Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Alex Butcher
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:45 am
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:26:02 +0000, Schrodinger wrote:
Quote:
"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505_at_assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.07.21.35.21.912_at_assursys.co.uk...
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:57:35 +0100, John Jordan wrote:
Jon D wrote:
[snip]
Quote:
She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.
I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.
...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.
Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries.
Well, only the iPod will be powered by LiOn cells out of those three
alternatives I gave. The others will probably either be powered from
NiCd/NiMH cells, or most greenly, a carefully-selected wall-wart power
supply that's actually vaguely efficient (unlike the vast majority on the
market, in other words!)
Quote:
They have a limit on how many charges they accept
Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Thus, if you don't use it, you're gonna lose it anyway.
Quote:
and again, what is the carbon cost of manufacturing and getting one to
market if he ends up buying a replacement earlier than he would have
because of not using his mini system?
a) LiOn cells can be replaced, providing you don't mind taking the device
apart, thus eliminating the need to replace the whole device.
b) Most "Green" suggestions, when made for general consumption, are
couched in terms of either switching to use something in a more efficient
manner, switching to another device that you already own, or switching to
a more efficient device, but only when you come to replace the current
device anyway (this latter point is particularly applicable to advice
given regarding cars, due to the large amount of energy consumed in their
manufacture).
Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security:
www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Huge
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:01 am
Jon D <jon_d_at_nomail.com> writes:
Quote:
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
Yes. She seems to have a big down on enjoying oneself.
She's a typical lentilista. And if she's ridden that bike any distance,
I'm Lynford Christie. Perhaps she should eat fewer pies and mind her
own business?
The concept of overall system costs doesn't seem to have crossed her
blubbery little mind, either. A system that costs (say) £5000
and saves £50/year (the rainwater recovery system she wittered on about
in an earlier programme struck me as a good example) simply isn't
worth installing.
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
Chris Jones
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:34 pm
Huge wrote:
Quote:
Jon D <jon_d_at_nomail.com> writes:
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.
Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?
Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?
Yes. She seems to have a big down on enjoying oneself.
She's a typical lentilista. And if she's ridden that bike any distance,
I'm Lynford Christie. Perhaps she should eat fewer pies and mind her
own business?
The concept of overall system costs doesn't seem to have crossed her
blubbery little mind, either. A system that costs (say) £5000
and saves £50/year (the rainwater recovery system she wittered on about
in an earlier programme struck me as a good example) simply isn't
worth installing.
It might be worthwhile for you that she has paid to collect her rainwater
though, since much of the cost of providing water to consumers is probably
paid through the tax system rather than through water meters.
Quote:
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Depends - most computers are chucked out when they still work, because they
become obsolete. There is room to wear them out a bit faster and they
could still be chucked out because they are too slow rather than because
they fail. I am doubtful about the benefits of leaving things on all the
time anyway. I think it depends on the appliance, and the length of time
the thing will be idle. I think that in almost all cases, if something
won't be used for a whole night or a whole day then it is worth switching
it off. The cost of electric power is only partly paid on the electricity
bill, if you have visited some power stations, you get to appreciate this.
Certainly switching things off is way cheaper per Watt than installing
solar panels, and is therefore more deserving of subsidies.
Quote:
Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
But aluminium is always worth recycling. They build aluminium smelters
close to power stations rather than close to bauxite mines, because the
cost of transporting the ore is less than the cost of transporting the
electric power - that shows how much power is used.
Chris
Chris Jones
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:40 pm
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:
Quote:
My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!
Schrodinger wrote:
"Trevor Best" <nospam_at_localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:4346c242$0$930$da0feed9_at_news.zen.co.uk...
Schrodinger wrote:
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.
I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon
of fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.
Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.
My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!
I get 53 mpg (US gallons) or 64mpg (UK gallons) from my diesel car that only
cost me £2500 (about $3000). It runs on biodiesel made from old cooking
fat. I will think of you with a smile every time the fuel price goes up!
I can drive 4 times as far as you! 4 times!!!!
Chris
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:05 pm
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.
Huge wrote:
Quote:
Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT (This post was transmitted in DSB to placate the "Kooks")
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.
Alex Butcher
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:07 pm
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:05:05 +0000, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:
Quote:
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).
Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security:
www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>
Alan Hope
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:16 pm
Alex Butcher goes:
Quote:
Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Gosh. No wonder I didn't recognise your name at the top of the post.
--
AH
Bungee
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 pm
Alex Butcher <alex.butcher.news0505_at_assursys.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:05:05 +0000, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize quality
materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and resources are
spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which wear out
prematurely and cannot be repaired.
As long as purchase prices are low, repair knowledge amongst the general
public is low, and expert labour is expensive, many repairable items
probably won't be repaired anyway. A lot of people take a failure as an
excuse to go out and treat themselves to something newer and shinier. :-/
Personally, I've repaired a broken PSU in a VCR (cost me about 3.50GBP and
an hour of my time) and got my parents' TV working again (required a new
internal fuse - 10 for 1.98GBP in Maplin, and about 20mins of my time).
Best Regards,
Alex.
It isn't just the apparent relative costs. We live in a culture where enquiry
into how things work is actively discouraged along with their repair. This
operates at many levels. Peer pressure on frowns on kids that have had things
fixed by their dads (can't the mean ol' skinflint buy you a new one then).
Schools no longer teach proper engineering skills. The government piles on
steadily more restrictions on what non-tradespeople are allowed to do. Insurance
companies try to weasel out of payments if something ( not even related to the
claim) is not of standard manufacture.
--
Bungee
Huge
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:36 pm
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** <rhyolite_at_nettally.com> writes:
Quote:
Huge wrote:
Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.
Agreed.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:53 pm
Paul Hyett wrote:
Quote:
In uk.media.tv.misc on Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Funfly3 wrote :
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Funny, it thought it *did*. :)
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
800 bit modem?
--
?
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:22 am
Those are made by LUCAS, really V.90, but with all the downtime all you
get is 800 bits!
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Quote:
Paul Hyett wrote:
In uk.media.tv.misc on Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Funfly3 wrote :
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????
Funny, it thought it *did*. :)
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
800 bit modem?
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.
Paul Hyett
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:15 am
In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :
Quote:
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
Trevor Best
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:31 am
Paul Hyett wrote:
Quote:
In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
I started on 2400, but I've heard of 300 baud.
Huge
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:04 am
Trevor Best <nospam_at_localhost.invalid> writes:
Quote:
Paul Hyett wrote:
In uk.media.tv.misc on Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Michael A. Terrell wrote :
It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit
modems, or 50mb HD's.
800 bit modem?
Well, I don't know what speed early modems operated at - I wasn't on-
line then!
I started on 2400, but I've heard of 300 baud.
In 1977, when I started in what became known as IT, our modems were
1200/75 (that is, 1200 baud in one direction and 75 baud in the
other) because that was all the bandwidth the technology of the day
could squeeze out of a 'phone line. The 75 baud back channel allowed
you to reverse the line when you needed the "fast" channel in the
other direction. The modems were the size of a shoe-box, weighed
20 or 30lbs and could only be *rented* from BT.
--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
if
Guest
Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:52 pm
huge_at_ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote in news:di85dl$idp$2_at_anubis.demon.co.uk:
Quote:
There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
This has already been done to death in a recent thread here
(uk.comp.homebuilt) but in a nutshell the conclusion was that any switching
them on and off several times a day makes no difference since computers are
invariably replaced long before the adverse effects of power cycling would
be felt.
There is also evidence that leaving a CRT on continuously (as opposed to
using standby mode or off) will actually cut its life by a factor of 2 or 3
because the tube life is dependent mainly on how many hours it is on, with
the phosphor brightness halving every 10-15000 hours.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
