D
Don Y
Guest
On 2/19/2023 4:48 AM, James wrote:
One of the nonprofits that I work with occupies a 50,000 sq ft
facility. Their electric bill is ~$3000/month. Exhorbitant
(12 refrigerators running -- with nothing in them, scores of
computers, thousands of watts of fluorescent lights, etc.).
I suggested removing half of the fluorescent lamps (leave
two bulbs in each 4 lamp fixture). The idea was dismissed
outright; \"We don\'t want people to trip and fall due to
insufficient light!\"
(WTF? having two 40W lamps every 10 feet isn\'t enough light?)
You buy things to *use* them, not worship them.
I have a dozen different external USB drives. Where is the
data that lets me decide how much each costs to operate?
How do I balance this against capacity (if I have to operate
TWO drives, what am I saving?), access times, reliability, etc?
How much power do my computer speakers draw? How does that
compare with other offerings? How does the sound quality factor
into my decision to buy one model or another? Do you publish
SPL per mains power watt consumed? How do you normalize
frequency response wrt energy consumption?
Our refrigerator costs $76/year to operate (based on *some* sort
of \"standard\" which may or may not reflect how we will use it).
Other models of comparable capacity/features are $71 - $83 to
operate. Should we have opted for the $71/yr model (ignoring
all else)? Would that $5/year have made a difference for a
$4000 refrigerator?
Energy costs are typically very low on the list of purchase
decisions, here, esp for electric-powered items (because
electric costs don\'t see sudden changes).
Not a matter of design. *Tariffs* govern the use of the meters,
the rates and what the utility *must* disclose to the customer.
The meter exists for the benefit of the utility -- so that *it*
can determine how much to charge the customer.
Our water meter is similarly automated. Just as little
information available about it as the electric meter.
Different utility but same sort of attitude; if a
customer suspects an error in billing, they can
dispute it. But, the kit is designed to defend the
supplier\'s claim, not the user\'s. (how do *you*
verify that the amount of water, natural gas, electricity,
*gasoline* that you are being billed for is actually what
you consumed? Ans: you rely on the framework put in place
by the \"authorities\" to protect you.)
[I\'d wager none of my neighbors are aware that the water meter
can detect \"small leaks\" -- cases where the water usage
NEVER falls to zero. The utility is under no obligation to
inform the customer that a leak exists.]
So, when *you* represent 100% of the world population, we\'ll all
breathe easier!
Meanwhile, people will ignore issues that they don\'t consider as
important to their purchase and use decisions. And, they will be
empowered to do so by the lack of real-time, easy-to-review
data that they can factor into those decisions.
My automation system can tell you what it \"costs\" (in time, memory,
MIPS and electric power) to transcode a video, train a speech recognizer,
elide \"commercials\" from a broadcast video, recognize a visitor
at the front door, etc. None of that information would be useful
(in a manageable way) to a user. But, it\'s useful for the system
to decide how to solve problems \"most efficiently\" (should I
rely on surplus ON-LINE computing capacity to tackle a task -- in
a given timeframe -- or bring additional resources to bear)
The US is an entirely different beast than the EU et al.
\"Freedom\" is largely interpreted as the freedom to \"do business\".
A business entity isn\'t going to go out of its way to tell you
about your privacy rights, what it costs to carry a balance on
a credit card, what is covered in your warranty, your rights
to dispute charges, the average fuel economy you *may* experience
in a particular vehicle, etc. It\'s only when forced to do so that
these facts come to light.
\"People\" have a limited capacity to manage all of the data that
*could* be presented to them. More disclosure often has exactly
the opposite effect: \"This is too complicated...\"
One of the nonprofits that I work with occupies a 50,000 sq ft
facility. Their electric bill is ~$3000/month. Exhorbitant
(12 refrigerators running -- with nothing in them, scores of
computers, thousands of watts of fluorescent lights, etc.).
I suggested removing half of the fluorescent lamps (leave
two bulbs in each 4 lamp fixture). The idea was dismissed
outright; \"We don\'t want people to trip and fall due to
insufficient light!\"
(WTF? having two 40W lamps every 10 feet isn\'t enough light?)
You buy things to *use* them, not worship them.
I have a dozen different external USB drives. Where is the
data that lets me decide how much each costs to operate?
How do I balance this against capacity (if I have to operate
TWO drives, what am I saving?), access times, reliability, etc?
How much power do my computer speakers draw? How does that
compare with other offerings? How does the sound quality factor
into my decision to buy one model or another? Do you publish
SPL per mains power watt consumed? How do you normalize
frequency response wrt energy consumption?
Our refrigerator costs $76/year to operate (based on *some* sort
of \"standard\" which may or may not reflect how we will use it).
Other models of comparable capacity/features are $71 - $83 to
operate. Should we have opted for the $71/yr model (ignoring
all else)? Would that $5/year have made a difference for a
$4000 refrigerator?
Energy costs are typically very low on the list of purchase
decisions, here, esp for electric-powered items (because
electric costs don\'t see sudden changes).
Not a matter of design. *Tariffs* govern the use of the meters,
the rates and what the utility *must* disclose to the customer.
The meter exists for the benefit of the utility -- so that *it*
can determine how much to charge the customer.
Our water meter is similarly automated. Just as little
information available about it as the electric meter.
Different utility but same sort of attitude; if a
customer suspects an error in billing, they can
dispute it. But, the kit is designed to defend the
supplier\'s claim, not the user\'s. (how do *you*
verify that the amount of water, natural gas, electricity,
*gasoline* that you are being billed for is actually what
you consumed? Ans: you rely on the framework put in place
by the \"authorities\" to protect you.)
[I\'d wager none of my neighbors are aware that the water meter
can detect \"small leaks\" -- cases where the water usage
NEVER falls to zero. The utility is under no obligation to
inform the customer that a leak exists.]
So, when *you* represent 100% of the world population, we\'ll all
breathe easier!
Meanwhile, people will ignore issues that they don\'t consider as
important to their purchase and use decisions. And, they will be
empowered to do so by the lack of real-time, easy-to-review
data that they can factor into those decisions.
My automation system can tell you what it \"costs\" (in time, memory,
MIPS and electric power) to transcode a video, train a speech recognizer,
elide \"commercials\" from a broadcast video, recognize a visitor
at the front door, etc. None of that information would be useful
(in a manageable way) to a user. But, it\'s useful for the system
to decide how to solve problems \"most efficiently\" (should I
rely on surplus ON-LINE computing capacity to tackle a task -- in
a given timeframe -- or bring additional resources to bear)
The US is an entirely different beast than the EU et al.
\"Freedom\" is largely interpreted as the freedom to \"do business\".
A business entity isn\'t going to go out of its way to tell you
about your privacy rights, what it costs to carry a balance on
a credit card, what is covered in your warranty, your rights
to dispute charges, the average fuel economy you *may* experience
in a particular vehicle, etc. It\'s only when forced to do so that
these facts come to light.
\"People\" have a limited capacity to manage all of the data that
*could* be presented to them. More disclosure often has exactly
the opposite effect: \"This is too complicated...\"
p.10peb...@ryzen.home...