Government wants to abolish 'standby' button

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:40:33 +0100, nospam
wrote:

"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.

My storage heaters have a couple of dials on them (that can only be
turned using a smnall sharp object) and I've never really known which
dial does what. Obviously one is for heat, dunno 'bout the other one.

Marky P.

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:40:33 +0100, nospam
wrote:

"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.

My storage heaters have a couple of dials on them (that can only be
turned using a smnall sharp object) and I've never really known which
dial does what. Obviously one is for heat, dunno 'bout the other one.

it lets the heat out quicker.

tim

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

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 accept that the impression I gained was not intended.

"Steve" wrote in message
...

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

Completely untrue ...

Let's see

"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.

The actual figure of 554.2 million tonnes is here ...
http://tinyurl.com/2h85uw
... standing in for ...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm
Your estimate is 8% high, but an acceptable approximation for this
discussion.

Standby equipment
accounts for about 0.5% of total production.

http://tinyurl.com/37k4xs
... standing in for ...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/.../gaemlimit.htm
.... opens ...
"CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing at approximately 0.5
per cent per annum."

However, this appears to be a global figure, so although it does show that
if UK standby figures could be extrapolated globally, then far from "not
being able to measure the difference ... globally", your putative switch off
would actually negate the global rise in CO2 for an entire year. However,
I'm sure we both realise that such an extrapolation would be invalid, as
Britain, a developed country, is not globally typical.

So let's stick to "not being able to measure the difference nationally" ...

http://tinyurl.com/329c5v
... standing in for ...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...ress/index.htm

"Between 2004 and 2005 emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 0.1%"

So your putative switch off would be 5x what has actually been achieved in a
recent year.

In the same paragraph ...

"There were, however, increases in emissions from the other main sectors
including energy production (0.9 per cent) and road transport (0.4 percent)
over the same period."

So CO2 from "energy production", which is not defined that I could see, but
which I take to mean mainly electricity generation, is increasing more than
2x as fast as that from car use, and your putative switch off would more
than offset the latter.

Further ...

"In 1997, the UK committed itself beyond to go beyond our Kyoto Protocol
target by setting a national goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20%
below 1990 levels by 2010."

.... and putting the 1997 target into figures, it means reducing the 2005
figure of 554.2 million tonnes to 80% of the 1990 figure of 592.1, or
73.7 - a reduction of 80.5 in 5 years, or 16.1 million tonnes per year.

Your putative switch off would be 3.1/16.1 or 19% of that.

Figures above prove you wrong.

Or right.

No, wrong.

I stand by (pun intended) my original statement that standby is a
significant problem.

While I don't agree with all the advice or conclusions on the page, you may
also care to cast your eye over ...
http://tinyurl.com/ytnxgp
... standing in for ...
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/..._entertainment
.... which includes a paragraph or two on standby, but which I include for
the trends, which are worrying. It is clear that if they continue
unchecked, CO2 from electricity production and the proportion of it caused
by standby will become an even more significant issue.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
... and putting the 1997 target into figures, it means reducing the 2005
figure of 554.2 million tonnes to 80% of the 1990 figure of 592.1, or

!!!
473.7
!!!
F**king Outlook Express stripping out random characters again ... Rrrrrr!

73.7 - a reduction of 80.5 in 5 years, or 16.1 million tonnes per year.

Java Jive wrote:

The UK population is about 60 million, so total production is
somewhere around 600 million tonnes per year.

The actual figure of 554.2 million tonnes is here ...
http://tinyurl.com/2h85uw
... standing in for ...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm
Your estimate is 8% high, but an acceptable approximation for this
discussion.

Standby equipment
accounts for about 0.5% of total production.

http://tinyurl.com/37k4xs
... standing in for ...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/.../gaemlimit.htm
... opens ...
"CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing at approximately 0.5
per cent per annum."

However, this appears to be a global figure, so although it does show that
if UK standby figures could be extrapolated globally, then far from "not
being able to measure the difference ... globally", your putative switch off
would actually negate the global rise in CO2 for an entire year.

Yes - but only once. Then you have to start tackling the
(politically unpopular) real problem.

So let's stick to "not being able to measure the difference nationally" ...

Sorry, that was not meant to be taken absolutely literally. It was
another way of saying 'insignificant'. Having said that, I imagine
that the reduction figures given by DEFRA are calculated not
measured, and I'd wager that no-one could measure the atmospheric
change from stopping all UK standby consumption.


I stand by (pun intended) my original statement that standby is a
significant problem.
And I stand by my opinion that 0.5% is insignificant. Let's agree
to differ.

"Marky P" wrote in message
...

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?

It's quite reasonable to use standby only during normal viewing hours, and
switch the set off properly overnight.

Though for people who leave their TV on all day it won't make much
difference.

--
Max Demian

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:40:33 +0100, nospam
wrote:

"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.

My storage heaters have a couple of dials on them (that can only be
turned using a smnall sharp object) and I've never really known which
dial does what. Obviously one is for heat, dunno 'bout the other one.

it lets the heat out quicker.

Maybe. There must be one that regulates the amount of head stored,
presumably a thermostat in the core. If you can't adjust that, the only way
to control it would be by opening the windows when it's too hot. Mine has a
second control at the other end of the unit that acts as an air thermostat
for a separately switched element that can be used at any time as a
convector heater if I run out of stored heat. The 'boost' control that lets
out extra heat is a slider on the top, as it is mechanical.

The controls at each end are flat and hard to turn until I press one end so
it opens out and can be turned easily.

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:49 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:40:33 +0100, nospam
wrote:

"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.

My storage heaters have a couple of dials on them (that can only be
turned using a smnall sharp object) and I've never really known which
dial does what. Obviously one is for heat, dunno 'bout the other one.

it lets the heat out quicker.

Maybe. There must be one that regulates the amount of head stored,
presumably a thermostat in the core. If you can't adjust that, the only way
to control it would be by opening the windows when it's too hot. Mine has a
second control at the other end of the unit that acts as an air thermostat
for a separately switched element that can be used at any time as a
convector heater if I run out of stored heat. The 'boost' control that lets
out extra heat is a slider on the top, as it is mechanical.

The controls at each end are flat and hard to turn until I press one end so
it opens out and can be turned easily.

I think I have noticed the heater stay warm for longer when adjusting
one of the controls. Odd;y, they are not labelled. My storage
heaters are ancient. It's a council property awaiting updating
(sometime between now and 2010 apparently).

Marky P.

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:49 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:40:33 +0100, nospam
wrote:

"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.

My storage heaters have a couple of dials on them (that can only be
turned using a smnall sharp object) and I've never really known which
dial does what. Obviously one is for heat, dunno 'bout the other one.

it lets the heat out quicker.

Maybe. There must be one that regulates the amount of head stored,
presumably a thermostat in the core. If you can't adjust that, the only
way
to control it would be by opening the windows when it's too hot. Mine has
a
second control at the other end of the unit that acts as an air thermostat
for a separately switched element that can be used at any time as a
convector heater if I run out of stored heat. The 'boost' control that
lets
out extra heat is a slider on the top, as it is mechanical.

The controls at each end are flat and hard to turn until I press one end
so
it opens out and can be turned easily.

I think I have noticed the heater stay warm for longer when adjusting
one of the controls. Odd;y, they are not labelled. My storage
heaters are ancient. It's a council property awaiting updating
(sometime between now and 2010 apparently).

One of your controls is the "input": how much the heater
heats up to. The other is the output: how quickly that
heat is let out.

tim

On 11 Sep, 18:43, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
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!

Because, as I explained in the part you snipped, we never turn any of
them off.

Had I realised Casualty was coming back, I wouldn't have bothered
switching anything off for the holiday either.

You'll be pleased to know we do have (+use!) several energy efficient
lightbulbs. IIRC they were free.

Cheers,
David.