Make PCs Greener

russellcram · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:30

dirtydog said:
No, you clearly don't realise how LITTLE impact we could all make. Do you not realise that the CO2 output of the entire UK is about 2% of the world total? So even if the UK sank into the north sea tomorrow and we never outputted anything ever again, it would make no difference. China, India and the rest would soon make up for the shortfall.

It is nothing to do with being lazy; my PC runs 24/7 not only because it is more convenient for me to switch it on whenever I want and it is ready to use immediately; nor is it only because I run p2p apps overnight (when ADSL is unmetered).

Do you not realise that computer components are most likely to fail on start-up, and they will actually last longer if left on 24/7 than having to go through the start-up cycle from cold every day? That's right - it is false economy to switch off every night. You save a few pennies on your electricity yet may have to buy a new hard drive or graphics card sooner than you would otherwise need to. The manufacture of those items would require FAR more CO2 emissions than your PC uses. Do you get it?

Your obviously far too willing to stick your head in the sand, I bet you think its not your problem and that someone else will solve it. Wrong, you live in this world as does everyone else and if you do something and a fair percentage of everyone else in the world does something to save electricity then we will have an impact. I ain't just talking about people in the UK, after all not all of the population of these forums is from the UK, or did you forget that... If people in the states also started turning things off too then you can be darned sure there'd be an impact. One person does make a difference when one person is part of millions who try, because 1 here and 1 there soon turns into an awful lot of savings. By the sounds of it though too many people aren't willing to try cause they aren't going to have an impact when in fact they will you just won't notice it until you look at the whole picture.

And yeah actually it can have a lot to do with people being lazy, I've had this dicussion at work and amongst friends before and the usually people can't be bothered to wait the 30s or 2 mins for a computer to turn on. You say there that its more convienient for it to be instant on, why? Can you not be bothered to wait either? Why do you need to have a PC thats instantly on whats so important that you can't wait that 30 seconds.

Now I don't have statistics to back this up, but then I don't think you'll have statistics to disprove me but am sure that manufacturing techniques for electronic components has improved dramatically over the last 20 years or so. Mean Time Before Failure/Power Cycling faliure rates will be up considerably on what they used to be. As you said it MAY fail on powerup and your only saving a few pennies, or it MAY work perfectly fine and never fail and you'll have said yourself a few pennies everyday over the time your using it and the environment at the same time. I know which I'd rather take the gamble on.

Let me know when your willing to get your head out of the sand, and I'll have your buoyancy aids ready for when the polar caps have melted cause you can't, sorry won't try and make a difference

dirtydog · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:38

If I wasn't going to be dead in 50 years of old age, I would probably give more of a toss what happens to the planet, but seeing as I will be...

lookitsjonno · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:44

i tend to turn everything off after i use them. even if i go downstairs for 10 minutes i turn my PC monitor and hi-fi off!

i know about this china crap, and it not making the blind bit of difference, but i like to know i'm doing my bit for mother nature

dirtydog · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:52

nm

(I should read more carefully

)

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2007 at 14:55

Welshy said:
I use a laptop, so I'm assuming mine uses up a fraction of what a normal desktop PC will use

If it's charging the battery then it's hugely inefficient, but if you unplug the battery whilst using it the power comsumption will be lower than a desktop.

Burnsy

Lagz · 28 Jan 2007 at 16:36

The problem with computers isn't more to do with how computers behave when they are turned on, than how they waste power on standby when turned off. CPU utilisation for an average family home PC (no clock cycles used / total no clock cycles) is probably no more than 5%, yet the CPU stays fully powered. Same can be said for many other components of a PC. Why does the sound card need power when there aren't any sounds being played? Why do all the sticks of RAM need to be powered when only 5% of the RAM is required?

If we fundamentally change the way PCs are designed then we could make them far more efficient. This is going to be a pretty hot topic in Computer Science. I know my uni are trying to get a bit of a head start with this kind of research, since it is bound to be big in the near future (and potentially very profitable).

Amp34 · 28 Jan 2007 at 17:19

Agreed, the easiest way to do that would be microsoft integrating more 'sleep' style options into computer shutdowns. The sleep turns pretty much everything off but the RAM. An option that turned the GFX and HDD as well as minor hardware but leaving the CPU and RAM active would be very useful. But I suppose in a way it would be like closing the gate after the sheep had bolted. Maybe a complete motherboard rework to literally turn off hardwear when its not in use, say the GFX connected to the monitor. The only problem I could see with that is that there would be far more components dying as they would be turned on and off so much more than now.

dirtydog · 28 Jan 2007 at 19:38

Lagz said:
CPU utilisation for an average family home PC (no clock cycles used / total no clock cycles) is probably no more than 5%, yet the CPU stays fully powered.

Eh? No, it doesn't. A CPU at idle uses a fraction of the power it uses under full load.

Most normal PCs use little or no more energy than a lightbulb at idle or for light duties like web browsing.

Makavelli · 29 Jan 2007 at 12:23

dirtydog said:
If I wasn't going to be dead in 50 years of old age, I would probably give more of a toss what happens to the planet, but seeing as I will be...

Not planning on having any kids then?

Makavelli · 29 Jan 2007 at 12:30

sja360 said:
i care, but i dont believe its upto each individual person to make the change, i reckon its the governments or leaders etc of the various countries to come up with some greener replacement for coal plants and such. whats the point if we cut down on having things on if we're still producing the co2 from those plants

Who do you reckon elects the governments or leaders etc

kip02 said:
I bought a power meter from well can't say, but it lets you monitor what power usage is going through a socket.

Plugged into a surge protector i have my pc tower, 20" TFT, speakers, router and modem.
At the moment just browsing the internet it is reporting using ~169watts.
When i go into a CPU intensive program like a game or something it very rarely tops 200watts.
Also i have my xbox 360 plugged on the same surge protector and when i power that on it reports 307watts while everything above is still on. So it proves that the 360 is more power hungry.

169watts on general use, plug in xbox360 this goes up to 307watts. 307-169=138 - Maybe i'm just being thick here but surely that makes the xbox360 is less power hungry

sunama · 29 Jan 2007 at 12:54

Remember that the xbox (360) is effectively a PC packaged in a attractive looking case - it has a cpu, hd, video card/chip, just as any PC does. It comes as no surprise that it uses a similar amount of power as a PC.

manveruppd · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:03

Saying it's the goverment's responsibility to produce power more cheaply while being unwilling to change your own habits is exactly what ensures no goverment will EVER invest into renewable energy. If the politicians don't see you changing your habits, they correctly surmise that you don't give a **** about the environment. You talk the talk, but you would resent having to pay for the necessary research into greener energy production (which would ultimately come out of the taxpayer's pockets), and therefore no politician would risk his parliamentary seat to save a few trees per year.

As for India, China, and the US, that's a very hypocritical argument - it's like saying why should I save energy if my neighbour is driving a bigger car than me? You know others won't change their attitude unless they get shamed into seeing the error of their ways by their neighbours' self-satisfied smugness at doing more for the environment than they are!

Bourgeois snobbery is a powerful means of propaganda!

BTW, who told you that switching appliances off at the wall saves more power than switching them off at the power button? :confused:

The LEDs on your motherboard use fractional droplets of power, with a few more infinitessimal increments of a watt lost during transmission through the power cables (resistance, heat production etc.). The much-reduced lifespan of your equipment caused by the frequent spiking of current being turned on at the wall several times a day will ultimately have a much greater detrimental effect on the environment by forcing you to replace them sooner than you normally would've done.

ElRazur · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:07

manveruppd said:
BTW, who told you that switching appliances off at the wall saves more power than switching them off at the power button? The LEDs on your motherboard use fractional droplets of power, with a few more infinitessimal increments of a watt lost during transmission through the power cables (resistance, heat production etc.). The much-reduced lifespan of your equipment caused by the frequent spiking of current being turned on at the wall several times a day will ultimately have a much greater detrimental effect on the environment by forcing you to replace them sooner than you normally would've done.

Is there any fact in this? Im asking because I knew somehow that leaving my ps2,ps3,dvd,tv,stereo,pc, and laptop all in standyby cant be that wrong..

Combat squirrel · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:08

Im actually trying to think how to harness the heat of modern pc's in a feedback loop to generate electricity, obviously it could never be self sustaining, but heat + solar even in the UK -should- be enough to run a pc you would think ? hmmm iv got thinking now about this...........

EDIT:

How about:

Solar Panel
* Peak Power (W) - 80W
* Max.Current (Imp) - 4.65A
* Max.Voltage (Vmp) - 17.2V
* Short Circuit Current (Lsc) - 5.00A
* Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) - 21.6V
* HxWxD - 1196 x 534 x 35mm
* Weight - 7.8kg

Connected to High drain battery

then use a 1000W Inverter to step it up to DC mains current

sorted

manveruppd · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:18

ElRazur said:
Is there any fact in this? Im asking because I knew somehow that leaving my ps2,ps3,dvd,tv,stereo,pc, and laptop all in standyby cant be that wrong..

Standby or off? I was talking about PCs specifically, I don't know about your other kit.

Combat squirrel said:
Im actually trying to think how to harness the heat of modern pc's in a feedback loop to generate electricity, obviously it could never be self sustaining, but heat + solar even in the UK -should- be enough to run a pc you would think ? hmmm iv got thinking now about this...........

Easy, watercool your PC and feed the outgoing water flow through a turbine which you'll use to feed your Doomsday machine and hold the world at ransom!

Burnsy2023 · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:18

manveruppd said:
BTW, who told you that switching appliances off at the wall saves more power than switching them off at the power button? The LEDs on your motherboard use fractional droplets of power, with a few more infinitessimal increments of a watt lost during transmission through the power cables (resistance, heat production etc.). The much-reduced lifespan of your equipment caused by the frequent spiking of current being turned on at the wall several times a day will ultimately have a much greater detrimental effect on the environment by forcing you to replace them sooner than you normally would've done.

They use a lot more energy but not from load current draw. Most appliances with an electronics need a low voltage to operate them, that requires a step down transformer, which are inherently ineffecient. To keep the coils charged uses a fair amount of power and this is where all the wastage is.

Burnsy

Jono · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:19

Too many prisoners? Not enough power?

Solution: Burn prisoners.

dirtydog · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:19

Makavelli said:
Not planning on having any kids then?

No way José...

manveruppd · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:44

burnsy2023 said:
They use a lot more energy but not from load current draw. Most appliances with an electronics need a low voltage to operate them, that requires a step down transformer, which are inherently ineffecient. To keep the coils charged uses a fair amount of power and this is where all the wastage is.

Yep, any electronics device will use a couple of watts of power when off, as the coils gradually lose their charge and are "topped up", but, as I said, the stress caused to sensitive electronics by switching them on and off at the wall will by far offset any saving (environmental and economical) you make by switching them off at the wall. This is especially the case if you're in the habit of leaving the appliance turned on and ONLY turn it off at the wall, as you're far more likely to damage it that way. The quality of the power lines varies from place to place, but some areas I've lived in had frequent spikes in the current when turned on at the socket - I killed 2 Belkin surge suppressors that way over the years, if I didn't have them I might've needed 2 new PSUs or motherboards, which would've been far more costly both to me and to the Amazon rainforest than the few watts of power my PC uses when off!

Some pieces of electronics are so sensitive they actually tell you not to switch them off at all, even at the power button: my hi-fi amp's user manual (Cambridge Audio) explicitly says I should leave it on at all times, and I therefore only turn it off when I'll be away from home for a week or more.

Furthermore, some people who hear this advice think it applies to ALL electrical equipment, even the ones without a step-down transformer, so obsessively turn off every socket, even if the only thing connected to it is a desk lamp. It's a pet peeve of mine, especially when people are so obsessed about doing it that way that they feel the need to tell you off for not doing it.

barkingcat · 31 Jan 2007 at 04:32

As burnsy2023, said, pretty much all electronic devices must be protected from excess power. That is the nature of modern electronics. I don't think there are any transistor-based logic chips, that won't get fried by 3A and 240V.

Consequently you have a problem: you need to reduce the torrent that comes out of your wall socket down to a trickle, which your PC, TV, HI-FI and so on can cope with. You, basically, need some sort of a damb to prevents, which will keep the lake upstream from washing away the tiny villages downstream. Maintaining this damb is always an energy-expensive exercise, because you are working against the natural flow of the system. Consequently, yes, the advice does apply to all electronics.

In the normal course of events, there are two basic sources of damage to the electronic guts of your computer: things getting rapidly warmed up on start-up and things staying warm for a long time. Both of these cause slow changes in the chemistry of the materials involved, and the damage is cumulative. However, my reasonably educated guess is, that, unless you go flicking the on-off switch repeatedly just for the heck of it, the accumulation of warm-up damage (given all the modern surge-protection etc) will be so slow, that you will have upgraded your PC, long before it becomes in any way significant.

Much the same argument applies to your HI-FI. It will die of old age long before start-up damage will become a significant factor. Electronic components aren't intended to last forever. Most will conk out within 10 years or so.