[OT] "How Green Is Your House" and TV watching

[Jon D]

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?

 

[Funfly3]

"Jon D" <jon_d@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:96E8B693C63D571E5D@66.250.146.159...

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?
adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the

wrong group ?????

 

[Mike Henry]

In <96E8B693C63D571E5D@66.250.146.159>, Jon D <jon_d@nomail.com> wrote:

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

It certainly sounds like it! It'd mean you could never watch a movie in
one sitting, even if it was the only thing you watched that day! Absurd.

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

She sounds like the sort of TV-hater that they have in home makeover
programmes, where the TV is always banished to a corner of the room
(often behind a folding screen) or they make a cabinet with doors so
that you can "close it away out of sight". Why should it be out of
sight!

 

[John Jordan]

Jon D wrote:

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter. To bring it closer to the topic, this
is much less than a 21" CRT monitor.

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.


--
John Jordan

 

[Schrodinger]

"Jon D" <jon_d@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:96E8B693C63D571E5D@66.250.146.159...

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

A TV uses a relatively small amount of power. Did she mention making sure
that you only boil enough water needed for, say, one cup of tea - instead of
the half kettle most people boil and reboil? How about using a lower temp
setting on your washing machine?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

Guess - it's a woman.

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.

> Does anyone know typical consumption figures?

 

[Trevor Best]

Schrodinger wrote:

A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the house.
This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under the banner
of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s that have
better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the environment. The
government and media is choc full of ill informed dick heads like this.

I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon
of fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.

 

[Halmyre]

Jon D wrote:

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?

TVs, sound systems and computers use less power than cookers,
dishwashers and washing machines, but you don't see anyone banging on
about *their* use, do you...

--
Halmyre

f c e k
i r i s h c o n n e c t i o n

 

[Schrodinger]

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:4346c242$0$930$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

Schrodinger wrote:
A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.

I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon of
fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.

Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.

 

[Chris Jones]

Jon D wrote:

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

Does anyone know typical consumption figures?

I agree with you. Much greater savings could be made by reducing the power
of a load which is always on, e.g. in its life, a typical microwave oven
uses more power to run the clock than to cook the food, because it might be
cooking for 5 minutes a day at 1kW, but it's running the clock for 1440
minutes a day at perhaps 5 Watts, because of the inefficient power supply
for the clock. The same kind of thing applies to TVs, many of which use
10W or so just to run the remote control receiver. She should have asked
them to limit the standby time of the TV by switching off at the socket,
rather than limiting the watching time. In my opinion, if your enjoying
something, it isn't entirely a waste, whereas something costly that you
don't even notice, let alone enjoy, is certainly a waste.

It is sending out the wrong message if she makes it seem like energy saving
has to be unpleasant. There are plenty of ways of saving energy that
people wouldn't even notice, like putting power switches in the primary
circuit of the power transformer in a radio, instead of putting the switch
in the secondary as is more usual.

Chris

 

[Alex Butcher]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:57:35 +0100, John Jordan wrote:

Jon D wrote:

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more substantial
electrical savings could have been found easily elsewhere?

I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter.

That sounds pretty typical.

To bring it closer to the topic, this is much less than a 21" CRT monitor.

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even less
power than a TV.

I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.

....but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <96E8B693C63D571E5D@66.250.146.159>,
Jon D <jon_d@nomail.com> writes:

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

I saw some of the programme. The bits I saw were bullshit.
Can't recall all the issues now, but her comment that a
TV on standby uses 80% of the full-on power was one
of the bits of bullshit which I do recall her saying.

Just remember the programme is meant to be entertainment,
and sadly not educational.

--
Andrew Gabriel

 

[Schrodinger]

"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505@assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
newsan.2005.10.07.21.35.21.912@assursys.co.uk...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:57:35 +0100, John Jordan wrote:

Jon D wrote:

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more substantial
electrical savings could have been found easily elsewhere?

I'm going to regret replying to a cross-post, but my 21" Hitachi TV uses
70-80W according to my wattmeter.

That sounds pretty typical.

To bring it closer to the topic, this is much less than a 21" CRT
monitor.

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even less
power than a TV.

I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.

...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.

Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries. They have a
limit on how many charges they accept and again, what is the carbon cost of
manufacturing and getting one to market if he ends up buying a replacement
earlier than he would have because of not using his mini system?

Best Regards,
Alex.

 

[**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**]

My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!

Schrodinger wrote:

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:4346c242$0$930$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...


Schrodinger wrote:


A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.


I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon of
fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.



Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.




My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
All posting done in DSB to placate the "kooks".

The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.

 

[Alex Fraser]

"Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4347013d$0$38037$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...

In article <96E8B693C63D571E5D@66.250.146.159>,
Jon D <jon_d@nomail.com> writes:
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

I saw some of the programme. The bits I saw were bullshit.
Can't recall all the issues now, but her comment that a
TV on standby uses 80% of the full-on power was one
of the bits of bullshit which I do recall her saying.

If you watched a TV taking 60W for one hour per day, and left it on standby
taking 10W the rest of the time, then almost 80% of the energy used by the
television would be when it was on standby.

Alex

 

[Paul Hyett]

In uk.media.tv.misc on Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Funfly3 wrote :

adding OT to the beginning of a post does not make it ok to post in the
wrong group ?????

Funny, it thought it *did*.

It's not a big deal anyway - it's not like we're still using 800 bit

modems, or 50mb HD's.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

 

[Alex Butcher]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:26:02 +0000, Schrodinger wrote:

"Alex Butcher" <alex.butcher.news0505@assursys.co.uk> wrote in message
newsan.2005.10.07.21.35.21.912@assursys.co.uk...
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:57:35 +0100, John Jordan wrote:
Jon D wrote:

[snip]

She also wanted to limit the time spent by the father on listening to
his micro-system through headphones. I would guess this uses even
less power than a TV.

I'd be surprised if this used more than 30W.

...but probably significantly more than listening to a headphone system
(e.g. iPod, Discman, Walkman) through headphones, which I guess is the
point that was being made.


Dodgy at best - you surely have to factor in the carbon cost of
manufacture - even if he has one already, of LiOn batteries.

Well, only the iPod will be powered by LiOn cells out of those three
alternatives I gave. The others will probably either be powered from
NiCd/NiMH cells, or most greenly, a carefully-selected wall-wart power
supply that's actually vaguely efficient (unlike the vast majority on the
market, in other words!)

They have a limit on how many charges they accept

Actually, lifetimes of LiOn cells are more closely tied to the
chronological age from the date of manufacture, providing you don't 'deep
cycle' them (i.e. run down 'til the device turns off, then recharge).
Thus, if you don't use it, you're gonna lose it anyway.

and again, what is the carbon cost of manufacturing and getting one to
market if he ends up buying a replacement earlier than he would have
because of not using his mini system?

a) LiOn cells can be replaced, providing you don't mind taking the device
apart, thus eliminating the need to replace the whole device.

b) Most "Green" suggestions, when made for general consumption, are
couched in terms of either switching to use something in a more efficient
manner, switching to another device that you already own, or switching to
a more efficient device, but only when you come to replace the current
device anyway (this latter point is particularly applicable to advice
given regarding cars, due to the large amount of energy consumed in their
manufacture).

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>

 

[Huge]

Jon D <jon_d@nomail.com> writes:

On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

Yes. She seems to have a big down on enjoying oneself.

She's a typical lentilista. And if she's ridden that bike any distance,
I'm Lynford Christie. Perhaps she should eat fewer pies and mind her
own business?

The concept of overall system costs doesn't seem to have crossed her
blubbery little mind, either. A system that costs (say) Ł5000
and saves Ł50/year (the rainwater recovery system she wittered on about
in an earlier programme struck me as a good example) simply isn't
worth installing.

There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.

Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Chris Jones]

Huge wrote:

Jon D <jon_d@nomail.com> writes:
On a recent UK broadcast of "How Green Is Your House" the advisor
said she wanted to limit TV watching from 7 hours a day to 1 hour a
day.

Surely a modern TV does not use all that much power and more
substantial electrical savings could have been found easily
elsewhere?

Was she just trying to impose a lifestyle rather than save a useful
amoun of energy?

Yes. She seems to have a big down on enjoying oneself.

She's a typical lentilista. And if she's ridden that bike any distance,
I'm Lynford Christie. Perhaps she should eat fewer pies and mind her
own business?

The concept of overall system costs doesn't seem to have crossed her
blubbery little mind, either. A system that costs (say) Ł5000
and saves Ł50/year (the rainwater recovery system she wittered on about
in an earlier programme struck me as a good example) simply isn't
worth installing.
It might be worthwhile for you that she has paid to collect her rainwater

though, since much of the cost of providing water to consumers is probably
paid through the tax system rather than through water meters.

There is also considerable doubt whether switching computers off and
on all the time is a good idea, either. If it shortens the life of the
computer and it needs replacing, you've way exceeded any saving you
may have made.
Depends - most computers are chucked out when they still work, because they

become obsolete. There is room to wear them out a bit faster and they
could still be chucked out because they are too slow rather than because
they fail. I am doubtful about the benefits of leaving things on all the
time anyway. I think it depends on the appliance, and the length of time
the thing will be idle. I think that in almost all cases, if something
won't be used for a whole night or a whole day then it is worth switching
it off. The cost of electric power is only partly paid on the electricity
bill, if you have visited some power stations, you get to appreciate this.
Certainly switching things off is way cheaper per Watt than installing
solar panels, and is therefore more deserving of subsidies.

Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.
But aluminium is always worth recycling. They build aluminium smelters

close to power stations rather than close to bauxite mines, because the
cost of transporting the ore is less than the cost of transporting the
electric power - that shows how much power is used.

Chris

 

[Chris Jones]

**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:

My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!

Schrodinger wrote:

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:4346c242$0$930$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...


Schrodinger wrote:


A micro system will use less power than more or less anything in the
house. This is a pathetic attempt at managing someone's lifestyle under
the banner of "the environment". Part of the same logic that calls 4x4s
that have better fuel consumption than many luxury cars bad for the
environment. The government and media is choc full of ill informed dick
heads like this.


I'll have you know my BMW is environmentally friendly, for every gallon
of fuel I put in, it only pollutes 19 miles of atmosphere.



Somebody needs a lesson in Boyle's law.




My FORD Expedition only pollutes 15 miles of atmosphere per gallon!

I get 53 mpg (US gallons) or 64mpg (UK gallons) from my diesel car that only
cost me ÂŁ2500 (about $3000). It runs on biodiesel made from old cooking
fat. I will think of you with a smile every time the fuel price goes up!
I can drive 4 times as far as you! 4 times!!!!
Chris

 

[**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**]

A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize
quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.

Huge wrote:

Much recycling is pointless, too. The energy costs of recycling many
materials way exceeds the cost of replacing from new. Many councils
actually put the contents of recycling bins into landfill anyway. Milton
Keynes recycling centre loses tens of millions a year, evidence that
the materials it recovers are unwanted.



A ton of money could be saved by manufacturing items which utilize

quality materials and can be serviced readily. Too much money and
resources are spent filling landfills with appliances and goods which
wear out prematurely and cannot be repaired.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT (This post was transmitted in DSB to placate the "Kooks")
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"

The Lost Deep Thoughts By: Jack Handey
Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time
when he's only partially mad. And this is the time when he's
going to throw his best parties.