A great example has to be "green hard disks". The energy saving between a "green" drive and a non-green drive is insignificant.
F1 Fuel Cap in 2013
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
A great example has to be "green hard disks". The energy saving between a "green" drive and a non-green drive is insignificant.
Associate
I bet nobody buys them for the 'greenness'. I buy them for HTPCs because they're quieter.
A great example has to be "green hard disks". The energy saving between a "green" drive and a non-green drive is insignificant.
Your final point is in fact the third reason and it will stimulate a lot of innovation in industry. Win on Sunday sell cars on Monday, too.
Audi have been successfully using Le Mans as a test bed for their TDi technology for years. Next year the regulations are open to electric and hybrid vehicles.
You'll be surprised.
When people find out that a hard disk uses less power, they feel that they will save on electricity bills. What they don't realise is that the power consumption of a hard disk is already so low that once you factor in the 10-15% power saving, you are literally saving, pennies in electricity bills, per year.
I'd buy a lower consumption hard disk purely on the grounds that it uses less power. I don't understand why you wouldn't unless they are significantly more expensive.
It should be third pointbut it isn't there is no real development allowed and is useless as a test bed.
Kees is restricted by bhp and time of boost, so only real devlopment is reliability. Engine is size limited, rpm limited, turbo only, so again no real development. It's just like aero trying to get that extra 0.1% more power every few races. No new technology or development.
Because the amount of power (or electricity/cost) saving is minimal.
According to this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/HDD-6Gbit,2528-10.html
At max throughput,
The lowest power usage is 10.3w
The highest power usage is 6.4w.
The difference is 3.9w.
Using this calculator: http://www.ukpower.co.uk/tools/running_costs_electricity/
If your computer is on 24/7, in 1 year, you will pay an extra £3.48/year.
Now, unless times are extraordinarily hard, £3.48/year isnt really much of a saving, if you are moving from the most power hungry drive to the lowest power drive.
Lower power doesnt necessarily mean quieter.
For me, I wouldnt base my decision on power usage. I tend to go for the lowest £/GB.
I wouldnt say that a saving of £3.48/year is being green, but each to their own.
Soldato
How is buying a new harddisk and chucking the old one in the bin being green??
It also takes power and resources to make the damn thing.
But it's a little off-topic, I hate that F1 focuses on being green, F1 should not be about fuel saving, tofu eating, sandal wearing tree huggers but about the fastest cars and racing.
It also takes power and resources to make the damn thing.
But it's a little off-topic, I hate that F1 focuses on being green, F1 should not be about fuel saving, tofu eating, sandal wearing tree huggers but about the fastest cars and racing.
That's a very clever comment to make being less wasteful look stupid, but that's not what I suggested I was going to do.
The more fuel burnt the better!
Soldato
But all these small or apparently 'insignificant' energy savings all add up in terms of CO2 reduction - you have to consider the wider picture. It's not just about saving the individual consumer 6p a week.
Obviously appearing to be greener is important which is why fuel reduction is up for consideration because it's something which will capture public interest (as this thread proves). Of course, fundamentally an approach to being greener is just as important as 'appearing' to be greener.
Obviously appearing to be greener is important which is why fuel reduction is up for consideration because it's something which will capture public interest (as this thread proves). Of course, fundamentally an approach to being greener is just as important as 'appearing' to be greener.
Last edited: