Re: Bollocks: Call to scrap TV standby buttons to help environment

Norman Wells wrote:
In article <e20oot02j8j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cardinal Chunder <cc@xxxxxxx
spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> writes
Norman Wells wrote:
In article <e2014g01fhs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cardinal Chunder <cc@xxxxxxx
spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> writes
Norman Wells wrote:
There are about 40 power stations in the UK, so the most you could save
by turning all the TVs off is one tenth of one power station.
All power stations are not equal. How many coal fired power stations does that power equate to?
One tenth of an average one.
An average what??? Nuclear, coal, oil, wind, hydro, what? Power stations don't all generate the same amount of power. As for the "about 40 power stations", you're off by a long shot. There are in far in excess of 50 power stations with 400MW capacity and twice as many again generating below that figure.

The fact remains that 20 million TVs on standby at 6 watts each for 20
hours a day for a year use well under one quarter of one percent of the
electricity that is generated here in the UK. Even if we saved it all,
it makes bugger all difference.

Yes it would make a difference. Combined with VCRs, DVD players, hi-fis set-top boxes, games consoles, washing machines and every other device that for most of its life has no earthly reason to be consuming scads of power when it is doing nothing.

And that's just TVs in the home. Think of all the regular lightbulbs that are left on. Or businesses that routinely allow PCs, monitors, laser printers, photocopiers, heating, lighting etc. to be left on overnight for no commercial reason whatsoever.
As I've said before, a lot of the energy used in this way is not wasted
since it's all turned to heat, which the heating systems don't have to
compensate for in the morning by burning extra fossil fuel. There's
also the argument that constantly turning electrical things off and on
shortens their life considerably, so more items have to be manufactured,
so more energy, rare metals etc are used, leading to greater global
warming and depletion of resources than if they had been left on
permanently.
That's absurd heat generated by televisions on standby, computer equipment etc. flies out of the window. It benefits no one.

No it doesn't. Why do you think it's all directed out of the window?
It goes into the air, then it goes into the furnishings, the ceiling,
the floor, the walls etc, which all warm up to some extent. Sure, some
will escape through the window. But a lot won't, and it will help keep
the room a little warmer than it would have been without the equipment
being on. For every little bit the room is warmer in the morning, the
heating system has to work a little less hard to bring it back up to a
reasonable temperature, thereby using less fossil fuel.

It's quite simple. Any amount of heat emanating from TV rapidly disappears through the windows, walls, chimney. Even while it is there, a miniscule ambient rise of temperature in the corner of the room is not a justification for having a device on standby. If you want to heat the room, use a heater.

The argument that it shortens the life of equipment is specious.

Then why, for example, do my electric light bulbs always blow when I've
just turned them on? Is this just a false perception in your view?
Because I can assure you it's the reality.

Light bulbs are super heated white-hot filaments. They are not comparable with regular electrical devices. Besides which energy saver bulbs use a fifth of the energy and last longer.

There are a lot of ways that energy could be saved with minimal impact to individuals or businesses. They'd even save money through lower bills.
They're all aware of that. If they choose to do nothing about it,
that's their choice.

The cost of leaving a TV on standby for 20 hours a day over a whole year
is approximately that of a pint of beer.
+ light bulbs, better insulation etc. It all adds up.

Of course it does, but only in tiny bits like quarter percents. Of
which you need an awful lot.

If it were mandatory for all devices that were not on a timer (e.g. to record a programme) to shut themselves off after 1 hours of standby max, then it would be a substantial and tangible saving. Even if devices had an advanced option to disable that behaviour, most people wouldn't change from the defaults.

Even if we ceased using every bit of the electricity generated in the UK
by turning off every single generators tomorrow, China alone (sorry to
repeat this) will by a years time have commissioned at least the
equivalent extra generating capacity.

Again, so what? You seem to assume that because your neighbours are filthy polluting pigs that you exempts you from your own behaviour.

The UK is small beer globally. Forget about it.
Duh, regulating standby power consumption is an intergovernmental initiative. Let's hope there are more of them.

Politicians always like to be seen to be doing something, even if it's
wholly ineffective. This is exactly such a case.

Sometimes legislation is ineffective, sometimes it is very effective. EU legislation mandating maximum standby power consumption and maximum standby times for a range of devices would be extremely effective. Manufacturers would have no choice but to comply.

The whole generating capacity of Britain is a drop in the ocean. We
make no difference whatever we do. Give up. It's futile.
It isn't futile. It means the UK is less dependent on fossil fuels, meaning less pollution, less respiratory diseases, less overheads for businesses.
Not to any meaningful or even detectable degree. China alone is
increasing its electricity generating capacity every 17 hours by as much
as we would save in a year by turning all our TVs off every night. We
just can't compete with that. It isn't even worth trying.
Eh? Who said it was a competition?

The game that is being played here is 'save the planet'. There are
forces of evil out there who, it seems, are hell-bent on destroying it.
The only hope you have is to get the world as a whole to burn less
fossil fuel. Of course it's competitive. If you can't get the rest of
the world to save more than the forces of evil are increasing their use
by, you lose the game. So my comparison is perfectly valid.

Someone has to take the initiative, otherwise no one will.

Since there is no practical point in turning off the TV every night, you
can only be doing it so that you can piously lecture your friends or
anyone else who will listen. But in fact you're impotent, and the
honest approach would be to admit it.
Spare me your "pious lecturing" accusations. I think individual efforts are a waste of time. I'd be quite happy to see governments encourage better consumption through various punitive "polluter pays" initiatives.

Excellent. So you now agree we shouldn't be turning off our TVs at
night.

I don't "now" agree with you at all.

I never said anything about personal responsibility in this regard. Although the reasons you've cited for leaving a device in standby are plain silly.

Whether government legislate or not, it's still worth trying to save energy in the home if for no other reason than having more money to spend.

And you won't be doing yours either, will you?

I turn my TV off at night though sometimes I forget. I certainly wish the thing would shut itself off. The same goes for other devices too.

--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.

Quantcast