Plugged-in Age Feeds A Hunger For Electricity

[cells]

As for those on high horses saying consumption is the root of all evils and they live on bread dipped in warm water. Utter ********, the whole economy dependss on someone producing something or providing a service to someone who wants it. If we all lived on bread dipped in water we would be back to when jebus was a lad. So no ipods = no healthcare, no police, no firemen, no nothing.

[Kurt Barlow]

Standard of life is a subjective measure.

Wealth in the form of material things and service however does correlate to energy consumption, although not linear.

Also if you can afford the 42 inch plasma it indicates you can afford healthcare, while if you bought a second hand 20 inch black and white TV then you probably cant afford healthcare. So stuff indicates wealth which indicates standard of life and usually the higher energy consuming stuff is more expensive, think of a tiny car for £6k vs a truck for £20k.

And increasingly considers factors such as the risk of being knifed or shot, access to education, transport.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Neat gizmo, must get one. In which case I amend my comment to 'Roll on 32" LED HDTV TVs that use <60w. ' I saw a TV feature about michael owen when he played for Newcastle - he had what looked like a 72" HDTV Plasma on the wall - wonder what that consumed!?

But it runs on electricity. You're killing the planet.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

As for those on high horses saying consumption is the root of all evils and they live on bread dipped in warm water. Utter ********, the whole economy dependss on someone producing something or providing a service to someone who wants it. If we all lived on bread dipped in water we would be back to when jebus was a lad. So no ipods = no healthcare, no police, no firemen, no nothing.

No iPod, no healthcare?

So, if I have an iPod, can I get free healthcare in America?

[Damik]

When I was choosing a new TV a year or so back, it was a serious consideration. I went for a 'small' 32" LCD instead of a 42" plasma because of these numbers:

Panasonic Viera 42-Inch Plasma Power Consumption : 573W

Panasonic VIERA 32-Inch LCD Rated Power Consumption: 120 W

Apart from owt else, a half kilowatt idiot box in the corner of the room would chuck out a huge amount of heat, even in the summer!

edit to add 'plasma'

however in colder part of the year your plasma co-generate heat as well and you save on burning the gas for heating ...

[Potwalloper]

Nice absence of OCD switch it off types here. Excellent.

0.2W on standby is nothing. So Sony are OK after all.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Nice absence of OCD switch it off types here. Excellent.

0.2W on standby is nothing. So Sony are OK after all.

I leave the Aga on in summer.

Justifies the war, you see.

[Guest happy?]

As for those on high horses saying consumption is the root of all evils and they live on bread dipped in warm water. Utter ********, the whole economy dependss on someone producing something or providing a service to someone who wants it. If we all lived on bread dipped in water we would be back to when jebus was a lad. So no ipods = no healthcare, no police, no firemen, no nothing.

I spy with my little eye something beginning with S.

Strawman!

[Damik]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/business...mp;ref=business

Great news for the power companies, not so good for the planet.

This exponential growth in electricity consumption is completely unsustainable.

Unless they start to consume less energy I think the price of energy will discourage the buying power hungry TV's and consoles. For the electronics companies this is good news as they will have a new selling point for there products once everyone has a HD TV get a HD efficient TV.

the major consumption of energy per typical household:

- car fuel

- house heating

- food (it takes a lot of energy to get you your German salami nicely fresh)

- water heating

- aircon

we should focus on savings in these areas .... actually all electronic gizmos can save the planet as you will less travel and also you will spend more time in your house and heating it with your body ... also you will eat less - on the other side you will waste more NHS resources with this lifestyle ... we should be always careful with the social engineering ...

the old CRTs in 90s had quite high consumption anyway ...

Edited September 20, 2009 by damian frach

[cells]

No iPod, no healthcare?

So, if I have an iPod, can I get free healthcare in America?

Yes, haven’t you downloaded the “solve your medical problems in 10 or less easy steps†applet?

[Kurt Barlow]

Hey Kurt thats not like you having a go at me.

You will be pleased to know I am investing in an area that might get the southern hemispheres largest wind farm. Even though its a waste of time there is money in them.

Well lets face it you are a bull(shitter) in a crowd of bears

Just pointing out one of the many benefits of energy conservation if the environment or saving money isn't ones thing

[Kurt Barlow]

however in colder part of the year your plasma co-generate heat as well and you save on burning the gas for heating ...

Great way to heat your house - use electricity which is 4 times the price of gas

[Kurt Barlow]

If one is a bear on house prices it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are bearish on energy, shares and other opportunities.

Or are you saying that housing bears are all peak oil nutters and anti-opportunity as well ?

I think you are quite right to be bullish on energy - assuming you forsee energy constraints in the coming decades - peak oil / gas?

However my approach is not to stick my nuts in your hands (ie the energy sector) by optimising efficiency / renewals at a personal level so I am as independent as is possible. In addition I encourage others to do the same.

[Long Way Down]

Great way to heat your house - use electricity which is 4 times the price of gas

But, to be fair, you could leave the TV on overnight using cheap off-peak electricity.

Not as cheap as an electric blanket though!

Or an electric "Big Slipper":

http://www.cnmonline.co.uk/product.php?pro...CFeMB4wodQU0tdA

Just don't try to run to answer the door when wearing.

[Kurt Barlow]

But, to be fair, you could leave the TV on overnight using cheap off-peak electricity.

Not as cheap as an electric blanket though!

Or an electric "Big Slipper":

http://www.cnmonline.co.uk/product.php?pro...CFeMB4wodQU0tdA

Just don't try to run to answer the door when wearing.

Use a £1000 plasma TV to do the same job a £15 convector heater would perform - hmmmm???

Why not just buy a LCD that uses a fraction of the juice and put an extra duvet on the bed?

[Kurt Barlow]

I only forsee increasing demand the constraints have always been there and will always be overcome.

At ever higher prices I suspect

[cells]

I only forsee increasing demand the constraints have always been there and will always be overcome.

Indeed demand will grow to double what it is today by 2030. Most of that increase will be met by coal and gas and we will probably see a big nuclear push starting 2030s

There is a very very slight chance that the west could go into conservation mode and ration energy via tax/price. If that happens we could see a big decrease in the wests energy consumption to somewhat offset the BRICs increasing demand.

Bar hydro renewable energy will be drops in an ocean. Solar PV is the only one that has a chance of being successful, think 1 terra watt plus.

[cells]

At ever higher prices I suspect

Not considerably.

Remember gas is about 0.6p a kWh out of the well and electricity 3-4p to the grid (of which maybe one third is the fuel), most the cost to you is the service of providing it to you. So if gas prices double it only adds 0.6p to your 3p gas bill. Likewise if coal/gas to make electricity doubles it would add about 1p to your 10p electricity bill.

On top of all of that, there is taxation at each stage which is another fixed cost.

The actual cost of energy is ultra cheap. One years average wages in the uk can buy you about 4,000,000 kWh of gas. Enough gas to heat your home for 100-150 years with just 1 years average UK wages. (and that’s not even taking into account that about half your income is taken by tax, so if you strip that out, 1 years real wages buys you about 300 years worth of gas to heat your home)

[Guest sillybear2]

these big TV's make my projector a bargain @220w for a 100 inch screen projected onto the wall - picture is superb too - 100" is equivalent to 4x 50" screens area wise

the other day I was looking to buy a spare bulb & was a bit shocked to realise they were 200w

Yeah, just a shame the bulbs cost £150 a piece

[Guest sillybear2]

I suspect the optimum usage for living standards is somewhere around the European average of 5-7000kwh / pa.

A living standard lower than Bangladesh then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society

[newbonic]

QUOTE (aa3 @ Sep 20 2009, 02:51 PM) *

There is a direct correlation between electrical use and standard of living. As we cut back our electrical use, our standard of living will fall. We will watch other nations enjoying new technologies, but forego them and feel self-righteous that we are saving the world.

Not really - very high usage often indicates inefficient use.

The USA uses 12700 kwh per head of pop

Compared to Germany - 6700, UK - 5740, Denmark -6400, Holland - 7200, Japan 7900, France 8700.

All factors considered I wouldn't say that reflects relative living standards in each country - would you?

New Scientist had an interesting take on this issue, viz:

Better world: Redefine the bottom line

* 11 September 2009 by David Robson

Money matters but it's not the only thing that does. Governments need to find better ways of measuring progress.

WHICH country has the highest quality of life: Costa Rica or the US? According to the standard measure of economic development, the US wins hands down: its GDP is more than $45,000 per person, compared to Costa Rica's $10,000. Yet looking at the health and happiness of its inhabitants - arguably more important indicators of well-being - Costa Rica comes out top. Link

Costa Ricans also have a longer life expectancy than yanks - despite their prodigious waste of energy, and the vast sums spent on their health system.

[Guest sillybear2]

New Scientist had an interesting take on this issue, viz:

Better world: Redefine the bottom line

* 11 September 2009 by David Robson

Money matters but it's not the only thing that does. Governments need to find better ways of measuring progress.

WHICH country has the highest quality of life: Costa Rica or the US? According to the standard measure of economic development, the US wins hands down: its GDP is more than $45,000 per person, compared to Costa Rica's $10,000. Yet looking at the health and happiness of its inhabitants - arguably more important indicators of well-being - Costa Rica comes out top. Link

So much for the average man on the street, how do the living standards of government and banking parasites compare in their respective countries? You can bet your bottom dollar Costa Rica's elites are collectively quite poor compared to their US counterparts, x4.5 greater income per capita means x4.5 more opportunities to thieve and tax that output.

Edited September 20, 2009 by sillybear2

[Kurt Barlow]

A living standard lower than Bangladesh then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society

Perhaps you should work out the difference between energy and electricity (which is what I was referring to)

[Ride_on]

The EnP Directive (Energy using products) has already started to take affect and more products will kick in early next year. This defines standby power and so on, however it is muddied by people like Sky/Virgin who want to talk to your box all the time.

As many of you have noticed most new TVs now have a 1w standby that kicks in after a few minutes. Next to come is automatic standby for STBs and so on.

BTW The reason they don't bother with proper off buttons is that ;

1. They are expensive as they need to meet a lot of safety regulations

2. Studies have shown that most people won't use them.

And yes as someone already said CRTs are the worst by miles, next plasmas (as they are large), and then LCDs with florescent back lights. I'm not sure LED back lights are much better, IMO LED house lighting is useless (except for effects). LED emmissive TVs, or OLED or Polymer LED where light is generated pixel by pixel will be orders of magnitude better than LCD (which FILTERS light pixel by pixel), however are currently very expensive and small.

I have to say that the energy saved is not a huge amount by these directives, in some ways it is the low hanging fruit of power saving. It is worth having as it is a step in the right direction and to stop things getting much worse, but nothing compared to the amount of heat wasted in badly constructed or baldy modified houses. I would say a directive on digital thermostats to force them to output data on the thermal efficiency of the house would create a greater improvement in energy consumption. It would just need the addition of an external temp sensor to create a heat loss/degree difference in-out. Would work for air con aswell. Would be a much more useful/accurate rating than the current EPC system which really misses out the main problem of drafts.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Ride_on

[MarkG]

Presumably that's due to gas guzzling trucks and heating.

Living at -40C with no heating kind of sucks. And driving out of town on a dirt road at -40C in a snow storm in a Smart car is not very smart.

Canadians seem good eggs on the whole but they really need to think about their energy consumption if this figure is true.

Energy is cheap and would be getting cheaper if governments weren't doing their best to prevent new sources of cheap energy. Ours mostly comes from locally-produced coal and gas and we're probably getting a nuke powered by locally-produced uranium in a few years.

Would it be such a hardship to drive smaller engined vehicles

The Honda Civic is about the smallest-engined car you can buy here, with a 1.8 liter engine. It's been the best-selling car in Canada since the last millennium, so clearly more than a few people are 'driving smaller engined cars', at least by North American standards.

The big problem is that the only affordable non-Asian vehicles here are American, so Canadians just get whatever the Americans currently want... and most American cars really suck. We bought a Civic recently; our other car is an old 3.something liter Buick, which is about the same size as the Civic, gets about the same performance, but burns fuel at 30mpg on long trips where the Civic gets nearly 50mpg. Around town the Buick often feels like someone must have cut a hole in the petrol tank the rate at which the stuff disappears.

The other big problem is the sheer distances involved: my girlfriend's parents live in the next city to the West of us, yet visiting them means traveling about the same distance as London to Edinburgh in the UK... that means either an hour on a plane or five or six hours by car. Similarly, I burn far more oil flying on business trips than I do driving.

insulate homes and commercial premesis,

That, I'm afraid, is probably the most retarded complaint I've ever read about Canadians. You do realise that temperatures regularly drop to -40C and below here? You don't think that, perhaps, houses and commercial premises are already quite well insulated to compensate for that?

Without cutting them open I don't know how much insulation we have in the walls, but on a sunny day I can turn the furnace off to clean it when the temperature is -10C outside and the house will actually warm up; the biggest heat loss is probably through the windows, but they also let in sunlight to heat the place up. At -40C the temperature only drops about one degree an hour with the furnace off.

Heck, even our garage is insulated to reduce heat-loss overnight and the cars' warm-up time in the morning.

wear jumpers indoors etc?

Again, cutting the internal temperature by a few degrees when you're already supporting a 60C difference between inside air and outside air is just monkey talk. Heat loss is approximately proportional to temperature difference, so you'd have to cut the internal temperature to near freezing to see a substantial reduction in fuel usage.

Having an abundance of energy resources doesn't make waste acceptable.

One person's 'waste' is another person's standard of living. People here already pay for insulation, efficient cars, efficient heating, etc, when that makes financial sense: but only a fool pays over the odds for 'efficiency' that costs more than the savings it provides.

Either way, the quoted figures seem crazy to me: we'd be paying $1000 a month for energy alone, and we don't pay over $600 even in the worst of the winter. This month we paid $80 for electricity, probably $40 for gas, and about $100 for petrol.

Edited September 21, 2009 by MarkG