The amount of
power consumed from appliances and such left in
standby mode is certainly
up for debate, but what's not is the fact that they'd all be better off, um,
off. That's according to Spanish inventors who have developed a technology to automatically detect when gadgets fall into standby mode and then
shut 'em off completely; the best (read: differentiating) part, however, is that devices won't have to go through their boot-up sequence again after rising from the grave. Of course, this technology is worthless with devices such as security systems and DVRs, which obviously require at least some power at all times in order to effectively answer the call of duty. Still, the elaborately named Good for You, Good for the Planet is hoping to get its tech into power strips and individual gizmos soon, with one hotel chain in Spain already testing a prototype. Here's hoping these thoughtful entrepreneurs aren't squeezed to death by all of the collective hugging from trees that's surely going down.
[Via
WalletPop, image courtesy of
GavinBell]
posted Dec 2nd 2008 1:25AM
That would be pretty awesome.
go away
1+ seriously, this person is not very smart, trying to ban the real SITEiNK just wont work.
And here I am buying a 1kw power supply...lol
1.2kw Here :)
Way to go eco-unfriendly reader, high five!
"And here I am buying a 1kw power supply...lol"
So are you 'laughing out loud' because you are doing something against what this article is proposing, saving energy? Perhaps you are laughing because it would actually be very difficult to actually use the full 1000 watts that your device claims to support, and could get the same performance from a cheaper, more efficient, and more inexpensive power supply? Perhaps you are too dazzled by BIGGER NUMBERS EQUALS MORE PERFORMANCE. Are you laughing because your increased power consumption costs you more money? Does all that warm air from the exhaust of your PSU make you feel good? Do you realize that an efficent power supply saves you money, exhausts cool air, and is quieter? A duhhhhhh, but 1000 is bigger than 500! That means it's better!
@bot
i suppose we should just go and destroy every sports car next. sometimes bigger numbers just mean more fun.
But before you get too angry and decide to start a communist revolution, bot, manufacturers push their technology and knowledge to the max to produce the best enthusiast products. The knowledge and expertise gained in the design and production of these KW class power supplies can then trickle down to the mainstream and improve the efficiency and performance and reliability and quality of what most normal people use. It's like motor racing, only more people get to buy the product concerned.
And it's damn freezing here, I'd like a huge heater in my room :P
I am scoffing at the (in)efficiency of products that are marketed towards individuals who think that more numbers = more performance when that is not always the case. I don't know too much about motor vehicle performance but I would imagine it's like someone driving a large/inefficient vehicle and thinking they have the best ride in town even though they don't use the vehicle to its full potential and have just wasted their money on something extravagant when they could have gotten by just fine on a lower powered car. It's a weird analogy so I can't do it much justice. But basically my underlying message is that the general consensus is that more numbers is better. Intel did this for a while when they marketed more mhz. AMD on the other hand had a lower clock speed but managed to match or best Intel's speeds while using less power. Nowadays we can see that Intel took note of this and tried to get more performance out of less energy. Regarding power supplies, there are some high quality power supplies that use up their input energy in a much more efficient manner to give you the same performance as a higher rated PSU without having to resort to "World's FIRST 1000W supply" or some such nonsense. The end result is that you're using LESS energy for the same performance.
To tie it all back to the article, there are people that are advancing technology in order to make products more efficient and use less energy but there seems to be people that laugh at this and boast at their unnecessary energy expenditure. What I don't understand is that it's not hurting anyone except themselves.
You're paying more money for a higher rated power supply (that you probably don't need).
You're paying money for having devices plugged in that you're not even using.
What's the point?
A 1000w PSU running at half is capacity will probably run more effieciently than a 500w power supply running at its peak. Having a 1000w PSU doesn't mean you're using the full 1000w anyway, so it's no more inefficient.
The only people on the computing world who waste energy are the ones who leave their machine switched on unnecessarily or have a system with components beyond their needs, like a quad core web browser. That doesn't mean you shouldn't upgrade to save the planet, as newer CPUs are more efficient (if you discount the manufacturing and waste disposal energy cost of old and new components).
I think it's fair to say it's not the consumer who can really make a difference, its the manufacturers.
Actually, everyone in this thread is wrong. Including me.
Forcewinder is wrong because he's using a power-supply intended to be run at 85% for maximum efficiency. That's fine and dandy if he's got a overclocked 65 nm extreme quad-core, several GB of overclocked DDR2, 3SLI 9800 GX2s, and watercooling. Otherwise, there'd be no way he could get even close to 850W. The configuration I just mentioned wouldn't even top 500W under load if you exclude watercooling. Imagine how inefficient your PSU is under idle conditions. Congratulations, you not only told Mother Nature to eat your ass, but you either overpaid for a PSU, built a computer you don't need, or you've got a need for a big server-peen. Probably all three!
andres is wrong because he proposed a false analogy. If anything, the fuel injection system of a car would be the PSU. Putting the fuel injection system of an M3 in an Accord would makes more sense as a parallel. Good job with your fallacy.
bot is wrong about many things.
(1) A higher TDP rating on a PSU doesn't mean much. The power-efficiency graph, voltage to each rail, and general reviews are the criteria by which to judge a PSU's performance (especially the review part).
(2) One SHOULD get a PSU that's rated higher than what's needed. As previously mentioned, PSUs vary in efficiency depending on how much power they put out. 85% is generally where efficiency is highest. Also, the security of having a power cushion is worth the expenditure of energy. Running a PSU above its optimum levels, even if it's below the rated cap, will decrease its lifespan.
(3) "Intel did this for a while when they marketed more mhz. AMD on the other hand had a lower clock speed but managed to match or best Intel's speeds while using less power. Nowadays we can see that Intel took note of this and tried to get more performance out of less energy."
This is the flow of ideas in that "argument."
i. Intel increased clock speeds without performance increase.
ii. AMD bested Intel at the same clock/power-draw.
iii. Intel caught on and increased performance/watt.
Thus, performance, clock speeds, and power usage are entirely unrelated and architecture is all that matters.
This conclusion is in fact right, but I KNOW you didn't intend it that way. It doesn't fit with your argument (aside from the fact it's right and you are wrong).
Stop being butthurt. Go protest racing for making drivers go too fast for conditions. Mobius_1 is right in saying that the innovations from enthusiasts trickle down to mainstream devices. If we didn't have SLR F-1s and F650s, we would never have Nissan GTRs and Tacomas. A top-down approach is just as effective as a bottom-up approach.
And as for me, I'm wrong for having written about why everyone else is wrong, instead of finishing my lab report. I have to hand it in to my TA by nightfall, Tuesday. Yes, nightfall is a legitimate due time.
Oh, and Dup is wrong as well.
A 500W PSU will able to put out 490W, but will do so MUCH less efficiently than a 1000W PSU. Ideally, though, if your build could hit 490W load, you'd want a 600W PSU, not 1000W.
"I think it's fair to say it's not the consumer who can really make a difference, its the manufacturers."
Thanks Charlie Brown. I'll bring up the subject the next time I see Captain Planet and his eco-friendly tights (They use less material!).
If you really want to be "green", turn off your pc.
WANT
ME LIKEY POWER $AVE
$AVE MOTHER EARTH
Man, I say leave my gadgets alone. Save standby power!!
Idiot.
Yeah there are way too many devices on standby. My PS3 has a red light at night along with my DVD player next to it. My coffee machine is always on for no freaking reason. Also, cocks.
Just turn off the power supply.
What's so difficult to walk to the power supply and turn it off?
Damn those cocks. Always up.
meh if i am concerned about electricity i will just hit the power switch on the outlet. that does the job easy enough.
What happened to fujitsu's (it could have been someone else, my memory sucks) little invention that uses a physical relay + a capacitor to store enough power to stay at standby for a few days and flip the relay back on to restore power when needed.
When the capacitor goes flat you have just just use the physical power button to get your device back on.
It doesn't eliminate standby entirely (you do have to charge the capacitor), but it will stop devices from staying in standby mode indefinitely while still keeping regularly used devices within arm's reach. And it means the device draws absolutely zero power once you turn it off, just a tiny bit more when you turn it on to charge up the cap again.
@Norp, anything that provides power has to get it from somewhere. A storage system that is good for a few days has already banked some of your electricity, so no savings there.
@Darren Murph, why so negative? You don't have to hug trees to be worried (a) about your energy budget and (b) the negatives that has for the planet. Why waste just because you can?
The energy needed to recharge a battery or capacitor would be tiny in comparison to the standby power used when directly connected to the mains as there is natural power loss caused by the transformer converting 240v to the 3 or 4v needed to maintain standby. I have thought for a long time that all that is needed is a small battery which keeps the ir sensor powered and then recharges when the power is switched on.
You don't need a transformer to get a few volts, we invented semi-conductors a while ago and there are ways to do it without transformers.
Besides, a small low-capacity secondary transformer can be quite effective.
My point was not that the battery is the only way but simply one way of reducing the power consumption during standby. If secondary transformers can do the same job then fine but it is clear that the manufacturers are not serious about reducing the standby power usage. My Washing Machine is a new A efficiency model and uses around 8 watts even when it is turned off! What on earth is it doing to use that much power?
Keeps the clock running I guess.
We all agree it's currently not done right, but it's been possible for ages to use much much much less power, and they developed FET and IC's to help them decades ago that cost next to nothing, they just don't care to use them until forced I guess, wasn't the EU going to force them? I think I heard news about that.
Spanish inventors? Then why are you showing a British powerstrip?
They are one of the safest plug and sockets around.
Just because they are overly bulky and have a fuse in each plug doesn't make them that more safe, it does it really matter where the actual fuse is when it blows, apart from finding what device went foul and walking to the fusebox to replace/reset, but I guess you could trip along the way.
@Wwhat.
UK plugs are safer due to being more stable in the sockets and also they have a barrier guarding the sockets. There was a famous incident where a french girl was playing with the banana plugs in her dads British made Speakers and killed herself by inserting them into the plug socket. This would not likely to have happened with the British socket as she would have had to lift the internal guard first. However Europe decided that it was the banana plugs (found mostly on British made hifi components) that were dangerous not the stupid euro sockets, even though there are many other things which could just as easily be inserted into a euro socket.
Seems silly, the euro plugs for low power devices like lamps have plastic guards and the tips are metal and are pretty safe because of that, the classical earthed ones are in the shroud when they make contact, the only issue is the flat home sockets can accept the grounded ones and there is a theoretical possibility of shoving something metal in between, but I've never heard of anybody actually getting hurt in that way, of course that might be more tricky in a country where they binge drink I guess :x (just teasing)
I don't get it - isn't this the same as the "Standby Saver" that was on was the Dragon's Den TV series in the UK? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/wherearetheynow/series4/s4e6.shtml
Sounds alot like this
http://www.marksandspencer.com/gp/product/B000VRYXHS/ref=pd_sbs_0/277-6985976-1267504?ie=UTF8&mnSBrand=core
I was thinking exactly the same thing... this was on dragons den!
1. While I'm not suggesting that you should measure a PSU's worth by how much heat it outputs, higher efficiency PSUs put out less heat because they're wasting less energy. Heat comes from wasted energy.
2. Agreed.
3. Umm, what?
i. Increased clock speeds will always improve performance.
ii. AMD found ways to perform the same tasks using the same clockspeed or lower, while using less power.
iii. These days Intel is at the forefront of higher performance/low power consumption.
My point is that cranking up the power and clock speed is not the only way to increase performance, and this is beneficial to both producers and consumers.
The point of my whole argument is that efficiency is good for everyone. It makes a better performing chip, uses less energy, outputs less heat and so requires less cooling (possibility to be more silent).
I'm not 'protesting' against anything except the idea that high power (and inefficient) devices are necessary for good performance. I'm not even protesting that such devices have no place anywhere in society. I just think it's silly for people to use inefficient devices that they're not using to their potential, which you demonstated was the case for 1000W PSUs. And, I'm opposing the attitude that wastefulness is acceptable (because you don't want to be a hippy..) because the only person you're hurting is yourself, by paying more money for a PSU you don't need, and paying for electricity that you're wasting.
I have no clue about any of those vehicles you mentioned, but what I am saying is that it's pointless for someone to buy one of those high performing (and inefficient) vehicles to drive around the block to the grocery store. I'm not saying they should not exist.
Do your lab report.
I know most computers come with timers based around when to enter standby mode - but it'd be nice if there were similar settings for safely shutting down computers entirely after a longer stretch of inactivity. Let's say 1 hour inactive, go to standby. 5 hours inactive, shutdown. That would be really cool. Maybe it exists already and I'm just behind the times. Anybody seen it?
I'm not really sure how this would work well with electronics to kill power at the power strip level... *scratches chin*
http://www.checktap.com check their video demos
Sweetness. I'd pick one up as long as they're not too expensive to replace every strip in our house and just use a separate strip for the DVR. It'd be nice if they had a couple of outlets that did NOT turn off so we could plug devices like DVRs into them alongside the outlets that turn off.
I once ran an experiment at my home where I would trip the breakers to all non-essential circuits except for the refrigerator, the one my alarm clock was on, and the water heater every time I left my home or went to bed. I ran this experiment for a full month to see the impact on my bill.
I saw a disappointing 10% decrease in energy usage which saved me on the order of $3 to $4. I said screw it thereafter. In short, active power consumption >> standby power consumption at my house.
That being said, saving a few watts here and there across say 10^9 homes makes a big difference. Cool technology but be realistic about it. Higher efficiency while active is at least as valuable.