The growing popularity of hi-tech devices, such as flat-screen TVs and digital radios, threaten to undermine efforts to save energy, a report says.
UK consumers spend £12bn a year on electronics, much of which is less efficient than older technology, a study by the Energy Saving Trust found.
By 2020, the gadgets will account for about 45% of electricity used in UK households, the organisation projected.
It said flat-screen TVs and digital radios were among the worst offenders.
Paula Owen, author of the report called The Ampere Strikes Back, said household appliances currently consumed about a third of an average home's electricity.
But she warned this was likely to increase as a result of people buying more energy intensive devices.
View: BBC News
UK consumers spend £12bn a year on electronics, much of which is less efficient than older technology, a study by the Energy Saving Trust found.
By 2020, the gadgets will account for about 45% of electricity used in UK households, the organisation projected.
It said flat-screen TVs and digital radios were among the worst offenders.
Paula Owen, author of the report called The Ampere Strikes Back, said household appliances currently consumed about a third of an average home's electricity.
But she warned this was likely to increase as a result of people buying more energy intensive devices.
View: BBC News
"What we are seeing now is a trend for much bigger flat-screened TVs. On average, we are seeing a three-fold increase in the energy needed to power these TVs.
What? I have a 19" LCDTV and 19" "Tube" TV, the LCD uses 50W and the Tube uses 125W (Our old 50" tube uses way more than our 42" LCD too). Do LCDs usually use more? Or does this person just have no idea what she's talking about just like most Global Warming/Energy nut?
Also, to quote an article that actually did some research:
Yes. LCDs use considerably less energy than CRTs, both when running and also when in standby mode. Overall, LCDs can reduce display energy use by some 60%.5 For example, a 15 LCD uses around 25 watts when operational and around 3 watts when in standby mode, compared with an equivalent viewing area 17 CRT that uses 80 watts when operational and 5 watts in standby mode.6 LCD screens recover from standby faster than CRTs and consume less power when they do they this. LCDs do not emit the same heat load as does a CRT, and this saves energy on air conditioning in a building. The uniform brightness of an LCD screen means that the screen can better tolerate variations in light levels, and reductions in lighting also saves energy. A recent Japanese study estimates that if Japan continues on its path towards replacing old CRTs with new LCDs so that some 76% of displays will be LCDs by the end of 2003, this will save 3 billion kWh of power consumption (the equivalent of the total power consumption of 1,000,000 households or the power production of about 3 nuclear power plants).7
Last edited by Jamie9 on 04 Jul 2007 - 09:36
A statement like that can only mean (at least) one of the following:
A) You work for an oil company;
B) You never actually check on the outside world to see what's happening, which would indicate that;
C) You are an utter and complete moron.
Which is it?
For thinking you know anything about me you are one of the following:
a) A complete and utter moron.
b) A complete and utter moron.
c) A complete and utter moron.
Which is it?
A statement like that can only mean (at least) one of the following:
A) You work for an oil company;
B) You never actually check on the outside world to see what's happening, which would indicate that;
C) You are an utter and complete moron.
Which is it?
Statements like those can only mean (at least) one of the following:
A statement like that can only mean (at least) one of the following:
A) You work for an oil company;
B) You never actually check on the outside world to see what's happening, which would indicate that;
C) You are an utter and complete moron.
Which is it?
Yeah, Octol. That's how you get people to pay attention to what you're saying. Insult them into action. And by action I mean of course: start a flame war. Maybe the reason a lot of people don't pay attention is because people like you, and the majority of them are, believe it or not, worse, tend to cram it down our damn throats.
Grow up, please? Convince me, don't blackmail *me* and call *me* a moron, it's just not going to work. I don't have to make a stupid list for that, do I?
I don't have any problem with your considering this woman a 'nut'. In fact you're probably right. What I had a problem with was the phrase: "just like most Global Warming/Energy nut".
Contrary to what the American Petroleum Institute and the Bush Administration would have everyone believe, the jury is not still out on global warming. Global warming is real, and human produced greenhouse gasses are the culprit.
Of course the aforementioned lying, thieving, murdering bastards will continue trying to convince everyone that global warming is overblown or non-existant. Well, they can twist and distort the facts all they want, but I want to see them distort this fact displayed on the National Climate Data Center website of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
The above graph shows that mean global temperatures are rising and that the last ten years have been the hottest years on record since record keeping began in 1880. The polar ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. Hurricanes and other temperature-driven severe weather is on the increase. Droughts and flooding are getting totally out of control.
These aren't the opinions of "global warming nuts", they are facts that are there for anyone to see who will open their eyes and look. And the fact that these disasters are caused by human activity is supported almost unanimously by climate scientists worldwide.
So, needless to say, I get upset when someone dismisses the people that are working to save our planet from disaster as some kind of extremists with an axe to grind.
As for my comments about Jamie9, I simply meant to imply that he is uninformed. I didn't really think that he either worked for an oil company or was a moron. For that I apologize and deserve the flames I got from others.
That's not to say there may not be something noteworthy about it, but personally I tend to think these are more convincing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...de_400kyr-2.png
Scientists are able to go farther back in time this way, due to how they can "backtrack" CO2 concentrations as stored in polar ice cores.
That however shows CO2 levels, and not direct temperatures, but combine that data with today's knowledge of how CO2 interacts with reflecting infrared radiation, and one should be able to draw some more alarming conclusions.
Polution may be helping the warming effect, but it's otherwise a natural occurring event. It's been happening since this planet has existed.
Absolutely. But that doesn't mitigate the effects of rapidly pumping up the mean global temperature either naturally or artificially. Just because something has happened before doesn't make it a good or desirable thing. At least not for life on this planet as it exists today. Previous climatic conditions such as those that existed during the ages of the dinosaurs are not necessarily good for us.
Question: What do 98% of all life forms that have ever existed have in common?
Answer: They are all extinct.
Screwing with the environment as we now are is way too much of a gamble for my blood. I'm not real anxious to join the other 98%!
I'll deal with that one first: Ahem.
Now, on to the actual topic at hand: Energy.
It's true that the more devices we use the more energy we use. I mean, there was a time when nobody walked around with a cell phone. Now, it's a heck of a lot of people who have a cell phone turned on all the time. Throw in PDAs, laptops, pagers, GPS units, MP3 players, portable DVD players... it's a very battery-powered world out there. Fine, but the actual devices themselves are getting more energy-efficient. Even the batteries themselves are better. We went from disposable Alkaline batteries to rechargeable NiCad, and then to L-ion and NiMH. Mow Lithium Polymer batteries are on their way.
As far as TVs and monitors go, there's no question that picture tube TVs and CRTs are way energy inificient than LCDs are. Plasma I don't know about, but inch-for-inch pound-for-pound the LCD beats the CRT in energy efficiency any way you wanna juggle the numbers. The problem is that since you can make an LCD a lot bigger than you could ever make a CRT, the energy savings may be lost. I mean, if your previous TV was a 22" picture-tube TV and you upgraded to a 40" LCD... I don't know that you're actually saving any energy. Hell, I remember when you were lucky to have a 10" monochrome monitor for your Apple II computer. Now I'm sitting here with a 20" LCD WSXGA widescreen.
And besides those, hardware companies generally *want* energy consumption to go down out of battery life reasons for all those portable devices, so it's not like they aren't encouraged for purely economical and competitive reasons. If they don't follow that trend but other companies do, they may find themselves out of business in the field. Yes, they want improved battery technology too, but that's only half of the equation, and they most of all strive to get both. For example, Apple would definitely like to cram as many hours of video time possible out of an iPod.
I understand there are problems in how we're living today and energy usage, but this is a really poor example.
Why can't people turn off devices anymore?
No matter how inefficient you make a monitor or laser printer, they draw zero watts if you can switch them OFF-- not just standby.
yess, but add all those few watts together ...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.