🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:23:23 +1000, "Peter Parker"
<parkerp@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Alan Liefting" <aliefting@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3CC678C6.39F52555@ihug.co.nz...
>
>> Good point about efficencies.  You are right.  Modern equip tends to
>> have lower power consumption.
>
>Even if you include power consumed by equipment when it's switched off?
>
>In this case modern equipment might consume more power overall if the
>gear it's replacing consumes nothing when off.

I can cite one device, the television. We use a Sencore AC isolation
variac, and it is metered. Most TV's fall between 10 and 100mA of
current in standby, or 1.2 to 12 watts. The higher figures are
typically for TV-VCR combos. 12 watts would require more than 3 days
of being off to total a single kilowatt hour. Older TV's are typically
about 50% or so higher in their power consumption when turned on
(ignoring the fact that today's larger TV's draw more power than
smaller ones), so I suppose it depends on the duty cycle. For 50
versus 75 watts, the on time would need to be 40 hours relative to the
over 3 days off in standby, so in moderate to heavy use at least a
newer TV would be more efficient, I think.

Tom

>
>Fortunately a few powerboards with switches is a relatively low-cost cure.
>
>This will probably be my next energy-saving measure after my experiment with
>compact
>flourescent lights as a substitute for bulbs failed on both economic and
>other grounds.
>(The lifetime varies, but doubt it was more than twice that of globes and
>the RF
>interference emitted played severe havoc with HF radio equipment).  It's
>back to the
>bulbs for me.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>Our insatiable demand for energy is
>> causing climate change.  A high portion of our energy comes from FOSSIL
>> FUELS.
>>
>> Alan Liefting.
>
>