The great standby energy disaster! Redux

[Captain Kidd]

Rather than resurrect a year-old thread, I figured I'd start a new one and link to the original for anybody wanting to brush up on it.
The great standby energy disaster! (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/44738-great-standby-energy-disaster.htm), started by peteshimmon.

Seems they want to do away with standby mode and power guzzlers. Hmm, and get rid of the GDP in favor of a "happiness scale" to measure the nation's success. Heh, I can see the news reports now about the flow and ebb of the Happiness Index.

THE Conservatives will propose banning plasma screens and other energy-guzzling electrical goods in a report to be unveiled next week.

The proposals target white goods like fridges and freezers, as well as TVs, personal computers and DVD players that use too much energy or operate on stand-by.

[snip]

And there could be a ban on electrical goods with stand-by lights which can stay on indefinitely. Some 2 per cent of Britain’s total electricity use is currently taken up by appliances left on stand-by rather than being switched off.

[snip]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already announced his ambition to “eliminate” the stand-by function on appliances, which was blasted by the Government’s energy review last year as a waste of electricity.-The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007420012,00.html)

[Nicolas]

I'm all for appliances that are truly OFF when you switch them off. No standby light and no transformer still on power (feel how hot these get, that heat used to be electricity...)

Instead of having a small standy current to save on memory battery usage, they could switch the apparatus completely OFF and use a rechargeable backup battery that is charged whenever the machine is on. You'd only loose the memory when the machine is off for really long times (years) if the backup battery has enough capacity.

So that would be no more power over the PC's PSU transformer, no more useless blinking lights & other revelations from the web connection, etcetc. And no more biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip tones from equipment (especially CRT's and things with cheap transformers) that are still eating power when switched off.

About banning plasma screens and the like: why not promote the technology which consumes least instead of going for bans? Not really a positive way of handling changing people's lifestyles.

I for one will try to put as much equipment as possible behind true power switches, such that OFF means OFF. Ok so I might loose some data if the backup battery of my synths gets empty, and just maybe I'd have to replace the BIOS battery sooner. Big deal. The synth settings are saved onto PC anyway. I hate it when I'm in bed at night and know I'm paying and polluting while putting things firmly in the "OFF" position. They should label them "LESS ON".

[CodeSlinger]

I don't have any hard facts or figures, but my suspicion is there are other areas where the same amount of effort would produce a lot more in energy savings.

[peteshimmon]

Eeeeee...what a compliment. Stand back a bit
though in case we've got publius started
again:)

[Captain Kidd]

Heh.

I don't have any hard facts or figures, but my suspicion is there are other areas where the same amount of effort would produce a lot more in energy savings.
[In]security lights! Or as I like to call them: all-night bug bars. My mother put one in and every bug in the surrounding fields comes to pay a visit.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

Only 2 %? Why not change light bulbs to energy saving ones? seems like something unnecessary.

[pghnative]

Instead of having a small standy current to save on memory battery usage, they could switch the apparatus completely OFF and use a rechargeable backup battery that is charged whenever the machine is on. You'd only loose the memory when the machine is off for really long times (years) if the backup battery has enough capacity. Um... what's the difference? If you use 10 units of energy per hour, what difference does it make if take that energy from the grid, or take it from a battery, to be replace later by the grid when you turn it on?

I suppose it makes a difference for the small percentage of people whoso batteries die out --- for the number of hours that the battery is dead, (you're not draining 10 units of energy per hour), but I can't believe that that is a high percentage of people.

On a more general note, why not just tax the energy, and let people decide how to spend their money? maybe someone out there wants to ride their bike to work in order to afford the electrical cost of owning a plasma TV.

[Nicolas]

The difference is that the transformer is already on and wasting electricity into heat when the machine is on, so loading a backup accu then is no waste, just extra consumption for the loading itself.

Having the transformer on power while not doing anything except letting the backup battery die less fast makes for hours and hours of a hot transformer just for the sake of that battery. That's the difference. I assume that in many applications the transformer remains hot while not delivering anything at all anyway, just a matter of a line voltage power switch versus a post-transformer switch. That is a real waste!

Re taxing the energy: we already pay for energy, the more we consume the more we pay. What difference would taxing it (more) make?

[cjl]

Rather than reducing usage, why not fix the problem at the source and get rid of as many coal plants as possible in favor of more environmentally friendly options?

It wouldn't matter how much was wasted if the energy was generated by wind, nuclear, or hydro...

[Nicolas]

well, it would still generate some heat but you've got a point :).

But I think that no matter what power source you use, it's always wise to consume only as much as needed.

[pghnative]

Having the transformer on power while not doing anything except letting the backup battery die less fast makes for hours and hours of a hot transformer just for the sake of that battery. That's the difference. I assume that in many applications the transformer remains hot while not delivering anything at all anyway, just a matter of a line voltage power switch versus a post-transformer switch. That is a real waste!Is that really true? i would have assumed the opposite, that the circuitry (transformer and all) do not remain hot while not delivering any current at all.

Re taxing the energy: we already pay for energy, the more we consume the more we pay. What difference would taxing it (more) make? It's a sin tax. The US does this with alcohol, tobacco, and lots of other things -- instead of banning the sin (in this case, sin = use of an appliance deemed an energy waster), you make it more expensive. it gives people more freedom to choose how to live their lives. If one particular "sin" is important to your lifestyle, you cut back on other areas in order to afford what you want.

[Frantic Freddie]

Rather than reducing usage, why not fix the problem at the source and get rid of as many coal plants as possible in favor of more environmentally friendly options?

It wouldn't matter how much was wasted if the energy was generated by wind, nuclear, or hydro...

And who's going to pay for it? Wind power is far from being economically viable at this point,strangling regulations & NIMBY have kept any new nuke plants from being built,coal is about the best option we have right now & even though we could build more & cleaner coal plants (it's one resource we're not short on) it's the same problems that bedevil the nuclear power industry.

[ktesibios]

Is that really true? i would have assumed the opposite, that the circuitry (transformer and all) do not remain hot while not delivering any current at all.

Actually, "iron losses" (due to hysteresis in the core material and eddy current) remain constant irrespective of the load on the transformer secondary. Also, if the power supply ultimately delivers DC, current flows in the secondary even if the load on the DC output is negligible, due to ripple current in the main filter capacitor; this current causes power dissipation due to IR losses in the secondary winding, voltage drop across the rectifier and dissipation in the filter cap (no cap is a perfect energy-storage device- they all have losses).

The mechanisms will be different in a switching power supply, but you will still dissipate power even with the PS unloaded.

[Ronald Brak]

Wind power is far from being economically viable at this point,strangling regulations & NIMBY have kept any new nuke plants from being built,

It depends very much on location and grid characteristics, but there is windpower that is cheaper than nuclear. (When I pointed this out to someone else they said new nuclear power plants will produce cheaper electricity. Hopefully they will, but wind power is expected to drop in price too. Both energy sources have their strengths and weaknesses and are not mutually exclusive.)

[pghnative]

Actually, "iron losses" (due to hysteresis in the core material and eddy current) remain constant irrespective of the load on the transformer secondary. Also, if the power supply ultimately delivers DC, current flows in the secondary even if the load on the DC output is negligible, due to ripple current in the main filter capacitor; this current causes power dissipation due to IR losses in the secondary winding, voltage drop across the rectifier and dissipation in the filter cap (no cap is a perfect energy-storage device- they all have losses).

The mechanisms will be different in a switching power supply, but you will still dissipate power even with the PS unloaded.Interesting -- thanks for the info!