Government wants to abolish 'standby' button

"nospam" wrote in message
...
Bob Latham wrote:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

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

Perhaps I've got something wrong but isn't it true that the standby energy
will be dissipated as heat? Don't many people have their homes heated by
thermostatically controlled systems? So for a good chunk of the year this
"no standby" energy saving would simply mean the same heat obtained from
the central heating system.

Everyone's home is heated by a thermostatically controlled systems be it
automatic or manual.

Not if you use storage heaters, unless your 'thermostat' (automatic or
manual) can predict the future.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote:

Everyone's home is heated by a thermostatically controlled systems be it
automatic or manual.

Not if you use storage heaters, unless your 'thermostat' (automatic or
manual) can predict the future.

I thought storage heaters had flaps or something so you could control
convection and the rate the stored energy was released.

Interesting you bring them up though because all the items with standby
power are effectively tiny storage heaters.

--

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:14:52 -0700, "
wrote:

On 10 Sep, 19:07, Roderick Stewart
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.

Effort? Hassle?

The likelihood that my wife would get sat down on the settee with the
kids, ready to watch Postman Pat, drinks/cakes in hand, baby on
nipple, and find that the damn TV is still turned off at the wall?

Tell me about it! Happens to me all the time!

For the pennies of electricity it would save, it really isn't worth
it.

I used to switch the TV off properly, but since our first kid arrived
it stays permanently on standby. It's just habit now. Which is
strange, because sometimes we'll go a week or more without ever
switching it on.

I remember my parents first TV that had a standby function, bought in
1982. They never used it, because they thought it was dangerous to
leave the telly in Standby overnight, rather than off. I wonder if
the standby current was more back then?

Marky P.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:22:58 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
.. .
Bob Latham wrote:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

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

Perhaps I've got something wrong but isn't it true that the standby energy
will be dissipated as heat? Don't many people have their homes heated by
thermostatically controlled systems? So for a good chunk of the year this
"no standby" energy saving would simply mean the same heat obtained from
the central heating system.

Everyone's home is heated by a thermostatically controlled systems be it
automatic or manual.

Not if you use storage heaters, unless your 'thermostat' (automatic or
manual) can predict the future.

All my heating is storage heaters. Not through choice, there is no
gas supply here, and I'm not venturing into gas canisters.

Marky P.

Marky P wrote:

I remember my parents first TV that had a standby function, bought in
1982. They never used it, because they thought it was dangerous to
leave the telly in Standby overnight, rather than off. I wonder if
the standby current was more back then?

On TVs without a remote control, there was not much point in standby...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article . com,
wrote:
However, when we went on holiday last week, I didn't think we needed
to record anything, so just switched the whole lot off at the wall.
Missed the first part of a Casualty two-parter. So that's the last
time I'll do that.

Why not plug all the things that can be switched off so that they are
fed through the same switch, and provide a separate feed for all the
things that must be left on all the time? I was surprised to encounter
even one person in a technical newsgroup that hasn't done this - but
you're the second within a day!

Rod.

Java Jive wrote:
"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.

Then you've misinterpreted something somewhere. I'm criticising a
nonsensical approach to a problem. That doesn't mean I don't
accept there's a problem, or that I don't try to do anything about
it myself.

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

Yes, let's.

Your attitidue reads to me as: "I'm only causing a small graze to the
patient, so the government should get off my back!"
Ignoring your incorrect assumptions about me

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

Completely untrue ...

Let's see

snip

"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."

At http://www.swenvo.org.uk/environment...ide_graphs.asp
DEFRA put per capita CO2 emissions at 9-10 tonnes/year. Similar
numbers can be found at
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200708...cff01a2_1.html
and http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/co2emissionsctry.htm

The UK population is about 60 million, so total production is
somewhere around 600 million tonnes per year. Standby equipment
accounts for about 0.5% of total production.

Figures above prove you wrong.

Or right.

If the problem is going to get fixed, focussing attention on
standby energy consumption is not going to do it.

Steve

"nospam" wrote in message
...
"Max Demian" wrote:

Everyone's home is heated by a thermostatically controlled systems be it
automatic or manual.

Not if you use storage heaters, unless your 'thermostat' (automatic or
manual) can predict the future.

I thought storage heaters had flaps or something so you could control
convection and the rate the stored energy was released.

Mine has a 'Boost' control that lets out a little more hot air if required,
but it doesn't do much. If you have to use it early, you run out of heat
quite quickly.

--
Max Demian

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Marky P wrote:

I remember my parents first TV that had a standby function, bought in
1982. They never used it, because they thought it was dangerous to
leave the telly in Standby overnight, rather than off. I wonder if
the standby current was more back then?

On TVs without a remote control, there was not much point in standby...

Remote controls were around in 1982.

In the early 70s, 'standby' mean that the CRT heater (and the valve heaters
if present) remained on so you could start watching without having to wait
the 2 minutes or so sets took to warm up in those days.

But people left them on when they went on holiday and there were a few
fires, so manufacturers discontinued the practice.

For decades after that, people superstitiously unplugged their TVs at night,
even though they had perfectly good mechanical switches.

--
Max Demian

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:23:27 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Marky P wrote:

I remember my parents first TV that had a standby function, bought in
1982. They never used it, because they thought it was dangerous to
leave the telly in Standby overnight, rather than off. I wonder if
the standby current was more back then?

On TVs without a remote control, there was not much point in standby...

It had a remote. That's where the standby button was.

Marky P.