That isnt available to enough countrys to be able to provide the bulk of their base load power.
Cant provide anything like what any modern first world country needs.
matches between sources and loads.
The entire power system of a modern first world country is never about that anymore. Its actually about using the entire system to help with the deficiencys of all of those allegedly green power sources.
how much water? call it about a gallon. This is an very large amount of water, since when most of us want to boil water in 5 minutes we're talking about coffee/tea water. But hey, it's an easy number.
It takes about 1200 BTU to boil a gallon of water
BTU suck, so the conversion to watts is
1 BTU = 0.3 watt-hours
ergo 1200BTU *.3watt-hrs/btu = 360 watt-hours.
now...let's do the math...
365days x 24 hrs/day 8760 = hours/year
If your LED clock uses 1 watt/hour then it consumes 8760 watt-hours/year. If your stove clock is LED, 1 watt is __very__ conservative and generous to your case.
8760 > 360
THEREFORE: It takes at least 24 times as much energy to run your 1 watt LED clock as to boil a gallon of water.
That's not what the article said. This is: "In the average home, 75% of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off."
That's not saying that 75% of the total electricity use in the home is used to power electronic equipment on standby. It's saying that 75% of the electricity used to power electronic equipment -- which is surely only a fairly small fraction of total use -- is consumed while the equipment is on standby. Seems reasonable to me.
TVs and computers are the main uses of power in the average home? Only if the "average home" doesn't have refrigerators, clothes dryers, air conditioners, furnaces, etc.
See above...removes almost all the issues the greens are complaining about in an economical, reliable form.
'Cause they don't have the energy density and reliability required for replacement of baseload generation on the scale required. Every where I've been the sun still goes down at night when lights are wanted, wind isn't reliable (I just published in earlier thread results of analysis of large wind farm in W KS which is highest US area for wind suitability and it has only produced at less than half installed capacity on average for six years with several _months_ of operation at roughly 20%).
The other sources you listed are even smaller contributors and are even more limited in their availabilities other than waste methane which is, while widely distributed, still a relatively small source.
The problem w/ the "green" plans has always been and remains one of confusing wishing for it to be so w/ making it actually work in practical and economical manner. These all have their place but there is still a need and will always unless there is some truly revolutionary breakthrough for baseload, 24/7 reliable generation.
Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)
That sounds believable, and since you actually measured I'll accept that.
Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks in my kitchen. The only reason my coffee maker has one is that the coffee makers with clocks have an auto-shutoff that I consider a safety freature. I really don't like that there are 2 LEDs on there that do nothing of value, but stay lit all the time.
Again, I'm probably not typical as I only have 1 TV and no cable box or satellite receiver. My stereo receiver stays on 24/7 because it has some issues with powering on after being turned off and is too old to have any sort of standby mode or remote control, but I'll be replacing that one of these days. That receiver also exhibits some elements of poor design, in my opinion. For example it has a pair of lights which indicate a "high blend" function is either on or off. This function is automatic and there is no user control to defeat it, so why do I need a pair of lights to tell me about it? I see a lot of stuff like that which I consider a waste of both materials and power.
Really, I'm pretty much in agreement with you here. 5% sounds reasonable. Even 10% would not surprise me. I just don't like alarmist language and exageration when real facts and reasonable arguments should be enough. And, I will say that you, Jeff, are not who I'm talking about being alarmist.
Just don't turn off a power strip that has a desktop computer plugged into it. The power supply provides +5V Standby to the motherboard's RTC (real time clock) and CMOS RAM (which holds configuration data). When the computer is unplugged (or during a power failure) the small, non-rechargeable, lithium coin cell battery, maintains the RTC and CMOS RAM. Often these are soldered in, not in a battery holder, and difficult to replace. These batteries are not intended to supply power to the RTC and CMOS RAM for long periods of time (unlike computers of 15 years ago where the power supply didn't provide any power when the system was turned off, and they used a much higher capacity battery).
I'm a little surprised where TVs have popped up. If you thought an excess of clocks was bad, you'll hate seeing a TV above the icemaker door on the fridge. I wouldn't be surprised now to see one on the microwave!
It's starting to look like the efficiency gains of appliances is being offset by phantom losses of a plethora of low duty cycle or unnecessary bonus devices.
I don't need or want extra clocks
I'm not exactly sure where receiver technology is these days. Old style receivers throw away a lot of power. The trend is toward energy efficient because they are cheaper to manufacture, less heat sinking and smaller overall size and a smaller power supply. With that said, there's nothing quite like the sound from an old MacIntosh Tube or solid state amp.
Everyone needs some indulgence!
That receiver also exhibits some
The disturbing trend is what is typical. There's an explosion of small electronic devices and an explosion of electronics in all devices, like your coffee maker. So phantom power is on the increase. Radically on the increase.
I think good design can eliminate much of this, and I see that there is a one watt initiative aiming at keeping phantom power per device under one watt.
Thanks. I think we just got of on the wrong foot!
I'm not sure where the future lies, but it seems increasingly obvious that some steps need to be taken. A nearly free lunch like reducing phantom losses through design seems like a good plan.
Personally, I'm more concerned over the big ticket energy users, like heating and air conditioning and lighting.
I think the point being made in this discussion is also how much people are being penny wise and pound (dollar) foolish.
Before one worries about how much electricity is being wasted by LEDs and clocks and small electrics that are in standby (these days it seems nothing is every truly and completely turned off) one should worry how much energy they are wasting in their high-draw devices such as the hot water heater, the refrigerator, the stove, etc.
Once someone has addressed the unnecessary losses there (are you keeping your water heater on too high a setting? are you standing there staring into the 'fridge with the door open thinking about what to eat?) then they should feel free to also eliminate the small losses.
I've seen those. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a joke, but apparently they really are marketing them. I don't know where to start with just how dumb an idea I think that is. Well, I won't be buying one. I did see a prototype some years back where the video screen on the door was to allow you to see inside without opening the door, thus saving energy by not having the door open while browsing, but that's not what seems to have made it to market.
There are a lot "because we can" features on things. Mostly harmless, but often enough it's a small power user. My microwave has a bunch of pre-programmed cooking functions which I will never use, but at least those don't seem to use any power if I ignore them.
Mine's solid state. No way I'd leave a tube amp on 24/7, though I guess the "true audiophiles" do so the tubes stay warm. I assume new stuff uses switching power supplies.
That should be easily achievable if engineers can avoid that tendency they have to add stuff because they think it's cool, without considering if it's really going to be useful and at what cost.
No argument here.
Exactly. Though at lot of the low hanging fruit has been picked in those areas.
Some computers (including the one I'm using right now) still have hard power switches that turn everything off (electrically identical to unplugging).
I think we will see continuous adjustments of lifestyle towards efficiency. A lot of it is right in front of our noses such as driving normal cars instead of big, piggy fluffed up trucks for personal transportation. I good example of that is todays GM announcement that they will be closing their gas guzzler "car" plants.
That's the funniest thing I've heard today, and probably this week!
I don't even have a receiver hooked up. I ran and built sound for a number of years and I'm pretty much over it!
Still, I've been think about getting one of my Dad's old radios up and running. The tubes look like light bulbs and have 2 digit numbers. I think it would be wise to run that rarely.
I assume new stuff
Exactly. Though at lot of the low hanging fruit has been picked in
I still see loads of 8.5 EER non Energy Star AC's on the market. I realize payback can be several years, but I wonder if it isn't in everyone's best interest to get those off the market.
I don't know how this would be implemented but there's a lot of older homes that are poorly insulated. Many with no wall insulation and little attic and underfloor. Those home probably use double or so the energy for poorer results. Perhaps a Habitat for Home Efficiency to rehab these old homes with blown in cellulose. A $400 investment will probably pay for itself in a year or so. I think much of the energy waste is at the top and bottom of the economic spectrum. The bottom is hard to reach and the top end just doesn't care (its that old, "I got mine, screw you"). I have a very wealthy (CEO) friend and his home uses more at idle than mine would if I turned everything on!
You are arguing with someone who would rather hurl insults than ever give a reasoned argument.
There's better things to do with the few minutes of your life than to waste it on Rod. It's not about right or wrong, it's about the futility of arguing with an intractable and simple mindset.
Take a few minutes to read his posting history and see if he doesn't belong in the killfile, not that I advocate killfiling but Rod makes such a good argument in favor.
Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.
No matter how much we can reduce electricity use, no matter how much we generate on-site at home with photo-voltaics, it still makes more sense to generate the remainder using something other than oil, natural gas, or coal.
It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses, and low density population, actually lends itself well to distributed generation. In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per month, including installation, and the monthly savings off your electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run backwards and you'll be selling power back to the utility).
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.