Government wants to abolish 'standby' button

"Steve" wrote in message
...

Java Jive wrote:

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.

Not if you do it at the expense of the gaping wound, which is the way I and
almost anyone else reading it would interpret a metaphor like that. If you
didn't mean that interpretation to be made, then it was an inappropriate
metaphor.

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.

You may not be typical, probably you aren't.

I make about 2 or 3 short car journeys a week, but I run a battery of
computing and AV equipment, the usual mobiles, cordless, etc. There again,
I may not be typical, probably I am not.

If you look at a city like London, then many people use public transport
already - I can't remember for sure the last time I drove into London, but
I think it was about 15 years ago when my nephew got hitched. Many more
people in such a place will have gadgets consuming standby power than drive
to work everyday. This may even be true in Reading, where I live, even
though public transport is ****e here.

There is no reason why government influence, or even legislation, shouldn't
cover *all* these sources of CO2. Your standby may be a fraction of your
other contributions, but it's one that, between the manufacturers and you,
can easily be controlled, while your other contributions may be more
difficult to control - everyone has to heat their home in winter, everyone
needs to get to work.

Sheer weight of numbers makes standby power consumption a significant
problem, which government should address, along with other sources of CO2.

Graham. wrote:

My party trick was to call one of its Sipgate trunks from
my company mobile. The box would detect the incomming
call but not answer it. It waited 10 seconds then called
back the CLI of the triggering call. Allison asked for a PIN, then
returned system dial-tone, and I could call anyware.

One of the trunks on our Asterisk server has a number that we can call
free on our Vodafone business contract so we do a similar thing - we can
call in on our mobiles and use DISA to get a dial tone and then dial out
again. This means we can call pretty much anywhere in the UK from our
mobiles and use our VoiP bundled minutes, or call international for
1-2p/min.

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.

Apart from the requirement to unload the bookcase and move it so as to
be able to get to the socket? Sods law seems to dictate that the things
that you may want to turn off tend to be connected in the least
accessible places. Where the ones that are easy to get to have no
quiescent load.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Java Jive" wrote:

Sheer weight of numbers makes standby power consumption a significant
problem

No it doesn't. You can't pretend something is more significant than
something else because there are a lot of things when there are an equal
number of something elses.

Utter drivel, but when it comes to global warming and saving the planet
talking complete ******** appears to be the norm.

The savings to be made from reducing standby power are grossly exaggerated
and not as simple to achieve as claimed.

Pulling the plug every night is wonderfully simple gesture that technically
illiterate ******s can make to demonstrate to themselves and others that
they are doing their bit to save the planet. They can sit back smugly while
they drive the kids to school in the 4x4 or fly to their second annual
holiday knowing they have done their bit.
--

Java Jive wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Java Jive wrote:
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.

Not if you do it at the expense of the gaping wound, which is the way I and
almost anyone else reading it would interpret a metaphor like that. If you
didn't mean that interpretation to be made, then it was an inappropriate
metaphor.
I'm sure given longer I could have come up with a better metaphor
- but the one I chose is appropriate and entirely valid. You
appear not to see that energy consumption in cars, domestic
heating etc. is a gaping wound in comparison to the grazed knuckle
of equipment on standby. Turn off everything on standby and you
will not be able to measure the difference nationally, let alone
globally.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it - just that it's pointless
making it a headline item. Nothing more than I'd expect from the
quality of politicians we choose these days.

Steve

In article , John Rumm wrote:
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.

Apart from the requirement to unload the bookcase and move it so as to*
be able to get to the socket? Sods law seems to dictate that the things*
that you may want to turn off tend to be connected in the least*
accessible places. Where the ones that are easy to get to have no*
quiescent load.

Can't you buy multi-socket mains extensions where you live? Just leave one
switched on all the time, and either route the other one through an easily
acessible switch, or make sure to buy one with a switch already on it. Plug
individual items as appropriate. It couldn't be simpler. There's really no need
for anything electrical to be inaccessible if you don't want it to be.

Rod.

Reminds me of a trick people used to play at school. Lurk in the next door
compartment until someone was in the middle of a cr*p, then lean over and
pull the high-level cistern chain ...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .

So you can operate it from the other side of the room?

I am reluctant to engage in further speculation. (I might damage myself
laughing).

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

This is the most recent list:

http://vorort.bund.net/klimaschutz/p...n_72/files/311
7_bund-tv-stromverbrauchsliste-2007-februar.pdf

According to this list, the power consumption in standby mode varies
between 0.3 Watt and 5 Watt.

In response to a similar thread in another group about a year ago, I checked
out all my AV equipment, and if I'm anything like typical the above is
probably an underestimate" ...

Sanyo DC-007C Audio System Power consumption:
(Normal Use) 130W
Ecology Standby 0.8W
Normal Standby 16W

Pace MSS100 Analogue Sat Receiver
Normal 18W
Standby 10W

Panasonic TX-15LT2 TV
Normal 49W
Standby 4W

Panasonic TX-22LT2 TV
Normal 67W
Standby 5W

Panasonic DVD-LV60/DVD-PV40 Portable DVD Players (confusing specs)
Normal up to 30W
Standby 1.5W

Sony SLV-E730EXIUX VCR
Normal 23W
Standby Doesn't say, but has Power Save standby mode

11 others checked don't specify any difference between normal use and
standby - this really needs to be a legal requirement.

"Steve" wrote in message
...

You
appear not to see that energy consumption in cars, domestic
heating etc. is a gaping wound in comparison to the grazed knuckle
of equipment on standby.

That is simply not true. Look back through my posts on this and similar
topics, and you will find I've NEVER disputed that these other causes are
more important on either an individual or a national basis. In this
subthread I am criticising what comes across to me at least, and therefore
quite possibly to others, as complacent NIMBY-ism in your attitude to the
problem.

Seeing that you insist on using your own inappropriate metaphor, let's at
least try and make it reflect the situation more accurately ...

Your attitidue reads to me as: "I'm only causing a small graze to the
patient, so the government should get off my back!" The trouble with that
attitude is that millions of others are causing wounds too - the majority,
small grazes, a smaller number, cuts - and the patient is bleeding to
death through them. It makes no sense to ignore completely the larger
number of grazes and concentrate solely on the smaller number of cuts when
the patient is losing significant blood through the sum total of *all* of
its wounds.

Turn off everything on standby and you
will not be able to measure the difference nationally, let alone
globally.

Completely untrue ...

http://society.guardian.co.uk/enviro...335173,00.html

"This week Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, will
reinforce the message that individual consumers must make important choices.
Consumption and energy use are rocketing, she will tell a conference in
Birmingham. The number of electrical devices used by households in England
and Wales is, for example, due to double this decade."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6219862.stm

"Almost a third of all electricity used by teenagers in Scotland is wasted
by gadgets left in standby mode, a study has shown."
....
"The total energy consumption of all the gadgets was estimated to exceed the
annual output of a nuclear reactor."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/4929594.stm

"Figures from the Energy Saving Trust on standby power use in the UK home
are astonishing:

Stereos on standby cost £290m and produce 1.6 million tonnes of CO2
VCRs and DVD cost £194m and produce 1.06 million tonnes of CO2
TVs on standby cost £88m and produce 480,000 tonnes of CO2
It means that in one year, in the UK alone, our equipment on standby
produces a total of 3.1 million tonnes of CO2."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/4448823.stm
(second question down)

"Standby power use actually looks like it is increasing around the world,
and some studies estimate between 10% and 15% of a nation's electricity
supply is wasted like this."

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it - just that it's pointless
making it a headline item.

Figures above prove you wrong.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John Rumm wrote:
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.

Apart from the requirement to unload the bookcase and move it so as to
be able to get to the socket? Sods law seems to dictate that the things
that you may want to turn off tend to be connected in the least
accessible places. Where the ones that are easy to get to have no
quiescent load.

Can't you buy multi-socket mains extensions where you live? Just leave one
switched on all the time, and either route the other one through an easily
acessible switch, or make sure to buy one with a switch already on it.
Plug
individual items as appropriate. It couldn't be simpler. There's really no
need
for anything electrical to be inaccessible if you don't want it to be.


It wasn't unusual at one time to find audio equipment with a mains
transformer derived power supply, where the on/off switch
(usually a single pole low current device) merely interrupted the +B supply
rail, leaving everything else still connected 24/7.


Rod.