Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (but
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (but
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (but
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
On 01/07/2022 19:08, Mark wrote:
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (butI think it can vary but with things like smart Switched Mode PSU's then
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
the 'parasitic drain' is likely to be quite small.
We have an older 40" Panasonic TV that draws around 60W when running but
15W on standby so that's now on a smart socket and automatically powered
down after use.
In contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby it's not worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging stand
shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not saying it is actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on the monitor.
Considering the cost of electricity it might be considered a shrewd investment to get yourself one of the plug-in power meters.
On 01/07/2022 19:26, T i m wrote:
On 01/07/2022 19:08, Mark wrote:
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (butI think it can vary but with things like smart Switched Mode PSU's then
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
the 'parasitic drain' is likely to be quite small.
We have an older 40" Panasonic TV that draws around 60W when running but
15W on standby so that's now on a smart socket and automatically powered
down after use.
Blimey, how old is that?
We had a Panasonic 37" Plasma TV from about 2009, and that used 1W on
standby (although it was 160W in use).
The more recent 43" Samsung 4K we now have uses about the same as yours
in use, but still only about 1W in standby.
In contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby it's not
worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging stand
shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not saying it is
actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on the monitor.
Considering the cost of electricity it might be considered a shrewd
investment to get yourself one of the plug-in power meters.
They're OK, I got one of those years ago, but you can only monitor a
single outlet at a time. Although I did once find I had a Fridge/Freezer
that was on it's last legs, and the amount of energy I saved buying a
new replacement paid for itself in just over a year.
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (but
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
In this report British Gas reckon you can save over £100 by turning off vampire devices!
<https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/consumer-advice/money/a561008/5-appliances-you-should-always-switch-off-to-save-energy/>
On 1 Jul 2022 at 19:08:01 BST, Mark wrote:
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (but
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
A quick/cruel way to find out is see if it gets warm when not in use.
On 01/07/2022 19:26, T i m wrote:
On 01/07/2022 19:08, Mark wrote:
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (butI think it can vary but with things like smart Switched Mode PSU's
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw
power when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the
4-port extension is on...
then the 'parasitic drain' is likely to be quite small.
We have an older 40" Panasonic TV that draws around 60W when running
but 15W on standby so that's now on a smart socket and automatically
powered down after use.
Blimey, how old is that?
We had a Panasonic 37" Plasma TV from about 2009, and that used 1W on
standby (although it was 160W in use).
The more recent 43" Samsung 4K we now have uses about the same as yours
in use, but still only about 1W in standby.
In contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby it's
not worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging stand
shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not saying it
is actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on the monitor.
Considering the cost of electricity it might be considered a shrewd
investment to get yourself one of the plug-in power meters.
They're OK, I got one of those years ago, but you can only monitor a
single outlet at a time. Although I did once find I had a Fridge/Freezer
that was on it's last legs, and the amount of energy I saved buying a
new replacement paid for itself in just over a year.
So yeah, most stuff nowadays will need some power, but is the amount
likely to be of any consequence? Probably not. Turning off a couple of
phone chargers is unlikely to even be noticeable.
Quite. I can monitor (and log) the whole house
power consumption (pulse counting from the std meter) and several
smart sockets and lamps directly. The host I built for said neighbour
also monitors his solar panel output.
But there is nothing stopping you doing a 'Whole home Audit' and getting
a reasonable idea of just how much power some of these things
(especially old things) might be drawing.
On 02/07/2022 07:54, Andy Hewitt wrote:
We have an older 40" Panasonic TV that draws around 60W when running
but 15W on standby so that's now on a smart socket and automatically
powered down after use.
Blimey, how old is that?
'Quite' ;-)
We were given it by a neighbour when he had a TV shuffle around. It's HD
with 4 HDMI inputs and works very well.
We had a Panasonic 37" Plasma TV from about 2009, and that used 1W on
standby (although it was 160W in use).
I have tested several ~40" sets recently and that ~160W running seems to
be fairly common so the 60 of this Panny seems pretty good. Now the
standby is only 1W (the smart socket) I have the best of both worlds. ;-)
The more recent 43" Samsung 4K we now have uses about the same as
yours in use, but still only about 1W in standby.
I would hope that newer / better sets to be more energy efficient.
In contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby it's
not worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging stand
shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not saying it
is actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on the monitor.
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/07/2022 19:26, T i m wrote:
On 01/07/2022 19:08, Mark wrote:
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (butI think it can vary but with things like smart Switched Mode PSU's then
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power >>>> when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
the 'parasitic drain' is likely to be quite small.
We have an older 40" Panasonic TV that draws around 60W when running but >>> 15W on standby so that's now on a smart socket and automatically powered >>> down after use.
Blimey, how old is that?
We had a Panasonic 37" Plasma TV from about 2009, and that used 1W on
standby (although it was 160W in use).
The more recent 43" Samsung 4K we now have uses about the same as yours
in use, but still only about 1W in standby.
In contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby it's not >>> worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging stand
shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not saying it is
actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on the monitor.
Considering the cost of electricity it might be considered a shrewd
investment to get yourself one of the plug-in power meters.
They're OK, I got one of those years ago, but you can only monitor a
single outlet at a time. Although I did once find I had a Fridge/Freezer
that was on it's last legs, and the amount of energy I saved buying a
new replacement paid for itself in just over a year.
In this report British Gas reckon you can save over £100 by turning off vampire devices!
<https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/consumer-advice/money/a561008/5-appliances-you-should-always-switch-off-to-save-energy/>
If the Russian war machine could be turned off we could all save a lot more :(
Those reports never add up in the real world. My calculation is that all
of my stuff on standby combined costs me about £70 per year, but in the >grand scheme of things, it's pittance. If I turned off the few things I
could turn off, it would only reduce that by a very few pounds.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
Those reports never add up in the real world. My calculation is that all
of my stuff on standby combined costs me about £70 per year, but in the
grand scheme of things, it's pittance. If I turned off the few things I
could turn off, it would only reduce that by a very few pounds.
Also, in the winter they are probably reducing your heating bills.
On the other hand, if you live somewhere unreasonably warm, they
increase the air conditioning bills.
I can't turn off the Freeview boxes, for example, as they're set to
record stuff.
I would hope that newer / better sets to be more energy efficient.
Indeed so.
However, based on another reply I made, if it's working fine, does it
help to replace it?
I think I worked out that it would take years to
recover my cost of upgrading just to save energy.
I ended up replacing
it because the screen was starting to degrade.
In contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby it's
not worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging stand
shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not saying it
is actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on the monitor.
I would suspect that's similar for most branded chargers.
[..]
T i m wrote:
[snip]
Quite. I can monitor (and log) the whole house
power consumption (pulse counting from the std meter) and several
smart sockets and lamps directly. The host I built for said neighbour
also monitors his solar panel output.
But there is nothing stopping you doing a 'Whole home Audit' and
getting a reasonable idea of just how much power some of these things
(especially old things) might be drawing.
In 2010 I drew up a spreadsheet to estimate total power consumption. For
each item I listed:
Power rating (from rating plate or manufacturer's data);
Use duration (24/7 or typical hours/day);
Duty cycle (estimated for each device);
... for the following devices:
Pond pump
Computers
Network items: router, switches, etc.
Lights
Oil boiler
Kettle (90 sec, 5 coffees daily)
Cooking: oven & hotplates
Dishwasher
Clothes washing m/c
Fridge
Freezer
TV standby
TV in use
Radio
Electric Lawn mower
The total came to 24.27 kwH/day. The measured amount from a meter
reading for 3 months was actually 21.1 kwH/day - so I think the
estimation technique was pretty accurate.
Furthermore, it was easy to do. I admit to using a power monitor to
measure the power drawn by the compressors in the fridge and freezer -
each over a period of a few days - to give the duty cycle.
The most significant user was the fridge,
followed by the network items
(there are a good many),
computers (typically in use 18 hours/day),
lights,
then the freezer. The 50W pond pump comes next.
Cooking,
laundry and dishwasher all fade into insignificance.
Since then all the lights have been replaced by LED versions, and the
very old fridge has been replaced (because it failed) by a more modern
and efficient one.
Computers have been replaced with more modern versions.
The power drawn has dropped to about 15 kwH/day averaged over the past
couple of years.
The lesson is that it's not the most obvious items which cost the most
to run. I was horrified by the cost of lighting - after all, its
powered over thin cables, not like the cooker!
On 2 Jul 2022 at 07:46:19 BST, Andy Hewitt wrote:
So yeah, most stuff nowadays will need some power, but is the amount
likely to be of any consequence? Probably not. Turning off a couple of
phone chargers is unlikely to even be noticeable.
You'd need to add the fridge and/or freezer if it contributes to your background consumption - they likely outstrip the standby items' consumption.
On consequence, I find this tricky. Yes, it's a small part of overall consumption. However, it's still waste, even taking into account small gains in heat from the devices. And avoidable waste is waste is . . . wrong? So that
side of thing boils down individual morality. I could factor in the cost of convenience, and that would open up a world of pain/possibilities, but this is
literally flipping a switch. So no real hardship if we have to do it.
Then there's scaling. Given it's considered morally acceptable to waste energy
in this way, most of society will tend to do it. Some societies (and even generations - my granny would always turn things off - only partly for safety)
would find it an abhorrent way of thinking. But this is where the British in particular come into our own - we're an individualist/selfish lot, and don't think of wider benefits of our actions. If we were to scale up the benefits - multiply them by 20 million households, it would make a big saving by a range of metrics.
So my Personal Theory (TM) is that it comes down to either laziness or ignorance <sits down>
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
Those reports never add up in the real world. My calculation is that all
of my stuff on standby combined costs me about £70 per year, but in the
grand scheme of things, it's pittance. If I turned off the few things I
could turn off, it would only reduce that by a very few pounds.
Also, in the winter they are probably reducing your heating bills.
On the other hand, if you live somewhere unreasonably warm, they
increase the air conditioning bills.
On 02/07/2022 10:59, Andy Hewitt wrote:
<snip>
I can't turn off the Freeview boxes, for example, as they're set to
record stuff.
I turned off two Topfield 'Freeview PVRs' that drew 25W each and a bit
less when on standby (because they were still running etc) and a video capture card from one PC (also drawing power) and replaced those with
one network TV tuner with 4 dual HD tuners that draws around 10W when
active (and ~2W when on standby). Greater storage capacity than the two Topfields combined, multiple HD tuners when the Topfield had none and
fully 'network enabled' allowing us to share recordings or even view simultaneously (in synch) should we want to. Now, I'm going to predict
none of that would be of any interest to you, you preferring to stick
with the TV you hand crank for fear of being accused of being 'lazy'. ;-)
On 02/07/2022 11:04, Andy Hewitt wrote:
<snip>
I would hope that newer / better sets to be more energy efficient.
Indeed so.
However, based on another reply I made, if it's working fine, does it
help to replace it?
It can be a tricky call.
I had a spare 40" TV (I had been previously given) and I offered it to
our daughter to replace the Sony we got for nothing and repaired by
replacing a single capacitor a few years ago. The newer / cheaper set
had a few more features but none that was any real advantage to the
daughter but drew more power, so we didn't bother.
I think I worked out that it would take years to recover my cost of
upgrading just to save energy.
But the problem with that is if you do those calculations today, we
don't know how long the energy costs will stay at those figures and so
at what point you should 'upgrade' and so how much energy (=money) you
would have wasted in the meantime.
I ended up replacing it because the screen was starting to degrade.
That makes the decision easier. I did similar when needing to replace
the thermostat on our Meriva and to do that you have to release the
cambelt. If you are releasing the cambelt you might as well replace it,
and often a tensioner / idler roller and so because my cambelt was on
the 10 years of the 10 years / 100,000 miles limit, it made the 'cost'
of doing just the thermostat much better value (especially compared with
a new engine, had the cambelt failed due to old age, even if still at
only 75,000 miles).
<sigh> Yes, *the point* wasn't the brand but that it was 'branded' (andIn contrast our 21" Toshiba TV draws so little power on standby
it's not worth worrying about.
A genuine Samsung charger powering a Samsung wireless charging
stand shows 0.0W when the phone isn't on it (if that helps). Not
saying it is actually 0 watts, just below the lowest threshold on
the monitor.
I would suspect that's similar for most branded chargers.
[..]
the branding 'Genuine' etc), just that I happen to have one that was
branded Samsung next to me to measure.
Of course the chances are an Apple branded charger would actually
generate electricity when it was idle ... ;-)
On 02/07/2022 10:40, RJH wrote:
On 2 Jul 2022 at 07:46:19 BST, Andy Hewitt wrote:
So yeah, most stuff nowadays will need some power, but is the amount
likely to be of any consequence? Probably not. Turning off a couple of
phone chargers is unlikely to even be noticeable.
You'd need to add the fridge and/or freezer if it contributes to your
background consumption - they likely outstrip the standby items'
consumption.
On consequence, I find this tricky. Yes, it's a small part of overall
consumption. However, it's still waste, even taking into account small
gains
in heat from the devices. And avoidable waste is waste is . . . wrong?
So that
side of thing boils down individual morality. I could factor in the
cost of
convenience, and that would open up a world of pain/possibilities, but
this is
literally flipping a switch. So no real hardship if we have to do it.
Then there's scaling. Given it's considered morally acceptable to
waste energy
in this way, most of society will tend to do it. Some societies (and even
generations - my granny would always turn things off - only partly for
safety)
would find it an abhorrent way of thinking. But this is where the
British in
particular come into our own - we're an individualist/selfish lot, and
don't
think of wider benefits of our actions. If we were to scale up the
benefits -
multiply them by 20 million households, it would make a big saving by
a range
of metrics.
So my Personal Theory (TM) is that it comes down to either laziness or
ignorance <sits down>
And where it's neither lazy nor (wilfully even) ignorant, it's often
also arrogance, selfishness (as you say) and a sense of entitlement when viewed from the bigger / social picture.
Like, it's suggested that livestock produce as much CO2 (equivalence
etc) than *all* transport, but we *need* transport to transport us and
our food about but we can (for the vast majority in the Western world at least) live on other things than animal based products and where the
science has proven it would be much better for the planet (GW gasses and pollution in general), resource usage (water in particular), human
health (heart disease and antibiotic resistance) along with wildlife extinction due to habitat destruction (due to feeding / grazing the livestock) and going 'plant based' is something we can all do easily, certainly easier than trying to get the government to help people save
energy (and so reduce the national demand for energy so easier to share
what we have out) by helping to insulate our homes better or replacing
IC cars with electric ones (other than for kerbside emissions etc).
But that means people will have to think about the bigger picture and
'what about bacon tho' ... ;-(
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and make
my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier food. Mr
Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet, but
still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
On 02/07/2022 16:30, T i m wrote:
On 02/07/2022 10:59, Andy Hewitt wrote:
<snip>
I can't turn off the Freeview boxes, for example, as they're set to
record stuff.
I turned off two Topfield 'Freeview PVRs' that drew 25W each and a
bit less when on standby (because they were still running etc) and a
video capture card from one PC (also drawing power) and replaced those
with one network TV tuner with 4 dual HD tuners that draws around 10W
when active (and ~2W when on standby). Greater storage capacity than
the two Topfields combined, multiple HD tuners when the Topfield had
none and fully 'network enabled' allowing us to share recordings or
even view simultaneously (in synch) should we want to. Now, I'm going
to predict none of that would be of any interest to you, you
preferring to stick with the TV you hand crank for fear of being
accused of being 'lazy'. ;-)
My Freeview boxes are included in my monitor readings.
I use the TV
boxes I do because the boxes are cheap to buy, and they provide the entertainment that suits our needs.
I fail to see how changing the way I
watch TV is changing anything about the laziness of watching TV in the
first place.
I'm afraid you're failing to see the point there.
On 02/07/2022 17:48, T i m wrote:
On 02/07/2022 10:40, RJH wrote:
On 2 Jul 2022 at 07:46:19 BST, Andy Hewitt wrote:
So yeah, most stuff nowadays will need some power, but is the amount
likely to be of any consequence? Probably not. Turning off a couple of >>>> phone chargers is unlikely to even be noticeable.
You'd need to add the fridge and/or freezer if it contributes to your
background consumption - they likely outstrip the standby items'
consumption.
On consequence, I find this tricky. Yes, it's a small part of overall
consumption. However, it's still waste, even taking into account
small gains
in heat from the devices. And avoidable waste is waste is . . .
wrong? So that
side of thing boils down individual morality. I could factor in the
cost of
convenience, and that would open up a world of pain/possibilities,
but this is
literally flipping a switch. So no real hardship if we have to do it.
Then there's scaling. Given it's considered morally acceptable to
waste energy
in this way, most of society will tend to do it. Some societies (and
even
generations - my granny would always turn things off - only partly
for safety)
would find it an abhorrent way of thinking. But this is where the
British in
particular come into our own - we're an individualist/selfish lot,
and don't
think of wider benefits of our actions. If we were to scale up the
benefits -
multiply them by 20 million households, it would make a big saving by
a range
of metrics.
So my Personal Theory (TM) is that it comes down to either laziness or
ignorance <sits down>
And where it's neither lazy nor (wilfully even) ignorant, it's often
also arrogance, selfishness (as you say) and a sense of entitlement
when viewed from the bigger / social picture.
Like, it's suggested that livestock produce as much CO2 (equivalence
etc) than *all* transport, but we *need* transport to transport us and
our food about but we can (for the vast majority in the Western world
at least) live on other things than animal based products and where
the science has proven it would be much better for the planet (GW
gasses and pollution in general), resource usage (water in
particular), human health (heart disease and antibiotic resistance)
along with wildlife extinction due to habitat destruction (due to
feeding / grazing the livestock) and going 'plant based' is something
we can all do easily, certainly easier than trying to get the
government to help people save energy (and so reduce the national
demand for energy so easier to share what we have out) by helping to
insulate our homes better or replacing IC cars with electric ones
(other than for kerbside emissions etc).
But that means people will have to think about the bigger picture and
'what about bacon tho' ... ;-(
Indeed so, the bigger picture. I'm not disagreeing that would could go, perhaps, more plant based, but don't portray that as saintly solution at
the moment.
There's enormous amounts of rain forest, and endangered
wildlife habit, being wiped out to grow those crops too.
There are too many untruths and myths around the manufacture and
replacement of such things as cars (catalytic converters created more
global emissions being manufactured than they ever reduced on the cars themselves - indeed, they increase CO2 output of a car). Some report now
show that disposing of a functional car to replace with a newer low
emission, or EV, is not actually doing much to reduce emissions.
What we need to do, as a species, is reduce our overall consumption of
all planetary resources.
Which is simply a matter of being less
wasteful, or greedy, or lazy.
But while manufacturers continue to build
in obsolescence, and governments do what gets most votes, we'll be the
ones paying the cost of it all.
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and make
my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier food.
Mr
Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet, but
still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
However, I do have a hard time disposing of anything the works. To me,
if it functions, what's saving the planet to replace it prematurely.
Anything in use has already added to carbon footprint, and disposing of
it adds more to it. So we replace it with something that might use less energy to operate, but at what overall cost?
Too much of all this is politics. The sums being bandied about in the
media suggest that trying to cut CO2 emissions simply isn't working, and indeed is getting worse. We're making too much stuff to replace stuff
we're told isn't ecological.
Fine if we do it through natural wastage, but we're not. The fact that
people like Apple and Samsung expect to sell so many million phones a
year is proof enough of that.
I keep stuff until it no longer works, or does what I need, or
is definitely more economical to replace.
Of course the chances are an Apple branded charger would actually
generate electricity when it was idle ... ;-)
It was you making a big thing of mentioning Samsung.
I was only thinking
that it could apply to other manufacturers too, other than those
actually making the phones. Perhaps the likes of Belkin etc. Rather than
the no-name oriental ones.
On 02 Jul 2022 at 18:39:52 BST, Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and make
my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier food. Mr
Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet, but
still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
The buggest hypocrites in this department are, of course, the luvvies.
A prime example of this is the 'Clean Air Zone' recently enforced in
Bath. At first they were going to ban all diesel vehicles, then they realised it would completely cripple the city, so they now charge £9 per
day for vans and campers, and £90 for buses and lorries that aren't E6 compliant.
The effect has been that traders have been forced to scrap perfectly
good vehicles and replace them with new ones (using easy financial terms arranged by the Council). Anyone who looks after their vehicle to get
the longest possible life out of it is penalised, so are specialist
vehicles where a lot of the expense is in the initial fitting-out.
Businesses in the city centre have shut because they can't get
deliveries and businesses outside the central area are struggling
because their suppliers can't deliver across the city. The signage is unclear and badly located, so appeals to tribunal were initially running
at about 25% of the total penalty notices issued.
There has been a huge increase in traffic on the back roads as
commercial vehicles are now forced to do an extra 15-mile detour around
the city, so overall diesel mileage has increased. The local bus
company has imported end-of life buses from another city, fitted with conversion kits and proudly emblazoned "I'm a Clean Bus" - but it
appears the kits are not effective under stop-start conditions.
Meanwhile the Council is raking it in by effectively selling pollution permits to those who can afford them. All the Council's own (mostly
ancient diesel) vehicles are, of course, exempt.
Quite. I can monitor (and log) the whole house
power consumption (pulse counting from the std meter) and several
smart sockets and lamps directly. The host I built for said neighbour
also monitors his solar panel output.
But there is nothing stopping you doing a 'Whole home Audit' and getting
a reasonable idea of just how much power some of these things
(especially old things) might be drawing.
On 02/07/2022 18:53, TimS wrote:
On 02 Jul 2022 at 18:39:52 BST, Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote: >>
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and make
my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier food. Mr
Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet, but
still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
The biggest hypocrites in this department are, of course, the luvvies.
From a real world POV I find some of the biggest hypocrites are those
who *say* they 'love animals' and maybe send some money to a donkey
sanctuary but whilst doing so tuck into the cow / sheep / chicken that
they have paid to have killed and that has suffered in the process,
simply because they like how they taste when they could eat (wear, use) something else?
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
However, I do have a hard time disposing of anything the works. To me,
if it functions, what's saving the planet to replace it prematurely.
Anything in use has already added to carbon footprint, and disposing of
it adds more to it. So we replace it with something that might use less
energy to operate, but at what overall cost?
Too much of all this is politics. The sums being bandied about in the
media suggest that trying to cut CO2 emissions simply isn't working, and
indeed is getting worse. We're making too much stuff to replace stuff
we're told isn't ecological.
Fine if we do it through natural wastage, but we're not. The fact that
people like Apple and Samsung expect to sell so many million phones a
year is proof enough of that.
A prime example of this is the 'Clean Air Zone' recently enforced in
Bath. At first they were going to ban all diesel vehicles, then they realised it would completely cripple the city, so they now charge £9 per
day for vans and campers, and £90 for buses and lorries that aren't E6 compliant.
The effect has been that traders have been forced to scrap perfectly
good vehicles and replace them with new ones (using easy financial terms arranged by the Council). Anyone who looks after their vehicle to get
the longest possible life out of it is penalised, so are specialist
vehicles where a lot of the expense is in the initial fitting-out.
Businesses in the city centre have shut because they can't get
deliveries and businesses outside the central area are struggling
because their suppliers can't deliver across the city. The signage is unclear and badly located, so appeals to tribunal were initially running
at about 25% of the total penalty notices issued.
There has been a huge increase in traffic on the back roads as
commercial vehicles are now forced to do an extra 15-mile detour around
the city, so overall diesel mileage has increased. The local bus
company has imported end-of life buses from another city, fitted with conversion kits and proudly emblazoned "I'm a Clean Bus" - but it
appears the kits are not effective under stop-start conditions.
Meanwhile the Council is raking it in by effectively selling pollution permits to those who can afford them. All the Council's own (mostly
ancient diesel) vehicles are, of course, exempt.
T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
Quite. I can monitor (and log) the whole house
power consumption (pulse counting from the std meter) and several
smart sockets and lamps directly. The host I built for said neighbour
also monitors his solar panel output.
But there is nothing stopping you doing a 'Whole home Audit' and getting
a reasonable idea of just how much power some of these things
(especially old things) might be drawing.
If you have a smart meter, you can get half-hourly readings which are quite good for a general picture of how things are running, without any extra hardware.
There's an app called Bright (also Android): https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/bright/id1369989022
that somehow manages to get near-realtime updates of the half hourly readings. You register by reading a barcode on your in-home display so it knows your account details, and then when you open the app it gets the previous half hour's readings - eg it's 22:02 and the reading for the 21:30 to 22:00 period has just come through. They'll also sell you a widget for live data, but the half hour readings are still very useful.
(there's also a third party plugin for Home Assistant - you need to
register via the app and then put your email/password into the plugin settings)
On 02 Jul 2022 at 20:28:57 BST, T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/07/2022 18:53, TimS wrote:
On 02 Jul 2022 at 18:39:52 BST, Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and make >>>> my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier food. Mr >>>> Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet, but
still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
The biggest hypocrites in this department are, of course, the luvvies.
From a real world POV I find some of the biggest hypocrites are those
who *say* they 'love animals' and maybe send some money to a donkey
sanctuary but whilst doing so tuck into the cow / sheep / chicken that
they have paid to have killed and that has suffered in the process,
simply because they like how they taste when they could eat (wear, use)
something else?
This and other threads are very OT now. And strangely familiar.
On 02/07/2022 18:12, Andy Hewitt wrote:
On 02/07/2022 16:30, T i m wrote:
On 02/07/2022 10:59, Andy Hewitt wrote:
<snip>
I can't turn off the Freeview boxes, for example, as they're set to
record stuff.
I turned off two Topfield 'Freeview PVRs' that drew 25W each and a
bit less when on standby (because they were still running etc) and a
video capture card from one PC (also drawing power) and replaced
those with one network TV tuner with 4 dual HD tuners that draws
around 10W when active (and ~2W when on standby). Greater storage
capacity than the two Topfields combined, multiple HD tuners when the
Topfield had none and fully 'network enabled' allowing us to share
recordings or even view simultaneously (in synch) should we want to.
Now, I'm going to predict none of that would be of any interest to
you, you preferring to stick with the TV you hand crank for fear of
being accused of being 'lazy'. ;-)
My Freeview boxes are included in my monitor readings.
And?
I use the TV boxes I do because the boxes are cheap to buy, and they
provide the entertainment that suits our needs.
And?
I fail to see how changing the way I watch TV is changing anything
about the laziness of watching TV in the first place.
It isn't?
I'm afraid you're failing to see the point there.
Erm ... I thought 'the point' was that you said you can't turn off the Freeview boxes (to save energy, the point of the discussion) and I
suggested I did exactly that (to save energy) and replaced them with something that was both better and saved 4/5ths of the energy. Now 'of course' I wouldn't expect you to do the same, just suggesting that one
could and people do. ;-)
On 02/07/2022 18:39, Andy Hewitt wrote:
Indeed so, the bigger picture. I'm not disagreeing that would could
go, perhaps, more plant based, but don't portray that as saintly
solution at the moment.
Of course it's not 'saintly', I certainly didn't suggest it was but
trying to appeal to futility isn't a justification for why we couldn't
or shouldn't at least try?
There's enormous amounts of rain forest, and endangered wildlife
habit, being wiped out to grow those crops too.
Crops that are mostly fed to livestock.
As we are the ones paying for all the habitat destruction and animal suffering and death at the moment and it should be pretty obvious to see
that in this case we do actually have the power to change it, just by
not supporting it. No need to protest outside No10 or glue ourselves to
the motorway, just stop being part of the demand and that will directly impact the supply and so the world then benefits. QED. ;-)
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and make
my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier food.
Healthier food (considering the bigger picture re your health status in
a planet that's flooded or burnt to a crisp) that is often cheaper than
any animal based food you are buying now? Most of the 3rd world diets
don't include and certainly don't feature the likes of meat because it's
too expensive?
Mr Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet, butQuite, but as has been mentioned, selfishness is something that is a
still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
function of much of the human race (it seems). ;-(
However, there is nothing to stop those of us who do care from actually
doing what we can and hope that others will follow, be it out of guilt,
good sense or because they learn that carrying on doing what we always
have is simply no longer sustainable, not with ever growing numbers and
so even shrinking resources.
On 02/07/2022 20:15, T i m wrote:
On 02/07/2022 18:39, Andy Hewitt wrote:
[..]
Indeed so, the bigger picture. I'm not disagreeing that would could
go, perhaps, more plant based, but don't portray that as saintly
solution at the moment.
Of course it's not 'saintly', I certainly didn't suggest it was but
trying to appeal to futility isn't a justification for why we couldn't
or shouldn't at least try?
For sure, we should try.
There's enormous amounts of rain forest, and endangered wildlife
habit, being wiped out to grow those crops too.
Crops that are mostly fed to livestock.
Crap, I'm talking about the thousands of hectares that are being used to
grow such things as palm oil, which is used in everyday human food.
As we are the ones paying for all the habitat destruction and animal
suffering and death at the moment and it should be pretty obvious to
see that in this case we do actually have the power to change it, just
by not supporting it. No need to protest outside No10 or glue
ourselves to the motorway, just stop being part of the demand and that
will directly impact the supply and so the world then benefits. QED. ;-)
To a point, yes, I agree, except it's us that have to start paying for
higher price goods to make that point. Sometimes, you don't have that capability.
I mean, I'm struggling now to buy petrol just to get to work, and
make my living, without even thinking about how I can buy healthier
food.
Healthier food (considering the bigger picture re your health status
in a planet that's flooded or burnt to a crisp) that is often cheaper
than any animal based food you are buying now? Most of the 3rd world
diets don't include and certainly don't feature the likes of meat
because it's too expensive?
Much of what we're doing to the planet isn't just down to food, that has
to be made somehow, whether crop or animal. The problem is everything we consume (I don't mean eating).
Mr Fat Cat can still have his fooking great yacht and private jet,Quite, but as has been mentioned, selfishness is something that is a
but still whinge that we're not doing enough to save the planet.
function of much of the human race (it seems). ;-(
Yup, fraid so.
However, there is nothing to stop those of us who do care from
actually doing what we can and hope that others will follow, be it out
of guilt, good sense or because they learn that carrying on doing what
we always have is simply no longer sustainable, not with ever growing
numbers and so even shrinking resources.
For sure, where we can, but I'm sick of being the one paying the premium price for the eco-friendly product.
Perhaps stop giving us a choice, and
just make everything eco-friendly.
On 02/07/2022 19:41, T i m wrote:
On 02/07/2022 18:12, Andy Hewitt wrote:
On 02/07/2022 16:30, T i m wrote:
On 02/07/2022 10:59, Andy Hewitt wrote:
<snip>
I can't turn off the Freeview boxes, for example, as they're set to
record stuff.
I turned off two Topfield 'Freeview PVRs' that drew 25W each and a
bit less when on standby (because they were still running etc) and a
video capture card from one PC (also drawing power) and replaced
those with one network TV tuner with 4 dual HD tuners that draws
around 10W when active (and ~2W when on standby). Greater storage
capacity than the two Topfields combined, multiple HD tuners when
the Topfield had none and fully 'network enabled' allowing us to
share recordings or even view simultaneously (in synch) should we
want to. Now, I'm going to predict none of that would be of any
interest to you, you preferring to stick with the TV you hand crank
for fear of being accused of being 'lazy'. ;-)
My Freeview boxes are included in my monitor readings.
And?
I use the TV boxes I do because the boxes are cheap to buy, and they
provide the entertainment that suits our needs.
And?
I fail to see how changing the way I watch TV is changing anything
about the laziness of watching TV in the first place.
It isn't?
I'm afraid you're failing to see the point there.
Erm ... I thought 'the point' was that you said you can't turn off the
Freeview boxes (to save energy, the point of the discussion) and I
suggested I did exactly that (to save energy) and replaced them with
something that was both better and saved 4/5ths of the energy. Now 'of
course' I wouldn't expect you to do the same, just suggesting that one
could and people do. ;-)
I've already shown that my Freeview boxes already use less energy than
yours did
(these do have built in Smart-Eco mode, so only use the energy
when needed), so I don't have a need to change anything.
If you're going
to use a PVR, then it has to be ON at some point, otherwise it won't
work, no?
So where's the difference? If I want to record stuff, they
have to be powered on, as would any other device that does a similar task.
FWIW, I've had a quick search on networked TV tuners, and have nothing obvious that would operate within 10W as a total system.
It looks more
complex,
and extremely expensive at initial glance, may look into that
more tomorrow,
but I can't see that could possibly be a more economical
solution over what I have (allowing for initial outlay).
On 02/07/2022 20:00, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Andy Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:
However, I do have a hard time disposing of anything the works. To me,
if it functions, what's saving the planet to replace it prematurely.
Anything in use has already added to carbon footprint, and disposing of
it adds more to it. So we replace it with something that might use less
energy to operate, but at what overall cost?
Too much of all this is politics. The sums being bandied about in the
media suggest that trying to cut CO2 emissions simply isn't working, and >>> indeed is getting worse. We're making too much stuff to replace stuff
we're told isn't ecological.
Fine if we do it through natural wastage, but we're not. The fact that
people like Apple and Samsung expect to sell so many million phones a
year is proof enough of that.
A prime example of this is the 'Clean Air Zone' recently enforced in
Bath. At first they were going to ban all diesel vehicles, then they
realised it would completely cripple the city, so they now charge £9 per
day for vans and campers, and £90 for buses and lorries that aren't E6
compliant.
The effect has been that traders have been forced to scrap perfectly
good vehicles and replace them with new ones (using easy financial terms
arranged by the Council). Anyone who looks after their vehicle to get
the longest possible life out of it is penalised, so are specialist
vehicles where a lot of the expense is in the initial fitting-out.
Businesses in the city centre have shut because they can't get
deliveries and businesses outside the central area are struggling
because their suppliers can't deliver across the city. The signage is
unclear and badly located, so appeals to tribunal were initially running
at about 25% of the total penalty notices issued.
There has been a huge increase in traffic on the back roads as
commercial vehicles are now forced to do an extra 15-mile detour around
the city, so overall diesel mileage has increased. The local bus
company has imported end-of life buses from another city, fitted with
conversion kits and proudly emblazoned "I'm a Clean Bus" - but it
appears the kits are not effective under stop-start conditions.
Meanwhile the Council is raking it in by effectively selling pollution
permits to those who can afford them. All the Council's own (mostly
ancient diesel) vehicles are, of course, exempt.
Yeah, it's that kind of thing I'm thinking of.
For sure, where we can, but I'm sick of being the one paying the premium
price for the eco-friendly product.
The thing is it's all down to supply and demand and we have to start somewhere. And it needn't be more expensive and it's often much cheaper,
you might just have to do some research.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
Perhaps stop giving us a choice, and
just make everything eco-friendly.
Yup, like 'Insulate Britain' were trying to get the government to do,
On 02/07/2022 23:25, Andy Hewitt wrote:
I'm afraid you're failing to see the point there.
Erm ... I thought 'the point' was that you said you can't turn off
the Freeview boxes (to save energy, the point of the discussion) and
I suggested I did exactly that (to save energy) and replaced them
with something that was both better and saved 4/5ths of the energy.
Now 'of course' I wouldn't expect you to do the same, just suggesting
that one could and people do. ;-)
I've already shown that my Freeview boxes already use less energy than
yours did
Sorry, I must have missed that but in any case, it wasn't a contest but
a comment.
(these do have built in Smart-Eco mode, so only use the energy when
needed), so I don't have a need to change anything.
Where have I suggested you did?
If you're going to use a PVR, then it has to be ON at some point,
otherwise it won't work, no?
Of course?
So where's the difference? If I want to record stuff, they have to be
powered on, as would any other device that does a similar task.
Of course ...? Again, you said you 'can't turn off your Freeview boxes because they need to record stuff' and ALL I said is that I turned off
two Freeview boxes (we had one each) drawing a total of 50W and replaced
them with a single, central and more powerful solution that ONLY draws
around 10W. Now, if your two Freeview boxes draw less than 10W *when
running* then yes, the chances are you would be hard pressed to improve matters energy wise.
FWIW, I've had a quick search on networked TV tuners, and have nothing
obvious that would operate within 10W as a total system.
Well, what if you ran say SichboPVR on an old Shuttle mini PC with some
cheap eBay HD tuners, what about that? Now, in case you get me wrong
again, I'm not suggesting you do that, I'm suggesting that one can do
that and get the desired result for not a lot of money. I chose to do it
for both the technical benefits and the long term saving money on
electricity whilst adding network access and HD and trying to find
something that did as much for so little.
It looks more complex,
More complex than a commercial appliance solution, possibly.
and extremely expensive at initial glance, may look into that more
tomorrow,
See above.
but I can't see that could possibly be a more economical solution overSee above (depending on the total power used by your two Freeview boxes
what I have (allowing for initial outlay).
and assuming they give the same level of features as mine do).
Again, this isn't a pissing contest Andy (although you seem intent on
making them such?), this is just a real-world response to your statements.
eg. I wanted to try to save money by reducing my electricity consumption
and worked out that the two Topfields were costing us circa £150/year to run. Therefore I could spend say £100 on hardware [1] and be able to
recoup that cost in the first year and everything after that would be
money saved (whilst offering a much more powerful and flexible
solution). Speculate to accumulate etc.
Cheers, T i m
[1] I actually spent more than I needed but it wasn't much more. I also
had the Shuttle PC spare (and bought some similar on eBay for 15 quid each)and when running on Linux, was using Xbox HD USB tuners that cost a fiver each.
On 3 Jul 2022 at 00:07:23 BST, T i m wrote:
For sure, where we can, but I'm sick of being the one paying the premium >>> price for the eco-friendly product.
The thing is it's all down to supply and demand and we have to start
somewhere. And it needn't be more expensive and it's often much cheaper,
you might just have to do some research.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
That's a nicely presented piece of research, thanks. Full paper here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00251-5/fulltext
The key variables, though, look to be global comparisons ('we' look atrocious), meat, and waste. The first is what it is, but a lot of people are doing what they can on the other two. And like Andy, especially as I now have a small income, the best choice is a harder choice.
Perhaps stop giving us a choice, and
just make everything eco-friendly.
Yup, like 'Insulate Britain' were trying to get the government to do,
I do believe in 'agitate educate organise' but, having spent some time trying (and failing) to get retrofit off the ground locally, in the UK (or maybe just
England) at least we just need to be told. 'We' is, in the first instance, the
corporations.
There's very little in the way of actual real world data - i.e. an
average family in the UK, buying shopping to feed a family, fussy eating kids, time constraints (to plan menus, prepare and cook freshly made
meals), and of course our habits and preferred foods.
I know a bacon sandwich is bad for me, but I'm not going to stop eating
them altogether :-).
Perhaps stop giving us a choice, and
just make everything eco-friendly.
Yup, like 'Insulate Britain' were trying to get the government to do,
I do believe in 'agitate educate organise' but, having spent some time
trying
(and failing) to get retrofit off the ground locally, in the UK (or
maybe just
England) at least we just need to be told. 'We' is, in the first
instance, the
corporations.
Yeah, with the best will in the world, corporations will still need to
tally up that bottom line on the spreadsheet, and in many cases, need to
keep their share holders happy. They will always want a balance between
doing the right thing, and making a decent profit.
On 3 Jul 2022 at 00:07:23 BST, T i m wrote:
For sure, where we can, but I'm sick of being the one paying the premium >>> price for the eco-friendly product.
The thing is it's all down to supply and demand and we have to start
somewhere. And it needn't be more expensive and it's often much cheaper,
you might just have to do some research.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
That's a nicely presented piece of research, thanks. Full paper here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00251-5/fulltext
The key variables, though, look to be global comparisons ('we' look atrocious), meat, and waste. The first is what it is, but a lot of people are doing what they can on the other two.
And like Andy, especially as I now have
a small income, the best choice is a harder choice.
Perhaps stop giving us a choice, and
just make everything eco-friendly.
Yup, like 'Insulate Britain' were trying to get the government to do,
I do believe in 'agitate educate organise'
but, having spent some time tryingAbsolutely mate, especially given the consumers themselves are often
(and failing) to get retrofit off the ground locally, in the UK (or maybe just
England) at least we just need to be told. 'We' is, in the first instance, the
corporations.
Like, it's suggested that livestock produce as much CO2 (equivalence
etc) than *all* transport, but we *need* transport
(these do have built in Smart-Eco mode, so only use the energy when
needed), so I don't have a need to change anything.
Where have I suggested you did?
You said: "Now, I'm going to predict none of that would be of any
interest to you, you preferring to stick with the TV you hand crank for
fear of being accused of being 'lazy'"
Again, this isn't a pissing contest Andy (although you seem intent on
making them such?), this is just a real-world response to your
statements.
I'm in no competition. See Above.
eg. I wanted to try to save money by reducing my electricity
consumption and worked out that the two Topfields were costing us
circa £150/year to run. Therefore I could spend say £100 on hardware
[1] and be able to recoup that cost in the first year and everything
after that would be money saved (whilst offering a much more powerful
and flexible solution). Speculate to accumulate etc.
Cheers, T i m
[1] I actually spent more than I needed but it wasn't much more. I
also had the Shuttle PC spare (and bought some similar on eBay for 15
quid each)and when running on Linux, was using Xbox HD USB tuners that
cost a fiver each.
Ok, none of that exists when I'm looking (But then I'm rarely lucky when
it comes to getting stuff cheap on eBay). But none of that adds up. As I
see it, I got to start with a spare PC, which I don't have. The used
one's I saw (and there weren't many 'ShuttlePC's) were around £100 (with postage). Plus the TV cards, granted cheap enough, but no idea which
one(s) I need - seem to be £15-20 each.
I'd also need, monitor, keyboard
etc,
and space to put it (which I don't have).
But what doesn't add up, is running the extra PC, I picked a basic
slimline model as a starting point, that's rated at 90W.
The software is £1/mth (not much, but you haven't mentioned that, it all adds up).
And what hardware is needed to feed multiple TVs around the house?
And
allow control of the programs at each TV?
I'm not in competition here, I'm trying to understand how this works. As
I see it, there's a lot of missing links here - i.e. All the components
I need to receive TV, record more than one show, and display on multiple
TVs in different rooms. I have no existing spare hardware.
Your cost calculation also seems to be based on running at that rate all
day, which in the real world doesn't happen usually.
From all I can see here, I have nothing to save, and probably a load of ball-ache trying to get all this to work.
I'm just trying to see where this save me money, and saves the planet.
It just seems like I'm saving a few S/H components from landfill, to put components into landfill - or sell them perhaps, but then someone else
will just be using them (so they're still using energy somewhere).
There has to be a point to you suggesting I wouldn't be interested in
doing this - looking at that, why would I be?
I know a bacon sandwich is bad for me, but I'm not going to stop
eating them altogether :-).
I wonder if you might think differently if you took the responsibility
of killing the pig yourself?
T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
Quite. I can monitor (and log) the whole house
power consumption (pulse counting from the std meter) and several
smart sockets and lamps directly. The host I built for said neighbour
also monitors his solar panel output.
But there is nothing stopping you doing a 'Whole home Audit' and getting
a reasonable idea of just how much power some of these things
(especially old things) might be drawing.
If you have a smart meter, you can get half-hourly readings which are quite good for a general picture of how things are running, without any extra hardware.
[...]
Population reduction: the Russians are helping with this ... along with
Covid and Monkeypox.
Graham J <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Population reduction: the Russians are helping with this ... along with
Covid and Monkeypox.
I don't think anyone in the UK has died from 'Monkeypox'.
fTheo <[email protected]> wrote:
T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
Quite. I can monitor (and log) the whole house
power consumption (pulse counting from the std meter) and several
smart sockets and lamps directly. The host I built for said neighbour
also monitors his solar panel output.
But there is nothing stopping you doing a 'Whole home Audit' and getting >>> a reasonable idea of just how much power some of these things
(especially old things) might be drawing.
If you have a smart meter, you can get half-hourly readings which are quite >> good for a general picture of how things are running, without any extra
hardware.
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could
see what was happening as it actually happened.
T i m wrote:
[snip]
I know a bacon sandwich is bad for me, but I'm not going to stop
eating them altogether :-).
I wonder if you might think differently if you took the responsibility
of killing the pig yourself?
In the UK, and no doubt many other places, there are land areas which
only grow grass.
We humans can't eat grass, but we can eat the meat
that grazing animals produce.
So there will always be the capacity to
produce meat at a low level.
The by-products of such grazing (manure,
wool, fur, hides) are all useful.
Clearly, meat will become an occasional treat; and if you don't like the
idea of killing the animal then it won't be difficult to avoid eating meat.
T i m wrote:
[snip]
Like, it's suggested that livestock produce as much CO2 (equivalence
etc) than *all* transport, but we *need* transport
But do we?
is a luxury which will have to go - along with steel, concrete, and fertiliser.
The alternative is to plan for the increased CO2 level and its
consequences, starting now. Informed opinion, see:
<https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/ipcc-report-climate-scientists-issue-ultimatum-on-1point5-degrees-goal.html>
... suggests the 1.5 degrees C rise will be exceeded very soon.
So what to do:
Population reduction: the Russians are helping with this ... along with
Covid and Monkeypox.
Don't build on flood plains
For the UK, build a 30 metre high sea wall all around the low-lying coastline. This will of course sacrifice all the low-lying towns and
cities (like London), but with the reduced population and the need for
people to live near to where their food is grown this will not matter.
Are Apple iPhone/Watch chargers draining power if not in use (but
plugged in)? The wireless ones? I'm having an arguement with someone
that says things like powered speakers, and desk lamps also draw power
when switched off, as long as 'the little red light' on the 4-port
extension is on...
On 03/07/2022 08:29, Andy Hewitt wrote:
(these do have built in Smart-Eco mode, so only use the energy when
needed), so I don't have a need to change anything.
Where have I suggested you did?
You said: "Now, I'm going to predict none of that would be of any
interest to you, you preferring to stick with the TV you hand crank
for fear of being accused of being 'lazy'"
And it seems I was right (plus it was a joke). ;-)
<snip>
Again, this isn't a pissing contest Andy (although you seem intent on
making them such?), this is just a real-world response to your
statements.
I'm in no competition. See Above.
Good, it just seems that when I suggest a scenario that I happened to
find 'better' (in this case, also better technically and much lower
running costs) you tell me why it couldn't work for you and why your
solution is 'better', even when you admit you haven't really looked into
it?
Why are you the only one who has taken my discussion as a suggestion my solution *would* be good for everyone?
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could
see what was happening as it actually happened.
In article <t9rq8n$30i3b$[email protected]>,
Alan B <[email protected]d> wrote:
Is it possible that COVID and Monkey Pox could combine and create a super
deadly new virus?
no, although someone could get both.
Is it possible that COVID and Monkey Pox could combine and create a super deadly new virus?
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could
see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
Don’t talk to me about Smart Meters! Ours stopped communicating with the display unit in March but it took until last month for British Gas to sort
it out. Fortunately I was able to take manual readings from the actual box (which was still dialling home incidentally) and attempt to convert the readings to £ for budgetary purposes. Logging into my account didn’t help as the system refused to divulge my usage stats.
We had a really basic one years ago that simply measure the power using
a u=inductive clamp round one of the main cables to the meter but as it
was battery powered it had no way of also measuring the voltage so that
was assumed.
The mains powered ones can use that PSU to also monitor the mains
voltage and so provide a more accurate reading.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
Don’t talk to me about Smart Meters! Ours stopped communicating with the display unit in March but it took until last month for British Gas to sort
it out. Fortunately I was able to take manual readings from the actual box (which was still dialling home incidentally) and attempt to convert the readings to £ for budgetary purposes. Logging into my account didn’t help as the system refused to divulge my usage stats.
On 03/07/2022 10:31, T i m wrote:
Good, it just seems that when I suggest a scenario that I happened to
find 'better' (in this case, also better technically and much lower
running costs) you tell me why it couldn't work for you and why your
solution is 'better', even when you admit you haven't really looked
into it?
I've certainly considered alternatives over the years. And I never said anything was 'better'.
The issue we have is that you've taken this to a far too personal, and detailed level than I intended, and brought across a comment from
another thread, just to confuse things, and whether intentional or not,
stir things up a bit. My issue is that I don't know when to quit ;-)
(sorry guys).
I would imagine modern meters are capable of doing exactly the same
thing electronically, but I have not seen it clearly stated whether the
phase relationship between current and voltage is taken into account.
If it is not, you will be changed by the Volt-Amps you use, not by the
Watts.
This would mean that inductive loads such as choke-ballasted fluorescent lamps, the transformers of standby power supplies and induction motors
in fridges and modern boilers (and the lathe I have in the back room)
will incur high charges even though the amount of energy they are using
is relatively small.
On 03/07/2022 12:25, Andy Hewitt wrote:
<snip>
The issue we have is that you've taken this to a far too personal, and
detailed level than I intended, and brought across a comment from
another thread, just to confuse things, and whether intentional or
not, stir things up a bit. My issue is that I don't know when to quit
;-) (sorry guys).
Hey, 'it takes two to tango' so ... ;-)
It's been interesting recently seeing many other people trying to 'save energy' when it's something I've been doing for years, first with lamps
when many 'didn't like' the light output from CFL's (so were happy to continue using and paying for the electricity, potentially not
considering the bigger picture of our limited supply and the
inefficiency of incandescents) and then things like computers (my Mac
Mini was bought specifically because it was 'low power').
And the WHS that I built all those years ago on an Atom CPU that drew
only 20W when most PC's were idling at nearer 50.
And looking for cars that did a reasonable MPG over many other aspects
and riding fuel efficient motorbikes before having cars with reasonable
MPG for transport cost reasons.
The problem now is that I don't really have anywhere to go, compared
with all those I considered were squandering energy / fuel who are now
trying to cut costs. ;-(
Diminishing returns etc.
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could
see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
Don’t talk to me about Smart Meters! Ours stopped communicating with the display unit in March but it took until last month for British Gas to sort
it out. Fortunately I was able to take manual readings from the actual box (which was still dialling home incidentally) and attempt to convert the readings to £ for budgetary purposes. Logging into my account didn’t help as the system refused to divulge my usage stats.
My display unit packed up after about 6 months, it's been sat in the
cupboard for the last 5 years. Don't miss it at all, I know switching
the kettle on uses electricity, don't ned a daft display to tell me.
On 03/07/2022 14:09, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
<snip>
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I believed was typically offered with a
'Smart meter' and part of the appeal re having one fitted for some.
On 3 Jul 2022 at 22:44:18 BST, "T i m" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2022 14:09, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
<snip>
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I believed was typically offered with a
'Smart meter' and part of the appeal re having one fitted for some.
Helped hugely - to the tune of £100/month. Discovered some surprises
like "the central heating also uses 90W in use", the hifi amp (class A)
uses 35W when it's powered and doing nothing, the bloody 10gigE switch
ramps up to 150W while basically quiescent.... all at £2.50 per
watt-year.
I've traded down my iMac Pro to an M1 and occasional-use external
screen, turned off the NASes except for on-demand use, decommissioned
that bloody 10gigE switch (I have the NASes connected directly and a
port up to the front room with a Thunderbolt-10gigE adapter for when I
need high bandwidth to a Mac). The microwave and washing machine get
turned off at the plug - £30/year saved there, thirsty buggers.
Dishwasher uses 5W if the door is closed, none when it isn't - so that's always ajar now. TV and Chromecast get powered on when needed, one
switch does both. Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and freezer are both high efficiency; we'd already LED'd all the lighting
and set parts of it to auto movement detect so it never gets left on by accident.
All of which meant that when the energy prices went up 40% in April, our costs went down a little with only mild dents in convenience.
On 03/07/2022 16:56, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
I would imagine modern meters are capable of doing exactly the same
thing electronically, but I have not seen it clearly stated whether the phase relationship between current and voltage is taken into account.
If it is not, you will be changed by the Volt-Amps you use, not by the Watts.
Understood.
This would mean that inductive loads such as choke-ballasted fluorescent lamps, the transformers of standby power supplies and induction motors
in fridges and modern boilers (and the lathe I have in the back room)
will incur high charges even though the amount of energy they are using
is relatively small.
I'm pretty sure domestic users aren't impacted by the power factor so
it's not considered in the metering / charging.
On 4 Jul 2022 at 00:06:14 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 22:44:18 BST, "T i m" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2022 14:09, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote: >>>>>
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An
'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>>>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
<snip>
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I believed was typically offered with a
'Smart meter' and part of the appeal re having one fitted for some.
Helped hugely - to the tune of £100/month. Discovered some surprises
like "the central heating also uses 90W in use", the hifi amp (class A)
uses 35W when it's powered and doing nothing, the bloody 10gigE switch
ramps up to 150W while basically quiescent.... all at £2.50 per
watt-year.
I've traded down my iMac Pro to an M1 and occasional-use external
screen, turned off the NASes except for on-demand use, decommissioned
that bloody 10gigE switch (I have the NASes connected directly and a
port up to the front room with a Thunderbolt-10gigE adapter for when I
need high bandwidth to a Mac). The microwave and washing machine get
turned off at the plug - £30/year saved there, thirsty buggers.
Dishwasher uses 5W if the door is closed, none when it isn't - so that's
always ajar now. TV and Chromecast get powered on when needed, one
switch does both. Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and
freezer are both high efficiency; we'd already LED'd all the lighting
and set parts of it to auto movement detect so it never gets left on by
accident.
All of which meant that when the energy prices went up 40% in April, our
costs went down a little with only mild dents in convenience.
I try to do a lot of that. I hadn't thought about my NAS though. Do I really need to have it powered on 24/7 when my systems that use it are only active for a few hours per day? No, of course not! It's tempting to switch off my Smart Meter monitor overnight but that's going a bit far maybe ;)
On 4 Jul 2022 at 07:40:33 BST, "Alan B" <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2022 at 00:06:14 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 22:44:18 BST, "T i m" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2022 14:09, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On 3 Jul 2022 at 11:01:13 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote: >>>>>>
I used to have an electromechanical meter that gave me continuous
real-time readings without any additional hardware or software. An >>>>>> 'upgrade' to one of those would be a big improvment because people could >>>>>> see what was happening as it actually happened.
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five >>>>> seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
<snip>
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I believed was typically offered with a >>>> 'Smart meter' and part of the appeal re having one fitted for some.
Helped hugely - to the tune of £100/month. Discovered some surprises
like "the central heating also uses 90W in use", the hifi amp (class A)
uses 35W when it's powered and doing nothing, the bloody 10gigE switch
ramps up to 150W while basically quiescent.... all at £2.50 per
watt-year.
I've traded down my iMac Pro to an M1 and occasional-use external
screen, turned off the NASes except for on-demand use, decommissioned
that bloody 10gigE switch (I have the NASes connected directly and a
port up to the front room with a Thunderbolt-10gigE adapter for when I
need high bandwidth to a Mac). The microwave and washing machine get
turned off at the plug - £30/year saved there, thirsty buggers.
Dishwasher uses 5W if the door is closed, none when it isn't - so that's >>> always ajar now. TV and Chromecast get powered on when needed, one
switch does both. Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and >>> freezer are both high efficiency; we'd already LED'd all the lighting
and set parts of it to auto movement detect so it never gets left on by
accident.
All of which meant that when the energy prices went up 40% in April, our >>> costs went down a little with only mild dents in convenience.
I try to do a lot of that. I hadn't thought about my NAS though. Do I really >> need to have it powered on 24/7 when my systems that use it are only active >> for a few hours per day? No, of course not! It's tempting to switch off my >> Smart Meter monitor overnight but that's going a bit far maybe ;)
Heh :) My NASes are Dells with iDRACs onboard, so I can use ipmitool to
wake them up. They use a couple of watts when asleep, which I count as
okay.
The 10gigE switch was a little sneak: I measured each of my cellar rack devices in isolation, and with no active clients it used 12W. Hurray, I thought.
Much later I realised that even just keepalive chatter between the
primary three clients brought it up to 150W. Grr.
The 10gigE switch was a little sneak: I measured each of my cellar rack
devices in isolation, and with no active clients it used 12W. Hurray, I
thought.
Much later I realised that even just keepalive chatter between the
primary three clients brought it up to 150W. Grr.
My.NAS consumes probably no more than 15W when active but every little
helps (with apologies to Tesco)!
On 03/07/2022 12:25, Andy Hewitt wrote:
On 03/07/2022 10:31, T i m wrote:
Good, it just seems that when I suggest a scenario that I happened to
find 'better' (in this case, also better technically and much lower
running costs) you tell me why it couldn't work for you and why your
solution is 'better', even when you admit you haven't really looked
into it?
I've certainly considered alternatives over the years. And I never
said anything was 'better'.
Well, perhaps a tiny bit of humble pie.
This has actually made me curious about this as an option a bit more now.
The energy differences notwithstanding, the idea of the centralised TV DVR/PVR system does actually interest me.
However, delving into it more, doesn't reveal much more of a solution.
I'd like to use the iMac I have, as that's already a source of energy
use, that is unlikely to go away for now. I do have a TV aerial outlet
in the room, so that's fine there, and I have adequate Wi-Fi to stream (already does that with my Apple TV movies and Music stored on HDD).
I do have Plex installed, although haven't made any use of it yet, as it offers nothing over my existing Apple setup (it basically just syncs
with my existing Movies and Music files, which are already synced across
all my devices).
Now, I understand it is possible to add a TV tuner to Plex, but only if
you pay the subscription fee - OK, so £90 might be worth it for the
lifetime offer, if I can do what I need here.
Trouble is, not many people make a TV tuner that is Mac compatible now.
I do have a old Miglia TV Duo, but can't get that recognised by anything
(I tried a few of the options, but this is one box nobody seems to
support). It used to work on EyeTV, and I have a v3 licence, but that
stopped working at Catalina (it's a 32-bit only app), you have to buy
the newest one to get that to work on 64-bit.
And of course I can run Plex on the AppleTVs and the iDevices, so that
much is not a problem.
What I'd want though, is to see the TV schedule on all the devices, and select programs to record from any of them. If it could work like that,
then I could have something to consider here.
And another thing that's not going to happen, as me installing a Windows machine to get this to work.
Although I could consider a Linux solution.
Of course my other consideration is, the wife, she's very much
objectional to me changing such stuff.
So unless I can make this work
seamlessly, with zero faffing about, it's not going to happen anyway.
And of course, I don't want to start bunging cash at this, if it's not
going to work as I want.
See, it's not just a matter of me being stubborn,
or outright
discounting this - I have actually thought about this many times over
the years, it just seems that the solution *I* want is not there, at a
price I'm prepared to pay.
Otherwise, the two YouView boxes work fine for our needs (we actually
get to record four different programs, and watch another two if needed).
So, we might have to watch in another room, but that's not the end of
the world.
T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2022 16:56, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
I would imagine modern meters are capable of doing exactly the same
thing electronically, but I have not seen it clearly stated whether the
phase relationship between current and voltage is taken into account.
If it is not, you will be changed by the Volt-Amps you use, not by the
Watts.
Understood.
This would mean that inductive loads such as choke-ballasted fluorescent >>> lamps, the transformers of standby power supplies and induction motors
in fridges and modern boilers (and the lathe I have in the back room)
will incur high charges even though the amount of energy they are using
is relatively small.
I'm pretty sure domestic users aren't impacted by the power factor so
it's not considered in the metering / charging.
Do you mean the power factor (phase angle) isn't taken into
consideration when computing the power used?
With a meter that measures
the volts and the amps, ignoring the power foctor will give the VA
reading., not the Watts.
This is what I am concerned might be being
foist on us without our knowledge.
...or are you just saying the domestic tariff is different from the industrial tariff, where factories with a bad power factor are
surcharged because of the extra cost of the larger cables and
transformers needed to supply the 'wattless' load?
Our smart meter has a little wireless screen that updates every five
seconds with live wattage etc, it's a Siemens box.
<snip>
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I believed was typically offered with a
'Smart meter' and part of the appeal re having one fitted for some.
Helped hugely - to the tune of £100/month.
Discovered some surprises
like "the central heating also uses 90W in use",
the hifi amp (class A)
uses 35W when it's powered and doing nothing,
the bloody 10gigE switch
ramps up to 150W while basically quiescent....
all at £2.50 per
watt-year.
I've traded down my iMac Pro to an M1 and occasional-use external
screen,
turned off the NASes except for on-demand use,
decommissioned
that bloody 10gigE switch (I have the NASes connected directly and a
port up to the front room with a Thunderbolt-10gigE adapter for when I
need high bandwidth to a Mac).
The microwave and washing machine get
turned off at the plug - £30/year saved there, thirsty buggers.
Dishwasher uses 5W if the door is closed, none when it isn't - so that's always ajar now.
TV and Chromecast get powered on when needed, one switch does both.
Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and
freezer are both high efficiency;
we'd already LED'd all the lighting
and set parts of it to auto movement detect so it never gets left on by accident.
All of which meant that when the energy prices went up 40% in April, our costs went down a little with only mild dents in convenience.
On 03/07/2022 22:35, Andy Hewitt wrote:
This has actually made me curious about this as an option a bit more now.
The energy differences notwithstanding, the idea of the centralised TV
DVR/PVR system does actually interest me.
As it did me, long before I made the move and the move was sorta forced
by three things:
1) Seeing the Mrs increasingly 'struggle' with both a mouse and STB
remote and crossing over the functions.
2) Knowing the Topfields were getting long-in-the-tooth, having repaired
the PSU's in all of them.
3) Knowing the Topfields were only SD and that some of the channels were
HD only and more likely to go that way over time.
4) They weren't network accessible (but I could extract over USB to my
NAS).
What finally pushed me to actually do something about it was the
increasing cost of energy, all the other perks came in with that.
Initially I ran TVHeadend on Linux on a Slimline Shuttle (passive cooled
Atom powered) with 6 x XBox tuners but I was never happy with the
clients (although I could get it running via Kodi on some on the cheap, dedicated media player boxes) it wasn't Mrs friendly but served as a
good feasibility study.
I then came across SichboPVR and initially ran the Server machine (a
slightly better passive cooled Shuttle) on Linux but as is common for me
and Linux, I couldn't get the file sharing or handling the boot / data
drives to work (and the Linux version is / was 'experimental' etc) so I
stuck Windows on the box and it's been running happily on that ever since.
A small SSD boot drive (M.2 or somesuch), 1TB SSD, 4Gb RAM and 4 dual HD
USB tuners that are powered on as required.
The two main clients (our PC's) are running W10 and we can 'see' each
others recordings (or not, user settings).
You can also easily determine how many channels are shown (to each user,
just the main few for her) and Simon (the Sichbo dev) has been brilliant assisting me make her DE more 'accessible'.
I'm in the process of running up a suitably specced old PC to use as an ad-hoc client on the bedroom TV so we can easily use the Sichbo system
(live recordings, timeshifted viewing, recording playback and film
library viewing etc).
However, delving into it more, doesn't reveal much more of a solution.
I'd like to use the iMac I have, as that's already a source of energy
use, that is unlikely to go away for now. I do have a TV aerial outlet
in the room, so that's fine there, and I have adequate Wi-Fi to stream
(already does that with my Apple TV movies and Music stored on HDD).
According to Simon his most prevalent users are those using SichboPVR on
a stand alone machine / laptop and nearly exclusively on Windows.
I do have Plex installed, although haven't made any use of it yet, as
it offers nothing over my existing Apple setup (it basically just
syncs with my existing Movies and Music files, which are already
synced across all my devices).
Plex was never a good solution for me.
Now, I understand it is possible to add a TV tuner to Plex, but only
if you pay the subscription fee - OK, so £90 might be worth it for the
lifetime offer, if I can do what I need here.
That might have been one reason. ;-)
Trouble is, not many people make a TV tuner that is Mac compatible
now. I do have a old Miglia TV Duo, but can't get that recognised by
anything (I tried a few of the options, but this is one box nobody
seems to support). It used to work on EyeTV, and I have a v3 licence,
but that stopped working at Catalina (it's a 32-bit only app), you
have to buy the newest one to get that to work on 64-bit.
It would be interesting to see if / how SichboPVR 'saw' that tuner as I
have been very impressed with how many tuners it 'just sees' so far.
or outright discounting this - I have actually thought about this many
times over the years, it just seems that the solution *I* want is not
there, at a price I'm prepared to pay.
Understood (same here really when looking at the cost of some of the dedicated streaming kit or sophisticated PVRs etc).
Otherwise, the two YouView boxes work fine for our needs (we actually
get to record four different programs, and watch another two if needed).
Pretty well what we were doing with our two Topfields.
So, we might have to watch in another room, but that's not the end of
the world.
We can watch in the same room. She watches TV on her PC (so can run it
in a window or minimised during the ads if live whilst playing a game or talking to daughter over Whatsapp etc) and with headphones ... whilst
mine was connected to our main lounge TV (here) where I could half watch
/ listen (it helps mask my Tinnitus) whilst doing loads of other things (probably ADHD). ;-)
I rarely actively watch live TV these days as with my SichboPVR setup
it's just sucking down any show or series I have pre selected (and often forget about ) and then it's a surprise when I find it in my recordings.
;-)
On 04/07/2022 08:58, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/07/2022 16:56, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
I would imagine modern meters are capable of doing exactly the same
thing electronically, but I have not seen it clearly stated whether the >>> phase relationship between current and voltage is taken into account.
If it is not, you will be changed by the Volt-Amps you use, not by the >>> Watts.
Understood.
This would mean that inductive loads such as choke-ballasted fluorescent >>> lamps, the transformers of standby power supplies and induction motors >>> in fridges and modern boilers (and the lathe I have in the back room)
will incur high charges even though the amount of energy they are using >>> is relatively small.
I'm pretty sure domestic users aren't impacted by the power factor so
it's not considered in the metering / charging.
Do you mean the power factor (phase angle) isn't taken into
consideration when computing the power used?
With the domestic power meter that we (domestic power users) are billed
by I believe so yes.
With a meter that measures
the volts and the amps, ignoring the power foctor will give the VA reading., not the Watts.
Correct, but considered to be the same thing to as far as our
electricity bill is concerned (AFAIK).
This is what I am concerned might be being
foist on us without our knowledge.
But isn't that a good thing (for us domestic users). We don't therefore
have to try to correct the PF?
On 5 Jul 2022 at 09:12:34 BST, Alan B wrote:
The 10gigE switch was a little sneak: I measured each of my cellar rack
devices in isolation, and with no active clients it used 12W. Hurray, I
thought.
Much later I realised that even just keepalive chatter between the
primary three clients brought it up to 150W. Grr.
Indeed! You will be losing a not insignificant amount of heating there though
My.NAS consumes probably no more than 15W when active but every little
helps (with apologies to Tesco)!
Yes, mine was 20W (Synology DS214play). Sneaked up to nearer 30 having replaced the 3TB disks with 8TB.
On 04/07/2022 00:06, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
<snip>
Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and
freezer are both high efficiency;
Were they particularly expensive Jaimie as both our fridge and freezer
are pretty old (the freezer has surface rust at the bottom of the door).
we'd already LED'd all the lighting
and set parts of it to auto movement detect so it never gets left on by
accident.
I was pleased to measure the background power of some of my (Zigbee)
smart lights as being 'negligible' when smart-off but still powered on.
15W is very low power, nice. Mine's ~70W but that's four x 14TB, a 10
core Xeon and 64 gig RAM :) It does do a bunch of things other than just NASing.
On 6 Jul 2022 at 06:24:15 BST, "Alan B"
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
15W is very low power, nice. Mine's ~70W but that's four x 14TB, a 10
core Xeon and 64 gig RAM :) It does do a bunch of things other than just >>> NASing.
I only use laptops now. My TM backup needs are quite modest so I’m using a >> 2 x 4TB system from WD. I’m not using this for much else currently. However
I also use CCC with EHDs as a second backup method. I use other duplicated >> EHDs for data I consider to be archived and might want to access only less >> than once in a blue moon. So my computing power consumption must be quite
low. I now make a habit of switching off on the wall socket where practical >> any device that is not actually in use, e.g. Kettle, microwave, mains
powered radio, TV etc. I should probably turn my Sky box off overnight but >> there’s often something worth recording! Our lights are mainly LED now. You
can do other small things to help too such as washing your hands in cold
water, shower on eco setting, not overfilling a kettle and not leaving your >> outside lights on all day as some of my neighbours seem to do. I could go
on …..
Really does make a difference.
What are you using as the NAS, btw?
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
15W is very low power, nice. Mine's ~70W but that's four x 14TB, a 10
core Xeon and 64 gig RAM :) It does do a bunch of things other than just
NASing.
I only use laptops now. My TM backup needs are quite modest so I’m using a 2 x 4TB system from WD. I’m not using this for much else currently. However I also use CCC with EHDs as a second backup method. I use other duplicated EHDs for data I consider to be archived and might want to access only less than once in a blue moon. So my computing power consumption must be quite low. I now make a habit of switching off on the wall socket where practical any device that is not actually in use, e.g. Kettle, microwave, mains
powered radio, TV etc. I should probably turn my Sky box off overnight but there’s often something worth recording! Our lights are mainly LED now. You can do other small things to help too such as washing your hands in cold water, shower on eco setting, not overfilling a kettle and not leaving your outside lights on all day as some of my neighbours seem to do. I could go
on …..
On 2022-07-06, Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
What are you using as the NAS, btw?
WD My Cloud EX2 Ultra 2x4TB
Not the best but it suffices especially as I got a discount (allegedly).
With a meter that measures
the volts and the amps, ignoring the power foctor will give the VA
reading., not the Watts.
Correct, but considered to be the same thing to as far as our
electricity bill is concerned (AFAIK).
I certainly wouldn't want to pay for energy I wasn't using.
This is what I am concerned might be being
foist on us without our knowledge.
But isn't that a good thing (for us domestic users). We don't therefore
have to try to correct the PF?
No. it's exactly the opposite. If your meter reads VA
and you don't
correct your power factor, you could be billed for the wattless current
as well as the actual power you use. Most choke-ballasted fluorescent
lights are power factor corrected, at least to some extent, but
transformers, fridges, central heating pumps and other induction motors aren't. The difference between Watts and VA for these devices is quite considerable.
On 5 Jul 2022 at 19:54:25 BST, "T i m" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/07/2022 00:06, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
<snip>
Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and
freezer are both high efficiency;
Were they particularly expensive Jaimie as both our fridge and freezer
are pretty old (the freezer has surface rust at the bottom of the door).
They're both cheapie Beko from 10-15 years ago, just lucky I guess.
The
freezer lives in the cellar which doubtless helps the efficiency.
We did
a two-day wattmeter summation with each of them, worked out at under £50/year each so not worth replacing until they die.
we'd already LED'd all the lighting
and set parts of it to auto movement detect so it never gets left on by
accident.
I was pleased to measure the background power of some of my (Zigbee)
smart lights as being 'negligible' when smart-off but still powered on.
God yes, I was dreading having to convert back to basic lights but when
unlit the 20 or so bulbs only take up like 4W between them.
On 06/07/2022 00:18, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On 5 Jul 2022 at 19:54:25 BST, "T i m" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/07/2022 00:06, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
<snip>
Various other little things. Thankfully the fridge and
freezer are both high efficiency;
Were they particularly expensive Jaimie as both our fridge and freezer
are pretty old (the freezer has surface rust at the bottom of the door).
They're both cheapie Beko from 10-15 years ago, just lucky I guess.
So to be clear. Were these 'just appliances' that just had an energy consumption that was typical of their day but 'cheaper' / technically
better appliances? I believe the design of the compressor can be key here.
On 05/07/2022 22:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
<snip>
With a meter that measures
the volts and the amps, ignoring the power foctor will give the VA
reading., not the Watts.
Correct, but considered to be the same thing to as far as our
electricity bill is concerned (AFAIK).
I certainly wouldn't want to pay for energy I wasn't using.
But the chances are you aren't as likely your domestic PF is very close
to 1.
This is what I am concerned might be being
foist on us without our knowledge.
But isn't that a good thing (for us domestic users). We don't therefore
have to try to correct the PF?
No. it's exactly the opposite. If your meter reads VA
But it doesn't does it? It reads in kWh?
They were each about £100, and A or maybe A+ rating on efficiency (as it
was before the ratings were remapped).
In article <[email protected]>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <[email protected]> wrote:
They were each about £100, and A or maybe A+ rating on efficiency (as it
was before the ratings were remapped).
I bought a fridge a year or so ago, and it came with two energy
stickers, one rating it as A+ and one as F.
I bought a fridge a year or so ago, and it came with two energy
stickers, one rating it as A+ and one as F.
I'm fairly sure than an old A+ would now be a C, so that seems very >suspicious...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:18:41 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,812 |