Government wants to abolish 'standby' button

In article , Graham. wrote:
I remember when the isolating transformer had to be retrieved from
the stationary cupboard in time for "Words and Pictures"

Well thank goodness you didn't have to retrieve it from a moving one.

(I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I really shouldn't).

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , wrote:
This is becoming less of an issue as more and more wall wart type PSUs*
are moving to switched mode designs (smaller and lighter for bigger*
power outputs etc). These consume very little energy when there is no*
load on the output.
*
"Very little" is still more than "none at all".
*
And enough of them can still add up to "quite a lot".
*
.... and they're still negligable compared with all the other power
your household is consuming.

True, but there are probably millions of them in use, and it costs absolutely
nothing to press a switch on the wall before going to bed instead of leaving
something completely unneccessary running all night. Some things have to be
powered constantly in order to do what they do, but not everything does. If
it's possible to save a bit of energy, however small, for absolutely no cost,
there seems no reason not to.

You'd save *far* more power (and thus carbon emissions) if you wore an
extra pullover and turned the heating down by one degree. There are
dozens of other things that would take the same or less effort than
pulling those plugs out (or turning off those switches) that would
save more.

--
Chris Green

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Nospam wrote:
An efficient mains power supply providing enough power for an IR receiver
isn't that easy either it needs to be isolated to interface with the
isolated circuitry in the rest of the TV. Isolation near the mains isn't
easy or efficient, isolation at the interface takes additional power and
means more circuitry inside the TV is carrying mains voltages with
associated safety hazards and isolation problems and expense.*

After that the main source of standby power is probably losses in the front
end of the large main TV power supply which can not be eliminated without
disconnecting it from the mains which probably means a relay which wastes
power when the set is on and requires much more power from your additional
standby only power supply to drive it.*

1W likely is what can easily be archived with today's electronics for
standby power of a whole TV.

Somebody gave the example of a room thermostat containing a bit of working
electronics and a mechanical mains relay that is operated several times a day
for several years on a couple of AA cells. Indeed there is just such a device
on the wall in front of me as I type. Perhaps you'd care to divide the energy
content of a couple of AA cells by, say, three years, and tell me why we
couldn't make a TV set with similar standby power?

.... and then compare the energy cost of making the "couple of AA
cells" with that of running the TV on standby, even if it does consume
one watt.

--
Chris Green

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Steve wrote:
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.

There's an important difference between a major stomach wound and a graszed
knuckle, and likewise between the major and minor forms of energy saving for
which I think you intend them to stand as metaphors. One requires specialised
or expensive resources and takes time to implement, and the other is something
that anybody can do immediately with little or no effort.

Yes, and not dealing with the major stomach would makes dealing with
the graze on the knuckle completely pointless!

--
Chris Green

"Roger Wilmut" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Java Jive
wrote:

Further, there are many items, such as modern desktop PCs, that use a
standby mode when they don't need to.

the lithium battery which maintains the clock and certain
settings: and many models won't even start up if this battery is flat,
and don't allow user-replacement (so a £3 battery could cost you £50 to
get replaced). However I imagine the consumption in this state is very
low, since only a very small amount of memory is being maintained.

PCs work like this too.

On power disconnection, the main/motherboard settings are held in
low-current-drain non-volatile memory, called CMOS after the manufacturing
technology (Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor), powered by a lithium
watch-style battery, IIRC usually a CR2032. Assuming it is accessible, and
with care, changing the battery is a home repair job.

There is also usually some mechanism to reset the CMOS back to factory
default settings should the need arise. It differs from one motherboard
manufacturer to another, so best to consult the motherboard manual or the
manufacturer's website in any given case, but most commonly it's a jumper on
the motherboard which would be used roughly as follows:

1 Switch off
2 Set jumper
3 Switch on for a given number of seconds or until the Power-On Self-Test
(POST) reaches a certain point
4 Switch off
5 Remove jumper
6 Switch on again
7 Go into the BIOS to set up as from new.

If you can get at your Mac's mainboard, you'd probably find a similar
battery and a similar reset mechanism.

Of course Java Jive may mean 'sleeping'

No, I meant using Standby, as set up in the Windows power options - as
explained in my OP, with desktops, it seems rather pointless in that it
takes about the same amount of time for the PC to come up from Standby as it
does from being powered off.

But doesn't the crisis merit doing *BOTH*?

wrote in message
...

You'd save *far* more power (and thus carbon emissions) if you wore an
extra pullover and turned the heating down by one degree. There are
dozens of other things that would take the same or less effort than
pulling those plugs out (or turning off those switches) that would
save more.

wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Steve wrote:
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.

There's an important difference between a major stomach wound and a
graszed
knuckle, and likewise between the major and minor forms of energy saving
for
which I think you intend them to stand as metaphors. One requires
specialised
or expensive resources and takes time to implement, and the other is
something
that anybody can do immediately with little or no effort.

Yes, and not dealing with the major stomach would makes dealing with
the graze on the knuckle completely pointless!

The mistake you're both making by use of an inappropriate metaphor is
regarding them as mutually exclusive either/or situations. If you patch the
grazed knuckle instead of the stomach wound the patient will die, whereas
you can change both the way you to travel to work and the amount of standby
power you use, and both will help.

Roderick Stewart wrote:


1W likely is what can easily be archived with today's electronics for
standby power of a whole TV.

Somebody gave the example of a room thermostat containing a bit of working
electronics and a mechanical mains relay that is operated several times a day
for several years on a couple of AA cells. Indeed there is just such a device
on the wall in front of me as I type. Perhaps you'd care to divide the energy
content of a couple of AA cells by, say, three years, and tell me why we
couldn't make a TV set with similar standby power?

My last post went in to detail why a TV set with similar standby power can
not be economically made. Don't know why I bothered.

--

Java Jive wrote:
wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Steve wrote:
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.
There's an important difference between a major stomach wound and a
graszed
knuckle, and likewise between the major and minor forms of energy saving
for
which I think you intend them to stand as metaphors. One requires
specialised
or expensive resources and takes time to implement, and the other is
something
that anybody can do immediately with little or no effort.

Yes, and not dealing with the major stomach would makes dealing with
the graze on the knuckle completely pointless!

The mistake you're both making by use of an inappropriate metaphor is
regarding them as mutually exclusive either/or situations. If you patch the
grazed knuckle instead of the stomach wound the patient will die, whereas
you can change both the way you to travel to work and the amount of standby
power you use, and both will help.
The metaphor is appropriate and stands. If you fix the grazed
knuckle you will improve the patient's chances - by a miniscule
amount. Exactly the same as chasing trivial energy use while not
dealing with the serious problem.

I calculate my 'standby' power consumption is about 1% of my
(fairly average) petrol consumption, and under 0.5% of my domestic
heating consumption. There has to be a better target for
government influence to be brought to bear.

Steve

Hawkins wrote:
"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.
Hard to say - octane rating doesn't appear to relate directly to
the energy content of the fuel. It's not even a constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Steve