Power consumption

[George Newton]

I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power
consumption.

I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.

I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power
my receiver is drawing when it is on and no sound is being
generated.

[George Newton]

George Newton wrote:
> I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
>
> I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
>
> I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver
> is drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

I forgot to add that I'm using Cambridge Soundworks M50
speakers if that is relevant.

[Mr.T]

"George Newton" > wrote in message
ninternet...
> George Newton wrote:
> > I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
> >
> > I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
> >
> > I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver
> > is drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

Your guess (between 1 and 200W) will be nearly as good as anyone elses, but
probably closer to 10-30W.


> I forgot to add that I'm using Cambridge Soundworks M50
> speakers if that is relevant.

Not really.

MrT.

[Mark Zacharias[_2_]]

"George Newton" > wrote in message
et...
>I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
>
> I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
>
> I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
> drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.


Probably in the 10 to 15 watt range. More recent models by many
manufacturers are designed to draw less in Standby mode, but when turned on,
and at idle there are losses which, in full sized receivers, cannot be
reduced too much while still using mostly conventional transformer power
supplies and bipolar transistor output stages, which the market and
economics still demand for the most part.

Mark Z.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Newton" > wrote in message
ninternet
> George Newton wrote:
>> I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power
>> consumption. I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's
>> inputs. I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much
>> power my receiver is drawing when it is on and no sound
>> is being generated.
>
> I forgot to add that I'm using Cambridge Soundworks M50
> speakers if that is relevant.

The answer will cost you a little more than $20. You need to buy a
Kill-A-Watt.

[Richard Crowley]

"George Newton" wrote ...
>I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
>
> I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
>
> I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
> drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.

If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
even draw power when it is turned "OFF". This has nothing to do
with what kind of source is connected (PC or otherwise), and
also nothing to do with the speakers (unless they have their own
power cords).

As Mr. Krueger suggested, it is pretty cheap to just get yourself a
"Kill-a-Watt" meter and measure it directly. They are handy for
other things around the house as well. Particularly if you are trying
to reduce your power consumption.

http://www.amazon.com/P3-International-P4400-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B00009MDBU

Significant numbers of modern electronic equipment never really
turn "off", rather they go into some sort of standby mode and turn
off all the lights to make it look like nobody's home. This is
particularly the case with equpment that operates from "wall-wart"
power (transformers or switching supplies in the plug, or in a
"power brick" inline with the mains cord) because that part never
gets switched off.

This is one of the issues that the "green" movement is going after.
There are already both industry and public ads for "greener" power
supplies that draw minimal (or no) power when turned "off". This
web page claims...

"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
is consumed by products that are switched off."
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir

With one side of his mouth Obama said that he wouldn't "increase
taxes" on the middle-class, but with the other side, he _promised_
us that energy costs would "skyrocket" (his term, IIRC). I have
great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.

[George Newton]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "George Newton" wrote ...
>> I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
>>
>> I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
>>
>> I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
>> drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.
>
> If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
><snip>
> great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.
>
>

Thanks for all your input on this. Also, to complete this,
the receiver is rated at 1 watt standby.

Thanks again.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley > wrote:


>"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
>the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
>is consumed by products that are switched off."
>http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir

That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.

The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
powered down electronics in a typical household.

[Richard Crowley]

"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>"The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>>continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
>>the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
>>is consumed by products that are switched off."
>>http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir
>
> That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
> washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.
>
> The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
> powered down electronics in a typical household.

You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".

[cjt]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "AZ Nomad" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>>> continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but in
>>> the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power electronics
>>> is consumed by products that are switched off."
>>> http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir
>> That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
>> washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.
>>
>> The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
>> powered down electronics in a typical household.
>
> You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
> fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

[Geoff]

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
> > wrote:
>
>
>> "The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>> continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
>> in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
>> electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
>> http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir
>
> That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
> washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.
>
> The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
> powered down electronics in a typical household.

And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for a minute
a day.

geoff

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:01:57 +1300, geoff > wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>>> continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
>>> in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
>>> electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
>>> http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir
>>
>> That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
>> washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.
>>
>> The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
>> powered down electronics in a typical household.

>And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for a minute
>a day.

But let's ignore all the kilowatt appliances; let's get all anal and
stupid over 500mw AC adapters left on all day.
Keep them unplugged all year and you can save yourself enough power to
fry an egg.

[Mark Zacharias[_2_]]

"George Newton" > wrote in message
ninternet...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "George Newton" wrote ...
>>> I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
>>>
>>> I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver
>>> is drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.
>>
>> If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
>><snip>
>> great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for all your input on this. Also, to complete this, the receiver is
> rated at 1 watt standby.
>
> Thanks again.


I thought the original question involved the receiver being turned on but
essentially sitting idle.

Mark Z.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article rnet>, George Newton > wrote:
>Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "George Newton" wrote ...
>>> I have a Sony Receiver STR- DE675 rated at 220W power consumption.
>>>
>>> I have my PC's sound connected to one of the receiver's inputs.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate if someone could estimate how much power my receiver is
>>> drawing when it is on and no sound is being generated.
>>
>> If you want a wild guess you could use 10-20W. Note that it may
>><snip>
>> great confidence that he will faithfully deliver on THAT promise.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for all your input on this. Also, to complete this,
>the receiver is rated at 1 watt standby.
>
>Thanks again.

You get an energy star.

greg

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, "geoff" > wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>>> continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
>>> in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
>>> electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
>>>
> http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-e
>lectricity-vampir
>>
>> That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
>> washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.
>>
>> The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
>> powered down electronics in a typical household.
>
>And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for a minute
>a day.
>


When I turn on both garage heaters, thats 6.3 KW, but my 2.5 ton air is only drawing 1.5KW.

greg

[Richard Crowley]

"AZ Nomad" wrote ...
> But let's ignore all the kilowatt appliances; let's get all anal and
> stupid over 500mw AC adapters left on all day.
> Keep them unplugged all year and you can save yourself enough power to
> fry an egg.

Sense does not appear to be very common amoung the
"green" community.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "AZ Nomad" wrote ...
> > The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
> > powered down electronics in a typical household.

Naturally.

> You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
> fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".

Would have been true once upon a time, however most fridges, freezers,
washing machines, stoves, and even toasters now contain electronics. Most
even have full CPU/digital control systems, especially HVAC, so the
definition of "electronics" in this case simply depends on the person making
the claim.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/2/2009 7:25 PM AZ Nomad spake thus:

> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:01:57 +1300, geoff > wrote:
>
>>AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:54:39 -0800, Richard Crowley
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The U.S. Department of Energy tells us that not only do appliances
>>>> continue to draw electricity while the products are turned off, but
>>>> in the average home nearly 75% of all electricty used to power
>>>> electronics is consumed by products that are switched off."
>>>> http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/energy-tip-10-remove-wall-warts-and-slay-electricity-vampir
>>>
>>> That's only true if you have no fridge, electric stove, electric
>>> washer/dryer and your HVAC uses no electricity.
>>>
>>> The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
>>> powered down electronics in a typical household.
>
>> And all are insignificant compared to having a stove element on for
>> a minute a day.
>
> But let's ignore all the kilowatt appliances; let's get all anal and
> stupid over 500mw AC adapters left on all day.
> Keep them unplugged all year and you can save yourself enough power to
> fry an egg.

Wrong way to look at it.

Certainly insignificant on an individual level; not so on a global one.

That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

You could look it up.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".

And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a difference!
Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway I guess. :-)

MrT.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
>> "AZ Nomad" wrote ...
>> > The fridge alone will use more power than all the AC adapters, and
>> > powered down electronics in a typical household.
>
>Naturally.
>
>> You must have missed the word "electronics". Nobody considers
>> fridge, stove (cooker), washer/dryer, HVAC to be "electronics".
>
>Would have been true once upon a time, however most fridges, freezers,
>washing machines, stoves, and even toasters now contain electronics. Most
>even have full CPU/digital control systems, especially HVAC, so the
>definition of "electronics" in this case simply depends on the person making
>the claim.
>

Probably cleaning the coils will make up for any wall supplies.

Refridgerators still are dumb. The defrost cycle should not occur
when your using it. You should be able to set the time of day for that to occur.
I have measured the drops in temps of the freezer and fridge
with a recorder, and thay are not trivial. This is without opening the doors.

greg

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
>> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".
>
> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a difference!
> Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway I guess. :-)

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage. Eliminating it would result
in a lot more than a 0.00001% reduction in GHG.

Read all about it:
http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energysavers/post/Please-Stand-By-Reduce-Your-Standby-Power-Use.aspx

Excerpt:

LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
standby mode than while actively recording or playing. They measured the
power consumed by cable and satellite boxes and found that they consume
nearly as much power when switched off as when turned on; switching from
"on" to "off" with a remote control seemed to do nothing more than
switch a light from green to red in some cases.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
difference!
> > Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway I guess. :-)
>
> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
> power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Which is exactly the bull**** claims we are arguing about!


> Read all about it:
>
http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energysavers/post/Please-Stand-By-Reduce-You
r-Standby-Power-Use.aspx
>
> Excerpt:
>
> LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
> recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
> standby mode than while actively recording or playing.

No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy consumption!
Your citation simply doesn't support your theory. It's just a red herring
for the technically illiterate.


> They measured the
> power consumed by cable and satellite boxes and found that they consume
> nearly as much power when switched off as when turned on; switching
from
> "on" to "off" with a remote control seemed to do nothing more than
> switch a light from green to red in some cases.

No argument there either, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
consumption. Turn your air conditioner off for one day, and you can run your
cable box for a year!

Maybe you better learn just how much these items consume in ANY mode,
compared to an electric stove, refridgerator, air conditioner, electric
heater etc. And that's not even counting the BIG power useage, *INDUSTRY*. A
typical aluminium smelter uses more electricity than all the average
domestic users combined for an average city, regardless of what light globes
they use, and whether they have NO standby devices at all.

In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes to
REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/4/2009 7:21 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>>> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
>>> difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days
>>> anyway I guess. :-)
>>
>> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
>> power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.
>
>> Read all about it:
>>
> http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energysavers/post/Please-Stand-By-Reduce-You
> r-Standby-Power-Use.aspx
>>
>> Excerpt:
>>
>> LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
>> recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
>> standby mode than while actively recording or playing.
>
> No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy consumption!
> Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.

5-10% of household consumption *minute*???? Granted, there is industrial
consumption; however, it's still a very much non-negligible amount of
power we're talking about here.

> In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes to
> REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

No argument there. Haven't heard that dirty word "overpopulation" used
much for many decades now.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Richard Crowley]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate phantom
> power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage. Eliminating it would result
> in a lot more than a 0.00001% reduction in GHG.

A 2:1 variation is not an "estimate" it is an uninformed guess.

> Read all about it:
> http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energysavers/post/Please-Stand-By-Reduce-Your-Standby-Power-Use.aspx
>
> Excerpt:
>
> LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
> recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year in
> standby mode than while actively recording or playing. They measured the
> power consumed by cable and satellite boxes and found that they consume
> nearly as much power when switched off as when turned on; switching from
> "on" to "off" with a remote control seemed to do nothing more than
> switch a light from green to red in some cases.

But a whole city of VCRs in "standby" don't waste as much power as a single
old inefficient refrigerator. Or a mile of streetlights that don't turn off
at dawn.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >> LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that videocassette
> >> recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over the course of a year
in
> >> standby mode than while actively recording or playing.
> >
> > No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
consumption!
> > Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.
>
> 5-10% of household consumption *minute*????


It IS minute and it's NOT 5-10% of *TOTAL* electricity consumption. And a
*totally* insignificant proportion of total GHGE which is caused by far more
than electricity usage.
But do feel free to provide PROOF of exactly what proportion of *TOTAL*
GHGE is caused by standby power consumption, I'm sure lots of people would
be very interested in your *scientific* research.


> > In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes
to
> > REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!
>
> No argument there. Haven't heard that dirty word "overpopulation" used
> much for many decades now.


Which is exactly the major problem with the whole GHGE/climate change
debate!

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/5/2009 5:29 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>>>> LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that
>>>> videocassette recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over
>>>> the course of a year in standby mode than while actively
>>>> recording or playing.
>>
>>> No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
>>> consumption! Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.
>>
>> 5-10% of household consumption *minute*????
>
> It IS minute and it's NOT 5-10% of *TOTAL* electricity consumption. And a
> *totally* insignificant proportion of total GHGE which is caused by far more
> than electricity usage.
> But do feel free to provide PROOF of exactly what proportion of *TOTAL*
> GHGE is caused by standby power consumption, I'm sure lots of people would
> be very interested in your *scientific* research.

Look, Bub, don't address me as if *I* was the one who wrote that study.
I cited it is all.

It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust. So I'm quite willing to accept their figure of 5-10%
of *household* usage. I *know* that doesn't include industrial uses of
electricity, and I don't know what the proportion domestic usage is to
industrial usage; I do know it's still a significant fraction of total
electricity usage, not "minute".

Add to that the fact that most of our (U.S.) electricity comes from
burning fossil fuel (coal, oil or natural gas), one can state with some
confidence that the total contribution to global climate change from
"vampire power" devices is something on the order of 1 to 2 percent. Not
the primary cause of the problem, but not insignificant either.

Plus the use of such devices is growing all the time, not decreasing.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Look, Bub, don't address me as if *I* was the one who wrote that study.
> I cited it is all.

Yep you cited it as if it somehow supported your dubious claims.


> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
> judgement I trust. So I'm quite willing to accept their figure of 5-10%
> of *household* usage.


Some people are easily suckered it seems. You need to read what they
actually wrote, and how they arrived at their figures in any case.


>I *know* that doesn't include industrial uses of
> electricity, and I don't know what the proportion domestic usage is to
> industrial usage; I do know it's still a significant fraction of total
> electricity usage, not "minute".


IF YOU think it's significant, then you must have some idea of what it
*really* is, and some idea of what YOU think is significant?
(based on more than pulling figures from your ass, or misquoting someone
else who pulled them from their ass)


> Add to that the fact that most of our (U.S.) electricity comes from
> burning fossil fuel (coal, oil or natural gas), one can state with some
> confidence that the total contribution to global climate change from
> "vampire power" devices is something on the order of 1 to 2 percent.

No you cant!
Sure it's greater than zero, that's all you can really say without any
*facts* to back it up.


>Not the primary cause of the problem, but not insignificant either.


And NOT 5-10% either!
"Significant" is obviously open to any interpretation. You are welcome to
yours, and welcome to act as you see fit. I suggest reducing your REAL power
usage before worrying so much about the the last 1%!!!!!

What I object to is taxes and trading schemes which do nothing except
increase prices to consumers and reduce our standard of living, whilst we
merrily increase the global population and make the problem worse. Our
government *encourages* overpopulation by paying baby bonuses, and importing
more immigrants than our local population growth every year. The upshot is
we have national water shortages, and a plan for huge increases in energy
costs.

MrT.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mr.T wrote:

> Which is exactly the major problem with the whole GHGE/climate change
> debate!

With a strong politic segment having a policy of actively increasing
population whereever they are and having a strong weight at the UN you may
not hear it so as to not offend those easily offended people.

> MrT.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Geoff]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>>
>>> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
>>> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".
>>
>> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
>> difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
>> I guess. :-)
>
> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
> phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....


geoff

[Geoff]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks


Clearly NOT.

>whose judgement I trust.

More fool you then.

geoff

[Geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Mr.T wrote:
>
>> Which is exactly the major problem with the whole GHGE/climate change
>> debate!
>
> With a strong politic segment having a policy of actively increasing
> population whereever they are and having a strong weight at the UN
> you may not hear it so as to not offend those easily offended people.
>
>> MrT.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Peter,

Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

CopenHARgen or CopenHAYgen ?

geoff

[Jerry Peters]

geoff > wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>>
>>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
>>> s.com...
>>>
>>>> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
>>>> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".
>>>
>>> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
>>> difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
>>> I guess. :-)
>>
>> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
>> phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.
>
> Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
> basic arithmetic yet....
>
>
> geoff
>
Perhaps they were trained at the University of East Anglia. Which
seems to specialize in ways of making data fit their theory.

Jerry

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

geoff wrote:

> Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

CO2 neutral I hope .... O;-)

> CopenHARgen

German, as Kopenhagen, widespread because nobody dared correct Danny
Kaye's - in my opinion - misunderstood german style pronounciation, he
probsbly thought he was getting clóser to the danish version, but he wasn't.

> or CopenHAYgen ?

GP English, the one to use when speaking english and by being softer closer
to the danish København, literally meaning "traders harbour".

> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:03:26 +1300, geoff > wrote:
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>>
>>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
>>> s.com...
>>>
>>>> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
>>>> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".
>>>
>>> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
>>> difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
>>> I guess. :-)
>>
>> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
>> phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

>Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
>basic arithmetic yet....


Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot water.

[Jerry Peters]

AZ Nomad > wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:03:26 +1300, geoff > wrote:
>>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>>>
>>>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
>>>> s.com...
>>>>
>>>>> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
>>>>> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".
>>>>
>>>> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
>>>> difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
>>>> I guess. :-)
>>>
>>> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
>>> phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.
>
>>Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
>>basic arithmetic yet....
>
>
> Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot water.
>
Or an electric stove, washing machine, and dryer. Hmm, perhaps
something like a dorm room with maybe a mini-fridge and hotplate? With
a lot of electronic gadgets of course. Then you might get into the
5-10% usage range.

Jerry

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:57:20 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters > wrote:
>AZ Nomad > wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:03:26 +1300, geoff > wrote:
>>>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> That should be "keep them unplugged all year and save ourselves from
>>>>>> having to make many more megawatts of electricity".
>>>>>
>>>>> And reduce GHG emissions by 0.00001%??? That will really make a
>>>>> difference! Should save the planet for another couple of days anyway
>>>>> I guess. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
>>>> phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.
>>
>>>Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
>>>basic arithmetic yet....
>>
>>
>> Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot water.
>>
>Or an electric stove, washing machine, and dryer. Hmm, perhaps
>something like a dorm room with maybe a mini-fridge and hotplate? With
>a lot of electronic gadgets of course. Then you might get into the
>5-10% usage range.

More like a motel 6 with a TV and nothing else. However, even a motel 6
has lighting.

[Geoff]

AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> Their idea of a household doesn't have lights, a fridge, HVAC, or hot
> water.

And taken WHEN nobody home, and/or not averaged over a typical whole day.

geoff

[Geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>
>> Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.
>
> CO2 neutral I hope .... O;-)
>
>> CopenHARgen
>
> German, as Kopenhagen, widespread because nobody dared correct Danny
> Kaye's - in my opinion - misunderstood german style pronounciation, he
> probsbly thought he was getting clóser to the danish version, but he
> wasn't.
>> or CopenHAYgen ?
>
> GP English, the one to use when speaking english and by being softer
> closer to the danish København, literally meaning "traders harbour".

Don't call that horrible northern UK "short A", GP English !

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

geoff wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>
>>> Having a 'pronunciation war' just now.

>> CO2 neutral I hope .... O;-)

>>> CopenHARgen

>> German, as Kopenhagen, widespread because nobody dared correct Danny
>> Kaye's - in my opinion - misunderstood german style pronounciation,
>> he probsbly thought he was getting clóser to the danish version, but
>> he wasn't.

>>> or CopenHAYgen ?

>> GP English, the one to use when speaking english and by being softer
>> closer to the danish København, literally meaning "traders harbour".

> Don't call that horrible northern UK "short A", GP English !

??????? ... read again, Copenh gen, us style a is NOT short,
a(y)

The short a is the german style Copenha(r)Gen.

> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor Wilson]

Mr.T wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>>>> LBNL [Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab.] calculated that
>>>> videocassette recorders (VCRs) consumed more electricity over
>>>> the course of a year in standby mode than while actively
>>>> recording or playing.
>>>
>>> No argument, but still only a *MINUTE* fraction of total energy
>>> consumption! Your citation simply doesn't support your theory.
>>
>> 5-10% of household consumption *minute*????
>
>
> It IS minute and it's NOT 5-10% of *TOTAL* electricity consumption.
> And a *totally* insignificant proportion of total GHGE which is
> caused by far more than electricity usage.
> But do feel free to provide PROOF of exactly what proportion of
> *TOTAL* GHGE is caused by standby power consumption, I'm sure lots of
> people would be very interested in your *scientific* research.

**I'm disputing your points. The big problems are water heating, space
heating and cooling, pool filters and the other stuff. FWIW: I measured my
STB in standby. 20 Watts! 22 Watts when operating. I just purchased a new
PVR from the same manufacturer. Fortunately, they've learned their lessons.
It consumes 0.6 Watts in standby.

IMO, mandatory low power consumption in standby is a very important step.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Peter Irwin]

geoff > wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>>
>> I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
>> phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.
>
> Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
> basic arithmetic yet....
>
Average domestic electicity use in US - around 940 kwh/month.
5% of 940 is 47
There are around 720 hours per month. (24x30)
47/720 =.065
So if phantom power is 65 watts all the time it will equal
5% of typical domestic electricity use.

Is this really unrealistic or bad arithmetic?

Peter.
--

[Richard Crowley]

"Mr.T" wrote.
> In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes to
> REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

Population stats for Europe and USA for many years have shown
that birth rates are MUCH lower than the status-quo replacement
rate of 2.1 per couple. If you want to complain about population
growth, you will need to be politically-incorrect about specific
segments of the global population. Perhaps you have been listening
to the wrong asses.

[Mr.T]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> > I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
> > phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.
>
> Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
> basic arithmetic yet....

Like all such figures, you have to carefully read the actual claims,
carefully read the "research" objectives, carefully read the untested &
unverified assumptions, and then throw it all in the bin where it belongs.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Peter Irwin" > wrote in message
...
> Average domestic electicity use in US - around 940 kwh/month.
> 5% of 940 is 47
> There are around 720 hours per month. (24x30)
> 47/720 =.065
> So if phantom power is 65 watts all the time it will equal
> 5% of typical domestic electricity use.
>
> Is this really unrealistic or bad arithmetic?

Yes!

Do you think the average household leaves all their appliances in standby
mode, and all their plug packs plugged in for the month, and *never*
actually uses anything? When the devices are in use, it is NOT "phantom"
power usage!
And 65W would be closer to worst case rather than the "average domestic
household".

But that's the trouble when you make assumptions, you can arrive at any
answer you want. Science involves actual measurement.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> **I'm disputing your points. The big problems are water heating, space
> heating and cooling, pool filters and the other stuff. FWIW: I measured my
> STB in standby. 20 Watts! 22 Watts when operating.


It's faulty! (or your measurements are)
Unless it has a solid state disk drive, there is no way the hard drive
consumes 2W or less!
Does the hard drive *really* spin in standby mode?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> > In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes
to
> > REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!
>
> Population stats for Europe and USA for many years have shown
> that birth rates are MUCH lower than the status-quo replacement
> rate of 2.1 per couple.

Yep, but the problem is GLOBAL climate change. The Global population is
steadily increasing, and expected to double again in the next couple of
decades.

>If you want to complain about population
> growth, you will need to be politically-incorrect about specific
> segments of the global population.


That's the problem with the "politically correct" brigade, they stifle valid
discussion. With some countries having around a billion people or more, and
still increasing, is it really wrong to ask why?


>Perhaps you have been listening to the wrong asses.

Well our politicians (Aus) are still planning to double the population
through baby bonuses and immigration, and use coal fired power stations to
desalinate the water required (since we don't have enough of it now), and
somehow reduce carbon emissions at the same time. Do YOU want the standard
of living required to balance those conflicts?
Just reducing immigration levels would be a far better local solution IMO
(and quite a few others), the planet is still going to suffer anyway.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> **I'm disputing your points. The big problems are water heating,
>> space heating and cooling, pool filters and the other stuff. FWIW: I
>> measured my STB in standby. 20 Watts! 22 Watts when operating.
>
>
> It's faulty! (or your measurements are)
> Unless it has a solid state disk drive, there is no way the hard drive
> consumes 2W or less!
> Does the hard drive *really* spin in standby mode?

**Oops. First off: I SHOULD have said: I am NOT disputing your points.

Next off: My measurements are not in error. I've measured several devices
from the same manufacturer. Some PVRs and some standalone STBs. All consume
between 16 ~ 20 Watts on standby. Operational power consumption is
marginally more.

The hard drive does not spin in standby. The operational measurement may not
have included hard drive operation. In fact, it is likely that it was not
operational, since the hard drive was not required at the time. I set it to
go to sleep when not required. The likely reason for the extra power
consumption was probably the display.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> The hard drive does not spin in standby. The operational measurement may
not
> have included hard drive operation.

Make that definitely did not, if the figures are accurate as you claim. So
the difference is far more than 2 watts when the drive is actually in use.


>In fact, it is likely that it was not
> operational, since the hard drive was not required at the time. I set it
to
> go to sleep when not required. The likely reason for the extra power
> consumption was probably the display.

Sounds about right.
Now calculate how far you can drive your car for the same emissions as
running the PVR for a year in standby :-)
It does work out to over $20 a year in electricity costs. How much was the
box though?

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
> judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:56:25 -0800, Richard Crowley > wrote:
>"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
>> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
>> judgement I trust.

>You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
>of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
>by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
>people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
>supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
>berg.

Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
never happened.

[Richard Crowley]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:56:25 -0800, Richard Crowley >
> wrote:
>>"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
>>> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
>>> judgement I trust.
>
>>You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
>>of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
>>by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
>>people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
>>supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
>>berg.
>
> Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
> never happened.

and with that you fold

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:32:41 -0800, Richard Crowley > wrote:


>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:56:25 -0800, Richard Crowley >
>> wrote:
>>>"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
>>>> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
>>>> judgement I trust.
>>
>>>You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
>>>of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
>>>by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
>>>people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
>>>supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
>>>berg.
>>
>> Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
>> never happened.

>and with that you fold

No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and into
the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.

[Mr.T]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> >>>> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
> >>>> judgement I trust.
> >>
> >>>You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
> >>>of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
> >>>by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
> >>>people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
> >>>supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
> >>>berg.
> >>
> >> Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
> >> never happened.
>
> >and with that you fold
>
> No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and into
> the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
> accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
> has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
> oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
> easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.


Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving carbon
credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/8/2009 5:58 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and
>> into the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
>> accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
>> has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
>> oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
>> easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.
>
> Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving carbon
> credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
> steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
> Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

Look, Bub, you can't have it both ways. First you sound as if you're
arguing against the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming (OK,
"climate change" if you prefer weasel words), to which I say you're full
of ****, not even worth arguing that.

Then you complain that carbon credits, etc., are a bad idea, to which I
say "Duh!". To show you how I agree with you on this point, and to give
you an amusing little video to watch as well, check this out:

http://storyofstuff.org/capandtrade

[video ~ 10 mins.]

Carbon credits, "cap and trade" all suck. What's needed is strong carbon
*regulation*. (Oh, but we can't have any of that, dontcha know, bad for
business. Who cares that the planet's getting ****ed up in the process?)


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:58:51 +1100, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>> >>>> It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
>> >>>> judgement I trust.
>> >>
>> >>>You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
>> >>>of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
>> >>>by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
>> >>>people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
>> >>>supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
>> >>>berg.
>> >>
>> >> Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
>> >> never happened.
>>
>> >and with that you fold
>>
>> No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and into
>> the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
>> accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
>> has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
>> oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
>> easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.


>Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving carbon
>credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
>steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
>Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

Not my idea. We all agree that pollution is harmless in any quantity.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving
carbon
> > credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
> > steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
> > Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.
>
> Look, Bub, you can't have it both ways. First you sound as if you're
> arguing against the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming (OK,
> "climate change" if you prefer weasel words), to which I say you're full
> of ****, not even worth arguing that.

Where did I say that, you're the one full of ****!
Climate change is a problem not helped by 7+ Billion people all trying to
increase their standard of living whilst steadily increasing the population
on a finite planet.


> Then you complain that carbon credits, etc., are a bad idea, to which I
> say "Duh!". To show you how I agree with you on this point,


I'm glad we agree on something then.


> Carbon credits, "cap and trade" all suck. What's needed is strong carbon
> *regulation*. (Oh, but we can't have any of that, dontcha know, bad for
> business. Who cares that the planet's getting ****ed up in the process?)


What we also need is strong population regulation, but it seems we can't
even talk about that!


MrT.

[Mr.T]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>We all agree that pollution is harmless in any quantity.

We do? You can only speak for yourself of course.

MrT.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:24:24 +1100, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>>We all agree that pollution is harmless in any quantity.

>We do? You can only speak for yourself of course.

>MrT.

Check your mail. I'm sending you a sarcasm detector.