Government wants to abolish 'standby' button

This is completely ducking the issue, which is that this is a global problem
for everybody, so everybody has to be part of the solution. While we all
stand around pointing to each other's CO2 emissions like naughty children
saying "It's him that started it, miss!", the problem is just going to get
worse.

If we can save a bit of CO2 emission by looking at our standby consumption,
then we should, just as if we can save a lot more CO2 emission by using
public transport, then we should.

"Steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:04:45 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

The power saving will be trivial. Work out how many kWh you will save in a
week/month/year and convert it to petrol at 9kWh/litre. The typical daily
saving will be wiped out by idling in a queue on the way to
work, or hurrying between traffic lights instead of crawling.

Java Jive wrote:

Further, there are many items, such as modern desktop PCs, that use a
standby mode when they don't need to. At one level, they no longer
have mechanical switches, so they are constantly wasting some energy
when not in use. While, as you say, a mechanical switch shortens the
life of equipment anyway, perhaps the useful life of a PC is already
so short in the lemming-like rush for bloatware operating systems and
software that maybe this is a case where the original mechanical
switches would be justified, especially as the best used to have a
switched outlet on the back for the monitor or other equipment as
well.

I agree to some degree, but have you noticed that modern operating
systems require you to shut down the machine in an orderly way instead
of just flicking the power switch? The "soft-power-off" switch on the
front of a modern PC (when properly configured) does exactly that:
triggers the shutdown sequence, instead of switching off the power
immediately.

Additionally - although this kind of setup is probably not too much of a
concern for most users - my main PC is always connected to mains because
I'm quite a heavy user of the Wake-on-LAN functionality. (I.e. I can
power on my main PC remotely over the Internet, log in and access the
files, documents, and application software via Remote Desktop
Connection, or VLC, or similar systems - even when travelling abroad -
and then shut it down again at the end of the session. It's more
convenient than duplicating/synchronizing all the important stuff on a
laptop and lugging it around (and I don't have a laptop, anyway.))

--
znark

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Gold wrote:
I heard a guy on the radio say "A well designed TV should consume
less than 1 Watt when in standby". A Watt is an enormous amount
of power just for an IR receiver to listen for an "on" command from a
handset.


4mA really isn't a "huge amount".

One discarded tin, bottle, or newspaper isn't a huge amount either, so
why should we bother to recycle them?

In many cases we probably shouldn't. I have heard it said that we have
far more unwanted coloured recycled glass available than we know what to
do with. Which is why thousands of tons of it end up loaded onto
container ships, transported to China, and used for road building
aggregate. It may make economic sense (if local aggregate extraction is
expensive or difficult), but whether it is ecologically sound is another
mater.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Andreas Schulze-Bäing wrote:
Am Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:41:58 +0100 schrieb Graham.:

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
I heard that the UK government is going to put pressure on manufacturers to
do away with the 'standby' button. The intention is to force us to switch
things like TV sets and STBs completely 'off', thus saving electricity. How
will this affect things? How will overnight updates still occur? As most
recorders need to be switched to standby to enable the timer function, will
they be have to be exempt?
I heard a guy on the radio say "A well designed TV should consume
less than 1 Watt when in standby". A Watt is an enormous amount
of power just for an IR receiver to listen for an "on" command from a
handset.

There is an environmental organisation from Germany that regularly updates
a list with the power consumption of TV sets.
http://vorort.bund.net/klimaschutz/publikationen/publikationen_72/publikationen_328.htm

This is the most recent list:
http://vorort.bund.net/klimaschutz/publikationen/publikationen_72/files/3117_bund-tv-stromverbrauchsliste-2007-februar.pdf

According to this list, the power consumption in standby mode varies
between 0.3 Watt and 5 Watt. It's also interesting to see that some of the
tube televisions have quite a low power consumption compared to flat
screens of the same size. The yellow collumn is listing the energy costs in
Euros of running the TV-set for 10 years.
Technically it seems to be possible to produce sets with a very low standby
consumption. So rather than focussing on standby and planning to forbid
this technology, the focus should be on the overall energy consumption of
TV-sets. I read somewhere that there are plans to introduce an engergy
labelling, that is already in use for fridgers, freezers or washing
machines.

Andreas

The brightness setting also has a surprisingly (to me) large effect on
consumption - my Toshiba 32" LCD drops by about 30W when I change the
default brightness to something more comfortable.

Rob

"Steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:04:45 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

The power saving will be trivial. Work out how many kWh you will save in a
week/month/year and convert it to petrol at 9kWh/litre. The typical daily
saving will be wiped out by idling in a queue on the way to
work, or hurrying between traffic lights instead of crawling.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007
16:08:32 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

This is completely ducking the issue, which is that this is a global problem
for everybody, so everybody has to be part of the solution. While we all
stand around pointing to each other's CO2 emissions like naughty children
saying "It's him that started it, miss!", the problem is just going to get
worse.

If we can save a bit of CO2 emission by looking at our standby consumption,
then we should, just as if we can save a lot more CO2 emission by using
public transport, then we should.

Did I suggest that we shouldn't? I was merely voicing my opinion of the
stupidity of misdirected efforts. When someone is bleeding to death from
a major stomach wound, you don't spend time patching up a grazed knuckle.

I was also highlighting that petrol can be measured in kWh -
something which, I suspect, most people don't realise/equate.

Steve

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Andreas Schulze-Bäing wrote:
Am Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:41:58 +0100 schrieb Graham.:

"Ian Jackson" wrote in
message ...
I heard that the UK government is going to put pressure on
manufacturers to do away with the 'standby' button. The intention is to
force us to switch things like TV sets and STBs completely 'off', thus
saving electricity. How will this affect things? How will overnight
updates still occur? As most recorders need to be switched to standby
to enable the timer function, will they be have to be exempt?
I heard a guy on the radio say "A well designed TV should consume
less than 1 Watt when in standby". A Watt is an enormous amount
of power just for an IR receiver to listen for an "on" command from a
handset.

There is an environmental organisation from Germany that regularly
updates
a list with the power consumption of TV sets.
http://vorort.bund.net/klimaschutz/publikationen/publikationen_72/publikationen_328.htm

This is the most recent list:
http://vorort.bund.net/klimaschutz/publikationen/publikationen_72/files/3117_bund-tv-stromverbrauchsliste-2007-februar.pdf

According to this list, the power consumption in standby mode varies
between 0.3 Watt and 5 Watt. It's also interesting to see that some of
the
tube televisions have quite a low power consumption compared to flat
screens of the same size. The yellow collumn is listing the energy costs
in
Euros of running the TV-set for 10 years.
Technically it seems to be possible to produce sets with a very low
standby
consumption. So rather than focussing on standby and planning to forbid
this technology, the focus should be on the overall energy consumption of
TV-sets. I read somewhere that there are plans to introduce an engergy
labelling, that is already in use for fridgers, freezers or washing
machines.

Andreas

The brightness setting also has a surprisingly (to me) large effect on
consumption - my Toshiba 32" LCD drops by about 30W when I change the
default brightness to something more comfortable.

Rob

Ah! I wondered how decent black levels could be achieved on LCD screens. You
seem to have found the answer :-)

Richard

"Steve" wrote in message
news

"Steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:04:45 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

The power saving will be trivial. Work out how many kWh you will save in
a
week/month/year and convert it to petrol at 9kWh/litre. The typical
daily
saving will be wiped out by idling in a queue on the way to
work, or hurrying between traffic lights instead of crawling.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007
16:08:32 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

This is completely ducking the issue, which is that this is a global
problem
for everybody, so everybody has to be part of the solution. While we all
stand around pointing to each other's CO2 emissions like naughty children
saying "It's him that started it, miss!", the problem is just going to
get
worse.

If we can save a bit of CO2 emission by looking at our standby
consumption,
then we should, just as if we can save a lot more CO2 emission by using
public transport, then we should.

Did I suggest that we shouldn't? I was merely voicing my opinion of the
stupidity of misdirected efforts. When someone is bleeding to death from
a major stomach wound, you don't spend time patching up a grazed knuckle.

I was also highlighting that petrol can be measured in kWh -
something which, I suspect, most people don't realise/equate.

Steve

Yes, but does the octane rating affect the power factor in the conversion
from on to the other.

Richard

John Rumm wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Gold
wrote:
I heard a guy on the radio say "A well designed TV should consume
less than 1 Watt when in standby". A Watt is an enormous amount
of power just for an IR receiver to listen for an "on" command
from a handset.


4mA really isn't a "huge amount".

One discarded tin, bottle, or newspaper isn't a huge amount either,
so why should we bother to recycle them?

In many cases we probably shouldn't. I have heard it said that we have
far more unwanted coloured recycled glass available than we know what
to do with. Which is why thousands of tons of it end up loaded onto
container ships, transported to China, and used for road building
aggregate. It may make economic sense (if local aggregate extraction
is expensive or difficult), but whether it is ecologically sound is
another mater.

I suppose that's better than the ships returning to China empty, or loaded
with balast which they would need to.

"Graham." wrote in message
...



So I have to say, I'm not a great worrier about my 'standby' footprint.

( looks around computer room, with server, asterisk box, router,
switches, wireless access points, IP phones all running 24/7. )


I switched off my Asterisk box earlier in the year and "outsourced"
its main functions to Voxalot. In truth my motivation was more
the 50GBP PA in electricity costs it was costing me rather than
the number grams of carbon I was standing in.

The asterisk box is more for my own self-education and tinkering that
anything else. But it is in real use. We have cisco 7940 phones dotted
around the house. I have a trunk set up to my brother's Asterisk box
across town, he has a similar set-up. His extensions are 2xx, mine are
5xx. We can dial each other directly. The kids chat away to their cousins
for free. We have the trunk set up so that we 'share' out PSTN lines. When
either of us makes an outside call, it will outbound-route to our local
zaptel channel in the first instance. If that fails ( eg busy ), it will
fail over to the IAX2 trunk, and dial out on the other's line. We set up
the trunk incoming contexts to allow this.

My sister is in NZ,and we are planning to set her up as a remote extension,
along with my parents, so they can phone each other for free.

I'm very happy with the system's performance.

--
Ron

"Adrian A" wrote in message
om...
John Rumm wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Gold
wrote:
I heard a guy on the radio say "A well designed TV should consume
less than 1 Watt when in standby". A Watt is an enormous amount
of power just for an IR receiver to listen for an "on" command
from a handset.


4mA really isn't a "huge amount".

One discarded tin, bottle, or newspaper isn't a huge amount either,
so why should we bother to recycle them?

In many cases we probably shouldn't. I have heard it said that we have
far more unwanted coloured recycled glass available than we know what
to do with. Which is why thousands of tons of it end up loaded onto
container ships, transported to China, and used for road building
aggregate. It may make economic sense (if local aggregate extraction
is expensive or difficult), but whether it is ecologically sound is
another mater.

I suppose that's better than the ships returning to China empty, or loaded
with balast which they would need to.

I thought that quite a few slowboats to China are currently stuffed with
rejected toys of Chinese manufacture.

The carbon footprint per ton/mile shifted by sea is of course far less than
an equal tonnage of holiday makers shifted by air around the globe.

Richard