02-27, stevo wrote:

Best thing is to travel to work using low-carbon means - that being your
legs. Live too far from work - move closer.

Simple solutions for simple minds.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:
On 2007-02-27, stevo wrote:

Best thing is to travel to work using low-carbon means - that being your
legs. Live too far from work - move closer.

Simple solutions for simple minds.

Well argued.

"stevo" wrote in message
news
Bill Wright wrote:
As someone that slags of your paying customers for listening to the woman
that works in the chip shop about digital TV issues - perhaps you can
explain why an aerial installer should punch above your weight in socio
and geo politics.

Are you saying that I have no right to an opinion? I think I have expressed
opinions that are hard to counter, so you have resorted to a general attack
based on your perception that tradesmen are thick. I don't normally resort
to personal attacks, but I find it amusing that a person with your abysmal
standard of literacy should take such a stance.


My guess is that ten years from now the wilder extremes
of environmentalism will be forgotten, and the world will start to get
real.

The world is real Bill.
A meaningless interjection. Do you come home hoarse from watching football
matches?


It's a bit of a craze at the moment, let's face it. It's an easy way to
fill newspapers and TV programmes, and it's an easy way for daft people
to get a little glow of smugness when they put their bottles in the
bottle bank (so they can be taken to China in a gas-guzzing freighter to
make hardcore).

It was a loonatic fringe

Those looonatics get everywhere . . .

decades ago - but even then it was real. The
clean air act was a real act facing a real problem, [ . . .]
lead in petrol, dioxins in the water supply, mercury in fish.
These were instances in which there was a simple, often local, pollution
problem that needed to be fixed. The costs were manageable and the returns
were almost instant. Not at all comparable with with the current fiasco.

Bill please go form your own blog and keep your rants their, you will
almost certainly get a huge fanbase of other paranoid loons

You like your loons don't you? And I'm not paranoid, I'm just very
sceptical. I've seen it all before mate.

Bill

Bill

"larkim" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 26, 12:55 am, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
Not strictly true though, is it. Firstly, most standby's are powering
some polling receiving circuitry waiting for a signal. And then
there's the LED which is emitting light energy which will dissipate
through windows.
Last week I walked in a relatively small building at a university. In the
plantrooms motors roared, pumps gurgled, floodlights shone, and huge amounts
of heat gushed out of vents into the sky. The lift whizzed up and down six
floors all day long. lAnd we debate here about the amount of power lost by
an LED shining through the window! As Victor used to say "I don't believe
it!"

Just suppose that you're in goverment. You consider the 'green' issues. What
stance to take? Well, it's a no-brainer really.
1. Your lip service to the green movement makes you look caring and far
seeing.
2. Green issues are a wonderful excuse for taxing motorists.
3. Green issues are a wonderful excuse for reducing services (bins every
fortnight etc).
4. There's really no downside. Most people are either in favour of
environmentalism or haven't really thought about it.
5. Talking up environmental issues distracts attention from all the things
that you are getting wrong.

Bill