wrote:

mrbog, in your desparate attempt to defend your position,
you have utterly and totally failed to grasp the utter
absurdity of your position.

Do you think that ignoring any wall warts besides the ones used in
households is an absurd position?

Your claim is that wall warts
consume 5% of the total energy production of the US.
That figure is completely abdurd, made even more so that
that the figure quoted from the DOE is only the total
electrical production in one year.

It's not "my" claim. And if it's wrong, argue that to the source, the
NYT I think it was. The fact is, other posters on this thread have
agreed with me on the ****ty power inefficiency of wall warts, and I
DID NOT SUFFER FROM THAT IN 1999.




You, in your irrational ranting, even failed to notice an error
I made in the calculation: the figure quoted from the DOE is
3,858,452,253 megawatts/year.

What a shrewd way of saying you ****ed up. "You're so irrational, you
didn't catch my mistake." You're funny.

So let's review:

A. First, you completely ignore the majority of wall warts in the
united states. Even going so far as to come up with nutty statements
like "40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME!"

B. You admit to making another error in calculation, and in the same
breath you say it's somehow my fault for not noticing.

C. You expect me to believe all of your statistics over again in a
subsequent post? What errors did you make this time? Who knows! I'm
not an electricity expert. (For example, I would never have come up
with "5%" on my own, that would be ridiculous.)

If this was a court case, and you were called to the stand as an
electricity expery, the jury- hell, the JUDGE would dismiss your
testimony. You made two massive, critical errors, and garnished your
statements with a lot of rousing falsities based upon them. The
defense lawyer would say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm not an
electricty expert, but we obviously can't take this man's testimony.
Common sense tells us there's more ac adapters than the ones in
households, and then the man admitted to another fundamental error in
order to somehow cover up or justify the first."

You'e a joke, man. You're laughed out of court here today.

You, sir, are an outright liar. Your own words have demonstrated
that. You have made specific technical assertions while at the
same time admitting you have no technical expertise to do so,
and then criticise others technical rejoinders, again without
any technical expertise to do so.

You're half-right. I AM criticising the "expertise" of some of the
technical experts. If me, a non-electician, can see a massive common
sense flaw in you, the "expert"'s argument, then what does that say
about you and your holy expertise?

wrote:

mrbog, in your desparate attempt to defend your position,
you have utterly and totally failed to grasp the utter
absurdity of your position.

Do you think that ignoring any wall warts besides the ones used in
households is an absurd position?

Your claim is that wall warts
consume 5% of the total energy production of the US.
That figure is completely abdurd, made even more so that
that the figure quoted from the DOE is only the total
electrical production in one year.

It's not "my" claim. And if it's wrong, argue that to the source, the
NYT I think it was. The fact is, other posters on this thread have
agreed with me on the ****ty power inefficiency of wall warts, and I
DID NOT SUFFER FROM THAT IN 1999.




You, in your irrational ranting, even failed to notice an error
I made in the calculation: the figure quoted from the DOE is
3,858,452,253 megawatts/year.

What a shrewd way of saying you ****ed up. "You're so irrational, you
didn't catch my mistake." You're funny.

So let's review:

A. First, you completely ignore the majority of wall warts in the
united states. Even going so far as to come up with nutty statements
like "40 HEADPHONES AT ONE TIME!"

B. You admit to making another error in calculation, and in the same
breath you say it's somehow my fault for not noticing.

C. You expect me to believe all of your statistics over again in a
subsequent post? What errors did you make this time? Who knows! I'm
not an electricity expert. (For example, I would never have come up
with "5%" on my own, that would be ridiculous.)

If this was a court case, and you were called to the stand as an
electricity expery, the jury- hell, the JUDGE would dismiss your
testimony. You made two massive, critical errors, and garnished your
statements with a lot of rousing falsities based upon them. The
defense lawyer would say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm not an
electricty expert, but we obviously can't take this man's testimony.
Common sense tells us there's more ac adapters than the ones in
households, and then the man admitted to another fundamental error in
order to somehow cover up or justify the first." The witness has
discredited himself.

You'e a joke, man. You're laughed out of court here today.

You, sir, are an outright liar. Your own words have demonstrated
that. You have made specific technical assertions while at the
same time admitting you have no technical expertise to do so,
and then criticise others technical rejoinders, again without
any technical expertise to do so.

You're half-right. I AM criticising the "expertise" of some of the
technical experts. If me, a non-electician, can see a massive common
sense flaw in you, the "expert"'s argument, then what does that say
about you and your holy expertise?

wrote:

Your claim is that wall warts
consume 5% of the total energy production of the US.
That figure is completely abdurd, made even more so that
that the figure quoted from the DOE is only the total
electrical production in one year.

It's not "my" claim. And if it's wrong, argue that to the source, the
NYT I think it was.
..snip...

It was your quote, thus it is up to you to back it up or back off.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

(mrbog) writes:

....
Dave the entire point of this thread is to expose a fundamental
problem in the industry. If the regular consumer (who uses
headphones) is expected to do either of your suggestions just to get
ample audio, then you just made my case.

In another post you claimed: "The secondary reason is to try and solve my
problem."

That is evidently not really true, so there's no reason for me to respond
further. I've said my piece, and I have little doubt I have said enough
to help most readers avoid being taken in by your pathetic positions. If
you've been trolling, I look at it as an opportunity to teach those folks
something relevant about soundcards anyway.

Coincidently, Sunday's issue of the Parade newspaper magazine insert has
a quite-relevant cover story by Michael Crichton:

http://archive.parade.com/2004/1205/...p_scaring.html

(If you don't have the hardcopy you'll have to wait until next Monday for
it to be placed in the archives; you can get a taste in the meantime at
Parade's main page: http://www.parade.com .)

-Dave

wrote in
ups.com:


[...STUFF REMOVED...]

mrbog, in your desparate attempt to defend your position,
you have utterly and totally failed to grasp the utter
absurdity of your position. Your claim is that wall warts
consume 5% of the total energy production of the US.
That figure is completely abdurd, made even more so that
that the figure quoted from the DOE is only the total
electrical production in one year.

You, in your irrational ranting, even failed to notice an error
I made in the calculation: the figure quoted from the DOE is
3,858,452,253 megawatts/year. That's not 4 trillion watts or
4 x 10^12 Watts per year, that's 4,000 TRILLION Watts or
4 x 10^15 Watts per year. It makes your assertion so toally absurd
because it raises the number of wallwarts by a factor of 1000.

You're asserting that the total consumption due to wallwarts
is on the order of 200 trillion watts. Assuming a dissipation
of 10 watts per wart, your assertion boild down to a testable
claim that in the United States, there are currently 20 trillion
wall warts. TWENTY TRILLION WALL WARTS.

That's EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND WALLWARTS FOR EVERY SINGLE MAN,
WOMAN AND CHILD in the United States. It makes NO difference
where those wallwarts are, whether they are in homes, officies,
stores, wherever. Your claim, simply stated, is that for every
single person, there are EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND WALLWARTS IN THE
UNITED STATES. Your claim, simply stated, is that there are TWENTY
TRILLION WALLWARTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

That, in short, is the consequence of claiming 5% of the US total
energy output is consumed by wallwarts.


Despite mrbog's abrasive manner, you may owe him an apology. I suspect
that your DOE numbers refer to watt-hours, not watts. If that's the case
then the instantaneous power usage is about

3.9e15 watt-hours/year / 365 days/year / 24 hrs/day = 4.5e11 watts

Five percent of that figure is about 22.5e9 watts (22.5 billion). If one
uses your 10W number as the power consumed by a wall-wart *and* its load
(probably on the high side), then we have about 2.25 billion wall-warts in
use at any given time. Right now, the US population is about 295 million,
so that means about 7.6 wall-warts per person. That's not a totally off-
the-wall number. I can account for 9 that are constantly in use in my two
person household, and there are a couple more in my office at work.

The real question is what is meant by mrbog's 5 percent. Is it total power
used or wasted power? If the load has a real reason for being powered at
all times, then the power consumed by it isn't wasted, and the losses in
the wall-wart shouldn't be considered as being wasted either because they
would otherwise be dissipated by a power supply built into the load,
assuming comparable efficiencies. If the load is disconnected or turned
off and the wall-wart is left plugged into the wall, then its power
dissipation should drop to the order of a watt or so, unless the device is
poorly designed. I suspect that the 5 percent figure refers to the always
on case, but has been subjected to a little journalistic sensationalism.

-- JS

Dave Hamaker wrote:
(mrbog) writes:

...
Dave the entire point of this thread is to expose a fundamental
problem in the industry. If the regular consumer (who uses
headphones) is expected to do either of your suggestions just to get
ample audio, then you just made my case.

In another post you claimed: "The secondary reason is to try and
solve my
problem."

That is evidently not really true, so there's no reason for me to
respond
further. I've said my piece, and I have little doubt I have said
enough
to help most readers avoid being taken in by your pathetic positions.
If
you've been trolling, I look at it as an opportunity to teach those
folks
something relevant about soundcards anyway.

Coincidently, Sunday's issue of the Parade newspaper magazine insert
has
a quite-relevant cover story by Michael Crichton:

http://archive.parade.com/2004/1205/...p_scaring.html

(If you don't have the hardcopy you'll have to wait until next Monday
for
it to be placed in the archives; you can get a taste in the meantime
at
Parade's main page: http://www.parade.com .)

-Dave



Well, I should have said "The main point" instead of "the entire
point". One word of hyperbole on my part there. But if you don't want
to keep trying to help me, hey, I can't complain, it's not like I'm
paying you!

Someone needs to find the actual citation, and figure out what the real
impact is. I suspect this is another one of the claims akin to the idea that
weed whackers and lawn mowers are contributing a significant percentage of
our total pollution. I'm just not buying it. There are so many other things
that desperately need our attention. It really galls me when junk science
and distorted statistics is used to confuse people into promoting some
extremist agenda.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:59:45 GMT, Jim wrote:

The real question is what is meant by mrbog's 5 percent. Is it total power
used or wasted power? If the load has a real reason for being powered at
all times, then the power consumed by it isn't wasted, and the losses in
the wall-wart shouldn't be considered as being wasted either because they
would otherwise be dissipated by a power supply built into the load,
assuming comparable efficiencies. If the load is disconnected or turned
off and the wall-wart is left plugged into the wall, then its power
dissipation should drop to the order of a watt or so, unless the device is
poorly designed. I suspect that the 5 percent figure refers to the always
on case, but has been subjected to a little journalistic sensationalism.

The trouble is, mains-powered equipment tends to be turned off when
not in use. Wall-warts tend to be left permanently on. They tend
to be warm. That's wasted power.

I don't have figures to hand. But I recollect a report telling how
much you saved over a year by turning your TV off, not leaving it on
standby. Wall-warts were also mentioned. The saving was not
trivial.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:59:45 GMT, Jim wrote:

The real question is what is meant by mrbog's 5 percent. Is it total
power
used or wasted power? If the load has a real reason for being powered at
all times, then the power consumed by it isn't wasted, and the losses in
the wall-wart shouldn't be considered as being wasted either because they
would otherwise be dissipated by a power supply built into the load,
assuming comparable efficiencies. If the load is disconnected or turned
off and the wall-wart is left plugged into the wall, then its power
dissipation should drop to the order of a watt or so, unless the device is
poorly designed. I suspect that the 5 percent figure refers to the always
on case, but has been subjected to a little journalistic sensationalism.

The trouble is, mains-powered equipment tends to be turned off when
not in use. Wall-warts tend to be left permanently on. They tend
to be warm. That's wasted power.

I don't have figures to hand. But I recollect a report telling how
much you saved over a year by turning your TV off, not leaving it on
standby. Wall-warts were also mentioned. The saving was not
trivial.

Possibly, but it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were sensationalized.
Plus, the extra warmth is really only a problem in the summer time.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:07:26 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:59:45 GMT, Jim wrote:

The real question is what is meant by mrbog's 5 percent. Is it total
power used or wasted power? If the load has a real reason for being
powered at all times, then the power consumed by it isn't wasted, and the
losses in the wall-wart shouldn't be considered as being wasted either
because they would otherwise be dissipated by a power supply built into
the load, assuming comparable efficiencies. If the load is disconnected
or turned off and the wall-wart is left plugged into the wall, then its
power dissipation should drop to the order of a watt or so, unless the
device is poorly designed. I suspect that the 5 percent figure refers to
the always on case, but has been subjected to a little journalistic
sensationalism.

The trouble is, mains-powered equipment tends to be turned off when not in
use. Wall-warts tend to be left permanently on. They tend to be warm.
That's wasted power.

I don't have figures to hand. But I recollect a report telling how much
you saved over a year by turning your TV off, not leaving it on standby.
Wall-warts were also mentioned. The saving was not trivial.

Look, if you're talking about energy waste in the USA, why not add a
little perspective? Try convincing just one person you know to give up
their SUV and buy a regular sedan. The energy savings on that alone would
probably be enough to power 1000 "wall warts" for ten years. Ride a
bicycle or take public transport to work once a week:- save more energy
and money than eliminating every "wall wart" in your house.

Minderbinder wrote:

Look, if you're talking about energy waste in the USA, why not add a
little perspective? Try convincing just one person you know to give up
their SUV and buy a regular sedan. The energy savings on that alone would
probably be enough to power 1000 "wall warts" for ten years. Ride a
bicycle or take public transport to work once a week:- save more energy
and money than eliminating every "wall wart" in your house.


Talking about perspective and energy waste in the US:

According to a news program on European TV 60% of total US
fuel consumption goes into military use. Makes you think, eh?

Cheers,

Franco

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 03:24:03 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:

I don't have figures to hand. But I recollect a report telling how
much you saved over a year by turning your TV off, not leaving it on
standby. Wall-warts were also mentioned. The saving was not
trivial.

Possibly, but it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were sensationalized.
Plus, the extra warmth is really only a problem in the summer time.

I don't particularly mind the warmth. Though the room with my
computers and music gear rarely needs heating turned on :-) I was
just mentioning it as an indication of wasted power.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:43:48 GMT, Minderbinder
wrote:

Look, if you're talking about energy waste in the USA, why not add a
little perspective? Try convincing just one person you know to give up
their SUV and buy a regular sedan. The energy savings on that alone would
probably be enough to power 1000 "wall warts" for ten years. Ride a
bicycle or take public transport to work once a week:- save more energy
and money than eliminating every "wall wart" in your house.

Oh, I've given up on the USA :-) But some less arrogant nations
still believe small savings add up, and are worthwhile.

wrote:
Dave Hamaker wrote:
(mrbog) writes:

...
Dave the entire point of this thread is to expose a fundamental
problem in the industry. If the regular consumer (who uses
headphones) is expected to do either of your suggestions just to
get
ample audio, then you just made my case.

In another post you claimed: "The secondary reason is to try and
solve my
problem."

That is evidently not really true, so there's no reason for me to
respond
further. I've said my piece, and I have little doubt I have said
enough
to help most readers avoid being taken in by your pathetic
positions.
If
you've been trolling, I look at it as an opportunity to teach those
folks
something relevant about soundcards anyway.

Coincidently, Sunday's issue of the Parade newspaper magazine
insert
has
a quite-relevant cover story by Michael Crichton:

http://archive.parade.com/2004/1205/...p_scaring.html

(If you don't have the hardcopy you'll have to wait until next
Monday
for
it to be placed in the archives; you can get a taste in the
meantime
at
Parade's main page: http://www.parade.com .)

-Dave



Well, I should have said "The main point" instead of "the entire
point". One word of hyperbole on my part there. But if you don't
want
to keep trying to help me, hey, I can't complain, it's not like I'm
paying you!

So, the troll wants to try to evoke another response from me. OK.

It's still evidently not really true. You've already been given all
the
information you need to solve your problem, several times over. You
don't
need batteries or wallwarts to do so, so even if you're set against
those,
that's just not relevant.

It seems you don't really want a reasonable solution, either because it
would work toward bringing this thread to a close; or because it's your
excuse for your going on about your pet wallwart threat and your pet
soundcard peeve.

-Dave


P.S. Looking at the Radio Shack website, PRO35A's are on sale for
$19.99
once again right now. I notice that website/phone sales show out
of
stock, so you'd have to check stores, but you should try them
anyway.
Looks like the sale is thru the 24th.

writes (responding to mrbog):

...You, in your irrational ranting, even failed to notice an error
I made in the calculation: the figure quoted from the DOE is
3,858,452,253 megawatts/year. That's not 4 trillion watts or
4 x 10^12 Watts per year, that's 4,000 TRILLION Watts or
4 x 10^15 Watts per year. It makes your assertion so toally absurd
because it raises the number of wallwarts by a factor of 1000....

Unfortunately, I think you made a second error, comparing wallwart
watts with the yearly production quantity. It's not my area of
expertise, but I'd guess a 2-watt wallwart uses electricty at
a watthours rate, or 2 watts per hour. That works out to 365
days x 24 hours x 2 watts = 17,520 watts/year or, generously 2x10^4
per wallwart. That would have a net effect of reducing your original
results by a factor of 10. (I.e. only 12.5 duplex outlets full of
wallwarts per room, assuming every wallwart in the country is idle
all the time.)

-Dave

Dave Hamaker wrote:

So, the troll wants to try to evoke another response from me. OK.

Dave, you call me a troll, I call you a communist homosexual. They're
equally absurd accusations. You're not going to try to prove you're
not a commie homo, and I'm not going to try and prove I'm not a troll.
So, commie homo,


It's still evidently not really true. You've already been given all
the
information you need to solve your problem, several times over. You
don't
need batteries or wallwarts to do so, so even if you're set against
those,
that's just not relevant.

Buying new headphones is not a solution. Hiring an electrician is not
a solution. You pretend you've solved me problem if it makes you feel
better.


It seems you don't really want a reasonable solution, either because
it
would work toward bringing this thread to a close; or because it's
your
excuse for your going on about your pet wallwart threat and your pet
soundcard peeve.

It seems I don't really have one.


-Dave


P.S. Looking at the Radio Shack website, PRO35A's are on sale for
$19.99
once again right now. I notice that website/phone sales show out
of
stock, so you'd have to check stores, but you should try them
anyway.
Looks like the sale is thru the 24th.

I saw a photo of some, I don't like them. I like padded grapefruit
style headphones. Headphones I could use just find in 1999.
Headphones that even the 2004 models won't be loud enough for modern
soundcards.

Oh but I suppose all that doesn't matter, it's just the troll trying to
get you to respond.

Franco Del Principe wrote:

Talking about perspective and energy waste in the US:

According to a news program on European TV 60% of total US
fuel consumption goes into military use. Makes you think, eh?

About the orifice they used for that number, sure. The math is simple:
count up the yearly usage of various bits of military hardware in hours,
multiply by the average fuel consumption per hour, and compare with
the same figures for automobiles. Fighter airplanes and tanks are counted
in the thousands, while there are more than a hundred million private cars
in America. Even if the khaki gear were used at the same rate as commuters
(which they're not - that stuff needs maintenance), the fuel consumption
isn't 10,000 times greater per hour than even a Prius. I daresay you'll
find that decimal point in the alleged 60% moves some places to the left.


Francois.

In rec.audio.tech (null) wrote:

Franco Del Principe wrote:

Talking about perspective and energy waste in the US:

According to a news program on European TV 60% of total US
fuel consumption goes into military use. Makes you think, eh?

About the orifice they used for that number, sure. The math is simple:
count up the yearly usage of various bits of military hardware in hours,
multiply by the average fuel consumption per hour, and compare with
the same figures for automobiles. Fighter airplanes and tanks are counted
in the thousands, while there are more than a hundred million private cars
in America. Even if the khaki gear were used at the same rate as commuters
(which they're not - that stuff needs maintenance), the fuel consumption
isn't 10,000 times greater per hour than even a Prius. I daresay you'll
find that decimal point in the alleged 60% moves some places to the left.

Ooooooh!


So what you're sayin is that only a mere 6% of the TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION
IN THE USA is going to military use?

That's still a ****load of dollars.

Colin B. wrote:
In rec.audio.tech (null) wrote:
Franco Del Principe wrote:

Talking about perspective and energy waste in the US:

According to a news program on European TV 60% of total US
fuel consumption goes into military use. Makes you think, eh?

[Analysis] I daresay you'll
find that decimal point in the alleged 60% moves some places to the left.


So what you're sayin is that only a mere 6% of the TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION
IN THE USA is going to military use?

"Some", not "one", places to the left. I'd be surprised if military
consumption were even at 6% of total.


That's still a ****load of dollars.

You could, for another data point, look at the Pentagon budget to see
how much they do spend to gas up. I don't recall it being a particularly
large line item.


Francois.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:23:09 -0000, ((null)) wrote:

Franco Del Principe wrote:

Talking about perspective and energy waste in the US:

According to a news program on European TV 60% of total US
fuel consumption goes into military use. Makes you think, eh?

About the orifice they used for that number, sure. The math is simple:
count up the yearly usage of various bits of military hardware in hours,
multiply by the average fuel consumption per hour, and compare with
the same figures for automobiles. Fighter airplanes and tanks are counted
in the thousands, while there are more than a hundred million private cars
in America. Even if the khaki gear were used at the same rate as commuters
(which they're not - that stuff needs maintenance), the fuel consumption
isn't 10,000 times greater per hour than even a Prius. I daresay you'll
find that decimal point in the alleged 60% moves some places to the left.

Ahem. Fuel is used for manufacturing things, and for running
establishments, not just for keeping vehicles moving. Look at your
industrial base for serious fuel consumption, and at all those
military bases around the world, and the US Navy at sea, etc etc etc.

BTW, even at worst case figures of ten per household, permanently
powered, it's unlikely that wall wart wastage exceeds 0.0005% of total
US fuel consumption.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
BTW, even at worst case figures of ten per household, permanently
powered, it's unlikely that wall wart wastage exceeds 0.0005% of
total
US fuel consumption.

I didn't say 5% of all fuel, I said 5% of all power. And by the way,
"permanently powered" is always the case with wallwarts. That's the
point.

wrote:

...snip..

I didn't say 5% of all fuel, I said 5% of all power. And by the way,
"permanently powered" is always the case with wallwarts. That's the
point.


...ALWAYS the case? I have at least a dozen wallwarts on switched
outlets, warts that are only on when running that system; everything
from printers to netwirk hubs to reverbs to zip drives. My computers
are all on switched outlets and thus draw nothing when not in use.
...thus, as others previously noted, it can be done.

On power consumption, how about posting a proper reference
rather than keep repeating what you believe you read?

Ron Capik
--

Ron Capik wrote:
wrote:
...ALWAYS the case? I have at least a dozen wallwarts on switched
outlets, warts that are only on when running that system; everything
from printers to netwirk hubs to reverbs to zip drives. My computers
are all on switched outlets and thus draw nothing when not in use.
...thus, as others previously noted, it can be done.

Ron Capik
--

Yea ok, I'll grant you that I'm technically incorrect to say "always".
But the context of what we're talking about is the USA's consumption of
power. And, inarguably, people like you are the minority. Most
americans aren't plugging their wallwarts into power strips and turning
them off. So you get to criticize me for saying "all" when I should
have said "all but one half percent". It's not much of a point.

I could say "all americans wants to be happy" and you can say "no, some
americans are masochists, so they don't ALL want to be happy". And I
say "ok, yes, I'm wrong, you're right. I guess you win then."

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:23:09 -0000, ((null)) wrote:
Franco Del Principe wrote:

Talking about perspective and energy waste in the US:

According to a news program on European TV 60% of total US
fuel consumption goes into military use. Makes you think, eh?

About the orifice they used for that number, sure. The math is simple:
count up the yearly usage of various bits of military hardware in hours,
multiply by the average fuel consumption per hour, and compare with
the same figures for automobiles. [...]

Ahem. Fuel is used for manufacturing things, and for running
establishments, not just for keeping vehicles moving. Look at your
industrial base for serious fuel consumption, and at all those
military bases around the world, and the US Navy at sea, etc etc etc.

Sure the industrial base eats fuel, but follow the money: DoD procurement
is maybe $50 billion a year TOPS. Consumer consumption, even admitting
imports, is about two orders of magnitude higher. Assuming that energy
use is a reasonably constant proportion of production dollars, consumer
production still consumes far more energy than military. And as far as
bases/warships go, the previous argument still holds: 200,000,000 people
drive almost every day in the Excited Snakes. Beside that a few hundred
warships are (ahem) a drop in the bucket.


BTW, even at worst case figures of ten per household, permanently
powered, it's unlikely that wall wart wastage exceeds 0.0005% of total
US fuel consumption.

I'd drop a few of those zeros, but agree it's less than 1%. Continually-on
appliances (microwave clocks, instant-on TVs, etc) probably take far more.


Cheers,
Francois.