# New York Times article on "Energy Hogs"



## Stoystown (Jun 13, 2002)

There's an article in the Circuits section of the New York Times today about electronic gadgets and how they suck energy even when you're not using them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/technology/14basics.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin

It mentions Tivo...

_ My TiVo digital video recorder was sucking down about 30 watts when it was not playing or recording a show. A Comcast digital cable set-top box made by Motorola that I tested was drawing about 40 watts. My DVD player was drawing 26 watts while idle, and my audio system  which I rarely turned off  was using 47 watts. This was in addition to the numerous power adapters and chargers, each drawing 1 or 2 watts, not to mention several other devices sipping energy to keep clocks running or to be ready to turn on at the push of a button. _

Compared to some other stuff (the author's "2-gigahertz iMac with a 17-inch monitor" uses 45 watts") 30 watts is not so bad. But it's not stellar either.

Anyone ever try to lower this number? Can it be done easily? Is it worth it?


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

He rarely turns his audio system off? umm start there


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

My TV is turned on less often than it was before I had TiVo, so I'm sure I'm saving a lot of energy that way.

On the other hand, I've been spending a lot more time in front of my computer, posting to TCF...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yeah, TiVo runs on the base-load. One TiVo is no biggie, but when you move to a couple of them, plus a NAS and router and other electronic gizmos, it adds up. I am beginning to think that a low-power computer (<60W) that is a DVR, NAS, router, PBX, and everything all in one is a good deal power and management wise.

I would add, however, that anyone who is still using incadescent light bulbs in a big way is wasting a lot more power than TiVo uses.

The ultimate would be the cablecos doing remote DVRs with end-user thin clients, as the central data centers would be very efficient on a per-user basis. Unfortunately, most content providers won't allow this type of operation.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

My DVD players have a hard line power switch, so their idle draw is zero watts.

My Win98 game system is completely turned off with the power strip.
the workroom TV is also plugged in only when needed.

I unplug chargers when not in use.

My computer monitors have only hard off switches. The only one that supports "soft" off is the one on the Win98 machine, which as said, gets hard powered off.

I mostly turn my computers off when I am done with them.

Although:
With the exception of the Win98 system, the computers are left with power applied (main PSU off, standby PSU on). As is my USB drive. The NAS (and its HDD) and media client is currently de-powered.

The TVs have standby supplies, as does my receiver workroom stereo, and inkjet printer.

Satellite receivers are left on (IMO, savings are minimal for the convenience).
My A/V switch, networking gear (modem, router, switch), IR sender (for my remote extender system) are always powered.

Not to mention the TiVo.

Doable, would be to modify the microwave oven to be dead when not in use.
Its near its EOL, so I won't bother, except maybe to try.

Also, some automatic scheme to turn off the printer and speakers on my main PC.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Stoystown said:


> _ My TiVo digital video recorder was sucking down about 30 watts when it was not playing or recording a show._


Really? And when is that? As long as the TiVo is on, it's *always* recording a show.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Really? And when is that? As long as the TiVo is on, it's *always* recording a show.


The standalone TiVo always records.

The DirecTiVo does not.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Stoystown said:


> There's an article in the Circuits section of the New York Times today about electronic gadgets and how they suck energy even when you're not using them.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/technology/14basics.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin
> 
> ...


I ran a TiVo 595 for a week on Kill-A-Watt unit and the draw is about 21watts. (That will still cost most people about $2.60/month in electricity)


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I am beginning to think that a low-power computer (<60W) that is a DVR, NAS, router, PBX, and everything all in one is a good deal power and management wise.


It seems that there are two classes of devices though- those that are use-seldom and those that are use-continuous. Presumably the cost of hard drives will continue to plummet and folks are going to be filling them up with stuff that they will look at on their TVs. But they will only access them once in a ****'s age. I have a rack of a half dozen hard drives right now, and they all could be spun down, and the clockspeed could be throttled back to virtually nothing. That's why I think the video server needs to be engineered to be able to wake up and respond quickly to directory requests, but for the majority of time be in a near comatose state drawing only enough power for a sentry program to monitor net requests.

On the other hand, maybe when we get our jetpacks, folks will daisy chain esata drives off of DVRs and seldomly accessed shows get moved over to these library volumes so they can be spun down.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

A server could spin its drives down, and stay on, continuing to Fold and serve any requests that may come its way. Looks like TiVo costs me $2.70/mo to run. Not too bad, actually. I thought the number would be higher than lessd's, but then I see he lives in CT too, in the land of 18 cent electricity. Oh well, at least our grid the second cleanest in the country behind, CA.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Well sure- my xp video server is sleeping its hard drives too- I was going for a maximal approach though- EG sticking FreeNAS on a box- it supports wake on net.

But yeah, a multi purpose cpu could be doing a bunch of junk and not require too much power. I used to think there was so much I would do with a CPU that could be up 24/7 dedicated to things other than desktop apps. What I learned was the truth of what Andy Rooney once said:


> Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do don't need to be done.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Thats Andy being Andy. How about bittorrent, an FTP server, a fileserver, a router, a domain controller, an Asterisk PBX, and a DVR in one box using VMs? That would be worth leaving up 24/7. I find FreeNAS and most of the other 24/7 type applications a waste, as they can only do one thing, while drawing a lot of power. Using Windows 2000 on a regular machine, and only having one low power machine up 24/7 would be much better, as it would do everything with one, relatively small carbon footprint.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Thats Andy being Andy. How about bittorrent, an FTP server, a fileserver, a router, a domain controller, an Asterisk PBX, and a DVR in one box using VMs? That would be worth leaving up 24/7. I find FreeNAS and most of the other 24/7 type applications a waste, as they can only do one thing, while drawing a lot of power. Using Windows 2000 on a regular machine, and only having one low power machine up 24/7 would be much better, as it would do everything with one, relatively small carbon footprint.


all in one boxes never stand the test of reliability over time. Even at that you would need a pretty high powered PC to do all those things. Also the NAS example had within it the idea that the NAS would power down when not in use. I think the resting power consumption being made more efficient is the approach needed.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The main problem I have with the Wake on Net proposal is latency. From what I am reading, you should expect 30 second delays for the restart sequence to complete. 

That's a heck of a lot of time to wait while the user is waiting for a PyTivo folder to start work filling up a folder of items.

Hey- sure would be nice if Tivo cached the top level directories on it's disk. What's that- we are talking a few KBs here- it's just text.

Whether than happens or not, on the server side the wake on lan thing will probably suck until it does. Maybe you could make a really really small intermediary controller box that just has some ram and a cpu that answers the directory requests and Wakes on LAn the herking video server.

Anyway, in the meantime the bigg approach of always on for a conventional cpu probably makes the best sense- let it turn off the hard drives and clock the cpu down, but you'd still have the herking power supply necessary for all the drives sitting there burning watts. 

It's not optimal but answers latency. Bigg has a point that it there would be much much huger savings if everyone focused on the incadescent bulbs in the house.

But as for server apps- gee the list is weird and I am surprized you don't have any X10 automation in there like I used to have. But really- I don't know why I need a PBX or some high end router, domain, or name server set up. I know what I could do with Torrent but for me it'll only get interesting when there are as big volumes of legitimate Indie stuff as there are volumes of the uh other stuff. Anyway, I am doing the Ward Cleaver white picket fence thing and have left my outlaw days behind so no thanks. I just TTG or buy and rip using DVDFab Platinum.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

High powered in horsepower, not in energy consumption. A moderm Merom C2d MoDT machine with a PicoPSU would draw about 50 watts when the drives spin down, and would do all of that stuff, which is a lot more than 50 watts worth.

Why would you need a PBX? Let me rephrase that. Who doesn't want little wifi phones with a centralized voicemail system, extensions, a VOIP line tied directly in, and the ability to have voicemail mailed to your email after it is compressed to MP3. And, it would be pretty much free to run it in a VM, and then just get little wifi phones instead of regular cordless phones. You can also use FXS to interface existing phones into the PBX.

Pretty much every TV show, movie, OS, everything is on torrent. Except for the new Leopard beta, 966, which should escape to TPB soon. Why both with ripping and moving stuff around when you can just grab it off of torrent? Torrent is the way!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Cause that stuff you mention available on Torrent is illegal and I have rules about stuff like that.

Maybe not be your rules and I am not laying that on you. It's just not the Ward Cleaver kind of thing to do, and that's my deal.

Well ok. Hollywood claims the ripping is illegal and I do that. So maybe Ward Cleaver with an attitude about liberty with purchased goods.

(btw- the our former posts crossed after I made an additional observation about X10- nothing too relevant though.)


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

When I sit here and read TCF I can look over my shoulder and see the 600 gallon hot tub just outside the glass door which needs to be alone on a 50 amp 220V circuit and has raised my usage by 700-1500 KWh per month.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> The main problem I have with the Wake on Net proposal is latency. From what I am reading, you should expect 30 second delays for the restart sequence to complete.


I think you're used to the abominable behavior of the wrong kind of software. The garbage the *EVIL EMPIRE* a.k.a. Microsoft sells takes forever to enter and exit sleep mode.

But just now I opened up my Powerbook and it took less than 3 seconds to exit sleep. Any box designed with low latency in mind should do much better than 30 seconds to restart.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Wasn't describing a sleep state. I was describing a full system power up- meaning no power supply, no live ram- nothing. The allowance of 30 seconds came from an intel spec for such a hardware WoL. Of course if the system was merely in a low power slumber state common on laptops, it would be a lot faster and probably wouldn't consume that much power. 

Good idea. So when you are done with your powerbook, I'd be happy to take it off your hands for this little project.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> When I sit here and read TCF I can look over my shoulder and see the 600 gallon hot tub just outside the glass door which needs to be alone on a 50 amp 220V circuit and has raised my usage by 700-1500 KWh per month.


yah, we just ordered front loading washer and newer dryer t ogo with it. expect to reduce out carbon footprint a good bit with that. use fans and keep the AC off more and only bulb that comes in the house now is flourescent. PCs go into sleep mode.

I will worry about TiVos energy draw down near the bottom of the list of things that hog power in our house


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yah, we just ordered front loading washer and newer dryer t ogo with it. expect to reduce out carbon footprint a good bit with that. use fans and keep the AC off more and only bulb that comes in the house now is flourescent. PCs go into sleep mode.
> 
> I will worry about TiVos energy draw down near the bottom of the list of things that hog power in our house


Obviously I can make use of the capacity you are freeing up on the grid. Thank you.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> Obviously I can make use of the capacity you are freeing up on the grid. Thank you.


please see my invoice #9 for my transfer of pollution credits to your account.


----------



## Avenger (Mar 26, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> Obviously I can make use of the capacity you are freeing up on the grid. Thank you.


I'm with you. I think that the light from those compact flourescent bulbs is dreadfully ghostly and ugly. Al Gore will have to pry my incandescents from my cold, dead fingers! 

I do ride the kids about leaving lights on in unattended rooms and such -- after all, I'm not made of money. But on the other hand, I just have too busy a life to run around unplugging every wall wart in the house every time I'm not using the device to which it is attached.

I do run a desktop computer 24/7, but I also run a web server, a WAP server, Galleon, and some other stuff on there -- so I think it's worth it. I also run a laptop 24/7, but again,it gets a lot ofuse, and it goes into a sleep mode when not in use, so I do what I can there to minimize use. For me, it's not as much about carbon footprints and all of that as it is just not getting slammed on my electric bill.

But I'm not afraid to use electrical power when I want to. I'm not one of those people who responds to calls to shut off my AC when it is 95 degrees out because it will help reduce smog. To my way of thinking, 95 degree days are the REASON I have AC.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Avenger said:


> But I'm not afraid to use electrical power when I want to. I'm not one of those people who responds to calls to shut off my AC when it is 95 degrees out because it will help reduce smog. To my way of thinking, 95 degree days are the REASON I have AC.


yah, by using the AC less we use it exactly on those days we need it like when the outside temp is climbing to 90. Now e had the wierd recent heat wave in the south where it hit like 80 and the hosue would be uncomfrotable in the afternoon. Instead of turning on AC though we opened the windows and turned on ceiling fans. Got some nice fresh air in the hosue as a bonus.


----------



## BurnBaby (Sep 21, 2007)

This may be a stupid question...is there an energy savings when you leave the Tivo in standby and if so how much? I've never used standby before, haven't had the unit that long.



Avenger said:


> I'm with you. I think that the light from those compact flourescent bulbs is dreadfully ghostly and ugly. Al Gore will have to pry my incandescents from my cold, dead fingers!


Most of them are horribly green but they do make some warm-tone flourescent bulbs. I have one in my kitchen (it's by MaxLite) and it's absolutely great whereas the other greenish one I tried is sitting somewhere collecting dust.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

BurnBaby said:


> This may be a stupid question...is there an energy savings when you leave the Tivo in standby and if so how much? I've never used standby before, haven't had the unit that long.


The conventional wisdom is that there's no savings that you'd be able to measure.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Bigg said:


> A server could spin its drives down, and stay on, continuing to Fold


You do realize that "folding" pushes the CPU to 100% utilization, drawing more power for the CPU and more power to cool it? On my own machine, I can hear the fans spinning up from almost nothing to a fierce roar when the machine is doing anything CPU-intensive for very long. This is why I don't participate in any distributed computing projects anymore.


----------



## BurnBaby (Sep 21, 2007)

pdhenry said:


> The conventional wisdom is that there's no savings that you'd be able to measure.


Thanks.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

Avenger said:


> I'm with you. I think that the light from those compact flourescent bulbs is dreadfully ghostly and ugly. Al Gore will have to pry my incandescents from my cold, dead fingers!


While the rest of your post was quite reasonable - do what you can with the kids and everything - but not going to put yourself at a major inconvenience to do so - this part is kinda silly. You can buy CFLs with any variety of light 'temperature' (which is the 'color' of the light). 'Yellowish' is typical indoor lighting while outdoor style light is considered 'blueish'. Just fine the right CFL to match what you want, just like you can do with incandescents. You can also find a wide range of lumens - the brightness of the light - which is likewise true of incandescents. Find CFLs that match the specs of the incandescents that you like, and you will have the same quality of light - and you will save a lot of money in the process.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> The standalone TiVo always records.
> 
> The DirecTiVo does not.


My DirecTivo is always recording the live buffers. I can walk into the room at anytime and back the buffer up to see something I missed.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> You do realize that "folding" pushes the CPU to 100% utilization, drawing more power for the CPU and more power to cool it? On my own machine, I can hear the fans spinning up from almost nothing to a fierce roar when the machine is doing anything CPU-intensive for very long. This is why I don't participate in any distributed computing projects anymore.


Yeah, I started running [email protected] again and walked away and came back when it sounded like my hard drive was eating itself.

Turned out it was just the fans.


----------



## got197 (Jan 25, 2007)

fredct said:


> ...Find CFLs that match the specs of the incandescents that you like, and you will have the same quality of light ...


I have never seen a fluorescent with the pleasant light that comes from a halogen or an incandescent.



> ...and you will save a lot of money in the process.


I can buy 4 incandescent bulbs for a dollar but florescent bulbs cost a dollar each. Then there's the extra cost that's never talked about (in the form of higher taxes to run inefficient gov't programs probably) of disposing and processing of the old bulbs since they all have trace amounts of mercury in them. Incandescents are harmless and provide efficient heat for the room while they give their excellent light, too.

Watch out for enviro-communists. They won't be happy until only the rich can afford electricity because then Gaia (sacred Mother Earth) will be safe from terrible humans.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

got197 said:


> Watch out for enviro-communists. They won't be happy until only the rich can afford electricity because then Gaia (sacred Mother Earth) will be safe from terrible humans.


welcome to the forum. Loks like you will provide some extra diversity which is always good for a discussion.

PS - I had incandescents in my garage that were supposed to be long lasting - max was 2 months. I put in a flourescent 6 months ago and it is still going strong. You do get a longer life out of each flourescent


----------



## got197 (Jan 25, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> welcome to the forum. Loks like you will provide some extra diversity which is always good for a discussion.


haha, thanks. Yeah, I am getting tired of all this enviro-hysteria and the closet communists trying to take away our freedoms getting free reign to spread communists groundwork ideals while no one in the main stream speaks up. So I decided to speak about it.



> PS - I had incandescents in my garage that were supposed to be long lasting - max was 2 months. I put in a flourescent 6 months ago and it is still going strong. You do get a longer life out of each flourescent.


In cold environments incandescents don't last as long as normal, and in vibration heavy environments (like basement ceilings with a garage door openers) incandescents are prone to break due to the vibrations. But even in normal environments if they last 4 times as long (to make up for the 4 times higher purchase price) then that's 4 times as long with ugly harsh light. For most situations I'll gladly spend a few extra cents per year for the good pleasant lighting.

Still, I have a few of them in my basement too. I spoke up because it seems like everyday there's another article or study that comes out warning impending doom if we don't stop using incandescent bulbs and running our Tivos and driving family size minivans and SUVs, etc, etc. They're teaching us that we should be riding the bus and start passing laws to "correct" people's "irresponsible" behavior or we're going to kill our children and all the fish and the poor animals. Exaggerated hippie communist bs :down:.

(taking a breath)...


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

got197 said:


> I have never seen a fluorescent with the pleasant light that comes from a halogen or an incandescent.
> I can buy 4 incandescent bulbs for a dollar but florescent bulbs cost a dollar each. Then there's the extra cost that's never talked about (in the form of higher taxes to run inefficient gov't programs probably) of disposing and processing of the old bulbs since they all have trace amounts of mercury in them. Incandescents are harmless and provide efficient heat for the room while they give their excellent light, too.


Light quality is a matter of opinion. I prefer the fluorescents. I've got two rooms with dimmer switches, and I keep incandescents in them, but I've got CFL's most other places.

If the light from a CFL is too bright and too white for what you're looking for in a room, putting it in a lamp with a lampshade, or a fixture that reflects off the ceiling.

FWIW, a CFL that is simply thrown in the trash when it's done still results in less mercury pollution than an incandescent. The number one source of mercury pollution is coal fired power plants. The mercury in a CFL is less than the mercury released by a power plant to produce the extra power needed to produce the same amount of light from an incandescent. I'm not suggesting throwing CFL's out with regular trash, btw. There are ways to dispose of them properly without any cost. My town has an E-waste pickup once a year in which electronic waste is taken for free and recycled. I keep a box beside the spare bulbs for keeping the burned-out ones. In a year, I accumulate 3 or 4 dead bulbs from my entire house (or 6 or 8 when I've forgotten a year), and dispose of them then.


----------



## joneSi (Mar 28, 2004)

got197 said:


> Watch out for enviro-communists. They won't be happy until only the rich can afford electricity because then Gaia (sacred Mother Earth) will be safe from terrible humans.


While I will refrain from using the same words, I will tend to agree that some people are overly 'ambitious' about their energy goals (and I'm still confused why it is OK for Al Gore to fly around the world in a Gulfstream but I'm not supposed to drive my SUV).

I would like to see what the lifetime cost of a new bulb is vs the old school bulbs. I did a little searching around and can't seem to find anything that is definitive for the overall lifetime of bulbs, etc.

I've been getting into Java programming (in School again FULL TIME after graduating with a BA in 'tomfoolery'  from U of Iowa) and I may try to work out a Java program to find out the cost benefit that -would- be FUN :up:.....

joneSi


----------



## got197 (Jan 25, 2007)

CrashHD said:


> Light quality is a matter of opinion. I prefer the fluorescents.


 I have actually never heard of anyone prefering the light from a floresent over incadencent. Guess it figures some people would.



> If the light from a CFL is ... too white for what you're looking for in a room


 It is too harsh somehow, not too white. I actually like the white light that halogen bulbs put out.



> FWIW, a CFL that is simply thrown in the trash when it's done still results in less mercury pollution than an incandescent. The number one source of mercury pollution is coal fired power plants. The mercury in a CFL is less than the mercury released by a power plant to produce the extra power needed to produce the same amount of light from an incandescent.


 At least at coal plants all the mercury is released from one place and can be collected and scrubbed, as ever stricter regulations are requiring. Compare that to millions (if the enviro-communists get their way) and millions of mercury containing bulbs being thrown into landfills and breaking inside people's houses, therefore directly contaminating household air and surfaces with very high levels of mercury.



> I'm not suggesting throwing CFL's out with regular trash, btw. There are ways to dispose of them properly without any cost. My town has an E-waste pickup once a year in which electronic waste is taken for free and recycled.


 "without any cost"? "free"?? Nothing's free. It is paid for by taxes, fees, licenses, etc. if the gov't pays for it. (and gov't operations are always very inefficient, so you know there's all kinds of wasted money making the "free" pickups and disposals happen)

I want clean air, water, land just like everybody else, but how about we start getting out constructive messages, like: 
Don't litter.
Don't destroy things of value because that wastes money.
Refuse to buy products where there is entirely too much packaging.
Etc.
And, oh yeah, it is because of America (and the American way) that the whole world's standard of living is as high as it is. This is the one the hippie-enviro-commies hate because they think we should live in a big commune where everybody shares everything and just loves one another. What most people don't understand is that if humans did things their way we'd still be cooking over campfires and using stone tools because there would be no profit motive to spur individuals to research, develop, and improve things. I won't say anything about the "make love not war" idiocy. (except that, )


----------



## jfelbab (Jan 18, 2002)

FWIW

Apple has an energy calculator page where you can see what energy is used by various models.

As an example my 24" iMac would cost me $123 to run on a 24x7 basis with no energy saving mode. Assuming I only use the computer for 6 hours a day and allow the computer to sleep the other 18 hours it would cost me $33 for the year. In sleep mode, the Mac uses between 0.2 watts and 0.4 watts. 

Other items in my home:

My HP inkjet draws 4 watts in standby sleep mode and 25 watts while printing.

My Pioneer plasma draws 300 watts. 

My DVR draws about 25 watts.

My Denon surround sound receiver draws 650 watts. 

Fortunately my plasma and surround sound help heat the home in the winter months.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

jfelbab said:


> My Denon surround sound receiver draws 650 watts.


You sure about that? Have you measured it w/something like a Kill-A-Watt (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html) ? I doubt it'd actually pull that much unless it was playing a continuous low frequency tone on all its speakers.

I posted some of the readings I got from various things around the house at http://priuschat.com/forums/showpost.php?p=227651&postcount=17.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

got197 said:


> I have actually never heard of anyone prefering the light from a floresent over incadencent. Guess it figures some people would.


I found a way to use them that suits me. I have a 12 watt lamp on a coffeetable in the corner of several rooms. In the corner of the room, with only a 12 watt bulb, gives a nice, gentle, ambient light. In an ordinary overhead fixture (e.g. ceiling fan fixture), they're too harsh except for the times when I want the room brightly lit. One of the 12 watt lamps I leave on 24/7 (light to the bathroom...I will waste power to save stubbed toes!). The other thing about the fluorescensts is that some of the flicker in sync with the AC line frequency. Some people find that bothersome. I've only noticed it if I bought a cheap, generic brand bulb.



got197 said:


> At least at coal plants all the mercury is released from one place and can be collected and scrubbed, as ever stricter regulations are requiring. Compare that to millions (if the enviro-communists get their way) and millions of mercury containing bulbs being thrown into landfills and breaking inside people's houses, therefore directly contaminating household air and surfaces with very high levels of mercury.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_(en).svg
Scrubbers are not 100% efficient. I would think the emmissions figure refers to what gets past the scrubbers, but I haven't researched it that in depth, so I don't know for certain.


got197 said:


> "without any cost"? "free"?? Nothing's free. It is paid for by taxes, fees, licenses, etc. if the gov't pays for it. (and gov't operations are always very inefficient, so you know there's all kinds of wasted money making the "free" pickups and disposals happen)


Then throw it away. Still less mercury in the environment.FWIW, if the government money wasn't wasted on a recycling program, it would just be wasted somewhere else, so in my opinion, the "government waste" argument is moot.


got197 said:


> I want clean air, water, land just like everybody else, but how about we start getting out constructive messages, like:
> Don't litter.
> Don't destroy things of value because that wastes money.
> Refuse to buy products where there is entirely too much packaging.
> ...


Those are a lot of good ideas. There's a lot of common sense in them. There's not enough of that these days


got197 said:


> This is the one the hippie-enviro-commies hate because they think we should live in a big commune where everybody shares everything and just loves one another. What most people don't understand is that if humans did things their way we'd still be cooking over campfires and using stone tools because there would be no profit motive to spur individuals to research, develop, and improve things. I won't say anything about the "make love not war" idiocy. (except that, )


The funny thing about the environazi's is that if their message wasn't so damn extreme, more people might actually give their message some serious thought. I think the answer is (like most things) somewhere in between the extremes. The environazis are wrong, they went too far. The world is not going to be underwater by 2020, and nobody wants to give up electricity and live in mud huts. Trees are made of wood, and wood is for building. Animals are made of meat and meat is for eating, and if we make a little more war and a little less love...well, there's less of a population using up limited resources that way. 
The folks who think it's not necessary to do anything, they can just do what they want, as wastefully as they want. Well, they don't have the right idea either.
The bottom line is, if people would just use a little more common sense with regard to not being wasteful (like the ideas you mentioned), that's all it takes. Unfortunately, common sense is all too uncommon in the world today.

BTW, if you have a strong preference for incandescents , buy a case of them. I believe they're going to be phased out in the next few years. I plan to pick up one or two cases before that happens, so I have a supply for the few places where I don't like CFL's.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

CrashHD said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_(en).svg
> Scrubbers are not 100% efficient. I would think the emmissions figure refers to what gets past the scrubbers, but I haven't researched it that in depth, so I don't know for certain.Then throw it away. Still less mercury in the environment.FWIW, if the government money wasn't wasted on a recycling program, it would just be wasted somewhere else, so in my opinion, the "government waste" argument is moot.


That line of thinking is helps further the ever expanding waste in government. We as a people need to speak out against it in all forms and continue to educate others that "free" isn't really "free."


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

SnakeEyes said:


> That line of thinking is helps further the ever expanding waste in government. We as a people need to speak out against it in all forms and continue to educate others that "free" isn't really "free."


I did not intend to express an apathetic attitude toward wasteful government spending, although having re-read that post, I think that's what it sounded like I meant. 
To clarify, I find wasteful government spending to be as undesirable as the wasteful use of anything (for example, the current discussion of wasteful use of energy and resources). My point was, the fact that the government spends inefficiently to provide a service should not be a reason to abstain from using that service.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

got197 said:


> I can buy 4 incandescent bulbs for a dollar but florescent bulbs cost a dollar each.


Florescents last 5-10x longer. I've been using them in most things for a couple years and have yet to have one die. So, the incandescents costs less up front, but after you look at life span, the cost is pretty similar.

*And*, a single bulb can save you as much as $1/month on electricity costs - which makes the bulb cost relatively totally meaningless.

No, that's not an exaggeration. CFLs typically use a bit over 1/4 of the wattage of an equivalent incandescent - say, 100 W is equal to 27. But lets round up to 1/3 - that a 100W incandescent is replaced by a 33W CFL (so this will underestimate savings).

Lets say you use the bulb 5 hours/day, for 6 days a week (eliminating a day to round savings down again). And for 4 weeks per month (ignoring the fact that a month is 4 weeks + 2 or 3 days).

That's:
(67W*5*6*4) = 8040 watthours/month
= 8.04 kWh

And lets say $0.12/kWh = 96.48 cents

... each and every month ...

Even a CFL that costs $5 will pay itself back in half a year, and save you $10+ each year thereafter. Even one that costs $10 is a very good return-on-investment.

So ignoring all the environmental stuff, CFLs make a ton of sense monetarily. Why do you think every office building you've ever been in is lit solely by flourescent lighting. They save tens-of-thousands of dollars per month (in a large building) by doing so.



> Then there's the extra cost that's never talked about (in the form of higher taxes to run inefficient gov't programs probably) of disposing and processing of the old bulbs since they all have trace amounts of mercury in them. Incandescents are harmless and provide efficient heat for the room while they give their excellent light, too.


The discussion on the mercury release from coal power plants has been well covered here. Fact is, the escaping mercury is still similar to or higher than that in a CFL. But I find more interesting your fundamental assumption that any program is inherently inefficient just because. In reality, many of these are run by private contractors anyway, even if your town choses to pay them on your behalf. While CFL recycling is one area that's just getting underway, give it time and it will become much more common as the need grows.

Speaking of inefficient, incandescents actually provide *inefficient* heat . Now that may be good in the winter, but it ups your bills in the summer. Its certainly not a win - at the very best its a break even/non-factor.

As far as the color/quality, that's the one thing that is personal and I can't factually talk towards, but I do encourage you to learn about light color, as specified in degrees Kelvin, and find the bulb that matches what you like. It may be a slightly different quality than you're used to, but I have little doubt that after a short time, you won't notice it, and you'll be saving lotsa cash in the process.


----------



## jfelbab (Jan 18, 2002)

I've tried CFL bulbs on several different occasions and threw them all out. The color, which was really crap BTW, I could probably learn to live with. The slow warm-up and low light output I cannot. Nor can I believe their claimed long life.

I tried them in my lower level workshop and they took 5-10 minutes to come up to reasonable brightness and never did come up to what a simple 60w incandescent did. This is a cool (60°) workshop but not really what you would call cold. I want to be able to walk into a room, turn on a light and be able to see immediately, not to have to go sit down and wait for 5-10 minutes before I can safely see to enter the room. In fact I have yet to see a CFL that claimed to be equivalent to a specific wattage measure up to the light given from the incandescent. The last CFLs I bought from GE claims to be equivalent to 60 watt incandescent and they look more like 25 watt to me. Big steaming POS, IMHO. I'll doubt I'll ever buy another.

I next tried them in my garage door openers. One brand of CFL (CNA) actually interfered with the receiver for the opener. In the other the CFL burned out after about two weeks. In speaking with the garage door opener manufacturer, (Liftmaster) they specifically told me not to use CFLs in the opener due to radio frequency interference and vibration issues shortening the CFL life.

From what I have read, the claimed long life of CFLs is based on long "on" times and repeated short interval "on/off" cycles shorten it's life considerably. Their light output also reportedly falls off after about half the claimed life.

While CFLs may save money, I can't stand them and won't be using them. I've been watching LED lighting but haven't found them affordable yet as a replacement but this technology shows promise.

I've tried CFL's from CNA, Feit, Philips, GE and Lights of America. If anyone has found a better brand that reached it's claimed output quickly (if ever) and has a warm light, and can stand vibration and can hold up to many short cycles let me know.

One last rant. I tried putting a CFL in my outdoor pole lamp and the damn thing won't even light up if it is below freezing outside. For my needs, CFLs are a useless POS. Total crap. Ask me and I'll tell you how I really feel about CFL's :down:


----------



## Chester_Lampwick (Jul 19, 2004)

Got a survey call from Ontario Power Authority yesterday. They asked me if I had bought CFLs, timers, power strips with timers, T8 light fixtures, energy star something or others etc.

What I was really hoping was a forum to ask questions to them! How come we've opened the market to many different resellers, but these companies don't ver have to produce a single watt for themselves? Why are we asked to reduce power consumption in the summer peak time? Seems to me if the cost per kw/hr fluctuates with the demand, but my meter isn't an instantaneous one, why wouldn't I keep my A/C off all month but use it even more heavily during a heatwave. I must be paying an averaged price.... Why am I asked to sacrifice for their lack of supply? Didn't they know that air-conditioning waas going to be more and more popular? Seems cellular phone companies recognized a similar boom. Could you imagine McDonalds raising prices at lunch due to high demand? Or asking us to downsize?

I'm all for conservation, but let's come by it honestly, due to consumer demand...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jfelbab said:


> I tried them in my lower level workshop and they took 5-10 minutes to come up to reasonable brightness and never did come up to what a simple 60w incandescent did. This is a cool (60°) workshop but not really what you would call cold.


I have a flourescent light bought off the shelf at Lowes in my garage overhead light. It takes it maybe 2 -3 seconds to come on and is at full brightness. this is even now in Winter when the garage is 60 or colder. The bulb has already lasted 3 times longer than any incandescent bulb I had out there. amybe you should shop at Lowes 

Sometimes it is on for 2 minutes, sometimes people forget and the light stays on all night and into next day


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> My DirecTivo is always recording the live buffers. I can walk into the room at anytime and back the buffer up to see something I missed.


If you put the DirecTiVo into standby the buffer stops recording. (And since it doesn't dump the old buffer, just stops recording while in standby, when you take it out of standby you get the odd effect of having a 30 minute buffer mostly filled with stuff from hours/days ago)

A standalone keeps recording the buffer even in standby.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

CFL lamps are not appropriate for short duty cycle applications. But those I've installed in my kitchen overhead lamp come on instantly with a light color indistinguishable from incandescents. If I didn't tell you they were CFL you wouldn't know. They're even dimmable (to a limited degree.)

I'll agree than there are a lot of CFLs out there that start slowly and have poor light quality, but that seems to be confined to the low end of the market.

I don't know how CFLs deal with vibration - I'd expect it to be better than incandescents. But some CFLs are picky about orientation in the socket.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

Make sure any CFL you buy has an energy star label - that way its guaranteed to meet minimum warm up requirements (and most are much better). If you're dealing with bulbs that take minutes to warm up, you're buying low end ****. I wouldn't be surprised if the same brands has different lines for different price points - so its not just the brand. You may have to get the $5 bulbs instead of the $1 ones - but it'll still save you plenty (and return it if you don't like it).

CFLs don't serve much of a savings in short-life situations (i.e. garage doors, or other lights you have on for a minute or two at a time). My #s above were based on ~5 hours/day, 28 days a month, usage. You can quarter that and still get decent savings, but if its on for 10 minutes a day, there's no much point.

CFLs don't work as well in cold and vibrations. And yes, their life in shortened by frequent on/off... but guess what, so are incandescents, and your computer, and TiVo. All of which makes a garage basically the worst possible place for them.

As for light color:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_color

If anyone still has the packaging for any CFLs that they have considered good, please feel free to share the info for others.


----------



## Larry in TN (Jun 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I would add, however, that anyone who is still using incadescent light bulbs in a big way is wasting a lot more power than TiVo uses.


I use CF bulbs on all of my outside lights (saving about 10KWh per night) but I don't use them in the house. In order for me to use them in the house I need to big improvements two areas:

1. Full brightness immediately when turned on, and

2. Full range dimming


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

All this talk about CFLs is interersting, but not germaine to the N.Y. Times article about power-hungry gadgets that consume energy when not being used. My S3 draws around 40 watts, IIRC, and I don't see any way of lowering that given the way it functions. My TV has an auto-poweroff feature that turns the set off (5-10 watts) after 3 hours with no input.

My computers are configured to hibernate after a couple hours, which doesn't always work right for the Media Center PC. There are progams which inhibit the sleep mode.

At work, the charger for my cell phone is plugged into a power strip and I only turn it on when actually charging the phone.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I could see it being useful that the Standby mode actually lowered power consumption, including spinning down the disks. This would require a significant rework of the TiVo software and maybe even the OS so that it didn't keep waking up frequently.

Your refrigerator doesn't turn off when you close the door...


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

vman41 said:


> At work, the charger for my cell phone is plugged into a power strip and I only turn it on when actually charging the phone.


I saw somewhere (eta:Link) a powerstrip with a USB connection - it shuts off the strip when the computer is powered down. This would be useful for this type of application (and would also get PDA/iPod chargers and speaker power adapters as well)


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

stevel said:


> But those I've installed in my kitchen overhead lamp come on instantly with a light color indistinguishable from incandescents. If I didn't tell you they were CFL you wouldn't know. They're even dimmable (to a limited degree.)


I have a Par 38 dimmable in my kitchen that I'm testing before I replace the other 10. It "cuts off" early when dimming compared to the incandescents and has started to hum more as it's gotten older (I've had it maybe 3 months).

I'm still not 100% sold on CFLs being ready for primetime when it comes to dimmable fixtures. I'll probably try another brand before giving up for now.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

stevel said:


> Your refrigerator doesn't turn off when you close the door...


But it certainly has to work less hard to do its assigned job of keeping the things inside cold.

I put my Kill-A-Watt on my 21 CF refrigerator recently and the average for a couple hundred hours was 43 watts. I wanted to see if it had lost any efficiency in the 2 years I've had it and it actually improved 10-15% (more stuff inside to stabilize the cooling cycle or possibly lower humidity).


----------



## jfelbab (Jan 18, 2002)

Playing with my Kill-A-Watt too.

Main Fridge (4 year old GE Profile cabinet model) = 320 watts (EnergyStar)
Second fridge (2year old Amana) = 141 watts (EnergyStar)
Chest Freezer (3 years old Amana) = 56 watts (EnergyStar)
Wine Fridge (100 bottle dual temperature)= 289 watts (EnergyStar)
Whirlpool 75 pint Dehumidifier = 272 watts (EnergyStar)
Old Kenmore 60 pint dehumidifier = 724 watts (now replaced)

I live in a 4 year old, fairly energy efficient, 3,600 sq ft. home. Last year I spent the $1092 on electricity. All appliances are now EnergyStar units.

$243 for food storage
$183 for Central Air and ceiling fans
$174 for lighting
$79 for pumps
$59 for cooking
$43 for hot water
$19 for heating (furnace blower)
$292 unspecified

and $848 on natural gas.
$682 for heating
$166 for hot water

My biggest single area for saving is in my heating (natural gas). I have three heating zones and have yet to set their programable thermostats. I need to get at that but they are a bear to program.

When it comes to lighting I spend $174 a year. If I converted to CFL (LOL, like that will never happen) I could maybe save $100. That would be ofset by the added medical costs for me having an accident while wakling around in the semi-darkness waiting for the CFL to warm up. 

I still have some more Kill-A-Watt measurements to make. But I have to draw some measure of what I will put up with to save a buck. Right now I am not motivated to do any more.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> If you put the DirecTiVo into standby the buffer stops recording. (And since it doesn't dump the old buffer, just stops recording while in standby, when you take it out of standby you get the odd effect of having a 30 minute buffer mostly filled with stuff from hours/days ago)
> 
> A standalone keeps recording the buffer even in standby.


Yes, but we weren't talking about a Tivo in standby. The original message clearly said when the Tivo was ON.


----------

