by Conrad Quilty-Harper 
{ May 22nd 2006 at 5:00AM }
In June last year, UK Environment Minister Elliot Morley revealed that people that leave their TVs sets and other gadgets on standby mode waste roughly "7TWh of energy" of the National Grid's energy per year. According to the Energy Saving Trust, CO2 emissions from the generation of energy required to keep game consoles on standby amounts to roughly 390,000 tonnes annually. That's a big waste and a large contribution to global warming, especially for something people aren't actually using.
When answering the above poll, take note that while some consoles show a red light when in standby (PlayStation 2), others do not (Xbox 360).
[
Image credit]
Tags: Energy, Environment, GameCube, Global warming, GlobalWarming, Nintendo 64, Nintendo64, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Playstation2, Playstation3, PSOne, PSX, Sega Dreamcast, SegaDreamcast, Standby mode, StandbyMode, UK, waste, Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox360
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Rocky @ May 22nd 2006 5:10AM
Unfortunately...I leave my comp, TV and console in standby. Trying to change that now though.
However, how do I take a 360 off standby anyway? There is no switch - so is it a matter of just unplugging it?
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ May 22nd 2006 5:16AM
Yup, the only way to stop the Xbox 360 using power is to unplug it or turn it off at the plug.
daddycool @ May 22nd 2006 5:27AM
Sounds like the UK government should take this up with the manufacturers. There's no way I'm going to unplug and replug somthing everytime I use it.
Sacredleader @ May 22nd 2006 5:27AM
Actually Xbox 360 has the standby light on the power supply. When on standby it's orange. When fully powered up it's green.
Jaded @ May 22nd 2006 5:34AM
This seems like an ungodly high number for the amount of energy used to, essentially, keep a small LED lit up and the RAM from powering down. It must be infinitesimally small compared to powering something with moving parts. Does this factor in people who leave their computers on, but just with a screen saver and not in any kind of sleep mode? Or offices that do the same? It would be kind of disingenuous to lump those things together.
Metaly @ May 22nd 2006 5:43AM
I would always power off my old PS2 completely, but now that I have the slimline model it's always in standby after I'm done using it. There doesn't seem to be any alternative to leaving it that way aside from unplugging it. And that would just be crazy.
Rocky @ May 22nd 2006 5:44AM
Jaded, I think the power consumption is for a lot more than the small LED ;) - the transformer inside dissipates a bit of energy.
Still, small amount or not, collectively it is a lot of energy going to waste for absolutely nothing. I actually used to think it was negligible. More people needs to be educated and manufacturers need to change their systems....
Daniel D @ May 22nd 2006 5:46AM
They don't need to turn things off in America because global warming doesn't exist there.
David Lane @ May 22nd 2006 5:54AM
No, we don't need to turn things off in America because we're better than everyone else.
Cobra @ May 22nd 2006 6:01AM
GC is either off or on, there is no standby mode... so I don't have to make any effort. However, I'm leaving my TVs and other things like DVD on standby a lot... Maybe it would be a good idea to learn to switch them off. I'd walk some distance that way, which is good for my health, they say...
The ZeroCorpse @ May 22nd 2006 6:04AM
I don't see it as "wasted energy" seeing as I'm paying for the electricity, and it's accomplishing something for me (namely, I don't have to go through a cold boot every time, which is more convenient for me).
"Waste" of energy is driving a 4WD SUV when you don't have to go off-road, don't carry heavy loads, and only need a passenger vehicle to pick up the kids and get small loads of groceries. If the extra features of an SUV, heavy pickup, or Hummer aren't doing anything for you, then the energy (fuel) you use is indeed half wasted.
If you're not hauling heavy loads, you do not need a powerful truck engine. A small, efficient one will do the same job with less waste.
So I'm not really worried about leaving my Xbox 360 or Mac mini on standby or "sleep" mode 24 hours a day.
Griffon @ May 22nd 2006 6:15AM
Wow Zerocorpse, that?s very small minded of you. It's ok for you to waste energy because it's more convenient for you? You may not worry about it now but you?ll be the first to complain when we start to feel the effects of global warming in the future.
Sure it?s only a small amount but when multiplied millions of times that?s a heck of a lot of electricity being wasted, and at the end of the day every little helps. Oh and using the old ?But he pollutes more than me so I don?t care? excuse/attitude really doesn?t cut it, sorry.
Rocky @ May 22nd 2006 6:19AM
I was going to rip ZeroCorpse's post...but I just saw it as being wasted energy (pun intended)
jay @ May 22nd 2006 6:40AM
I always turn my powerbooks external monitor off, stick my system into energy saving mode and dim the main screen so it's off. turn off the amp+speakers when not in use. I'd never leave consoles in sleep (I dont have a PS2 or 360 though) though if Nintendo's little "Wii costs the same as a little lightbulb in sleep mode" is true then I would keep that on. I'm a huge energy saving whore, i always turn lights and TV's off when not in use.
I've NEVER understood why people can't just turn TV's off. that's just fucking ridiculous. frankly.
Jaded @ May 22nd 2006 6:41AM
Although I concede that leaving things on standby may use up more power than I might think, and that a little bit of energy times a million can add up to a lot, I still want to see more detailed information from this survey.
For example: What exactly was included when calculating this number? How does a game console on standby compare to other electronics? How much energy is lost to heat? How much wear and tear is saved by leaving things on standby as opposed to turning them on and off all the time? How does the amount of energy lost to standby compare to other household energy wastes, such as dishwashers, and washers and dryers (for example, could more energy be saved by doing more larger loads of wash?)?
David @ May 22nd 2006 6:50AM
Well with the ps2 the difference to put it in standby mode as opposed to turning it off alltogether is moving your hand about 5 more inches then reaching for the reset button. As such I usually just turn it off when I get up there, I mean the time it takes from startup to reading the disc and playing a game is barely notable at all, maybe 10 seconds at most from boot up, thus no real time saved from standby.
Now that we have next gen consoles and spiffy wireless technology ... I can just push the button on the face of the controller and leave it in standby withought having to walk up to the console. Though it sounds trivial I can see a lot more people leaving things in standby these next few years.
Now as for the waste of power. I'm definately suprised, that is a HUGE amount of energy being wasted.
Basically it breaks down like this:
Wh = watt-hour, a unit of energy
A 25 watt light bulb uses 25 watt-hours of energy every hour
TWh = terawatt-hour, 10^12 (ten to the twelfth power) or 1,000,000,000,000 watt-hours (yes 1 Trillion)
So 7TWh = 7,000,000,000,000 watt-hours or the equivilant of 280,000,000,000 25 watt light bulbs
Sort of puts things in perspective, huh ZeroCorpse. Next time at least read into something before you go on and say something as ignorant as what you posted.
Ianc02 @ May 22nd 2006 7:02AM
Yawn.....switch off your lights, nuff said.
Logic Bus @ May 22nd 2006 7:06AM
David,
Thanks for the calculations but that still doesn't explain how the UK Ministry of Environment came to that number or how it determined that waste is caused by people leaving electronic devices on standby.
And what about toasters? Mine has a light on it. Were toasters included in the UK study? Should I unplug my microwave when I'm not using it? Should I unplug my alarm clock and reset the time every night before I go to bed?
Yeah, I'd like to see more detail about these findings.
David @ May 22nd 2006 7:13AM
Also for comparison:
390,000 metric tonnes = 390,000,000 kilograms(kg), or 859,802,823 pounds(lb's) of pure Carbon Dioxide
1 Human exhales about 1 kilogram, or about 2.2 lbs, of co2 per day
.....
djork @ May 22nd 2006 7:22AM
My family is incapable of turning off the PS2, which they use as a DVD player. For that matter they don't really turn off anything except for the TV. I wake up in the morning and go out to the living room to find the PS2 still on and the satellite tuner still on. Sometimes they will leave the TV on if they manage to turn the PS2 off because the screen is black, and they figure "close enough." My dad will leave the stereo on with the volume turned down all night long.
What's the moral of this? Well, they're British... so I can say that this story's numbers are probably totally accurate.
Unimental @ May 22nd 2006 7:27AM
Nope. I've never once even thought about leaving the PS2 on when not in use. Standby is for computers, not game consoles IMHO.
That said, once the game console really becomes a media center, then I would consider it. Much like leaving a computer on and connected to the net 24/7.
jay @ May 22nd 2006 7:32AM
I suppose the whole thing about booting up electrical devices takes up a lot more power than keeping them running comes into realisation here. I mean, doesn't switching on certain lights (fluorescent) take up 8 hours of normal running energy just to switch them on?
More research should be carried out into the boot charges before we're slammed for leaving machines on.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ May 22nd 2006 7:46AM
Jay, from the BBC article:
"The Energy Saving Trust's survey found that one-in-seven people questioned thought putting devices on standby was actually more energy-efficient than switching them on and off.
The MTP's Matthew Armishaw clears up any confusion: "That is largely a myth. There may have been some issues with very old electronic components, but it is certainly not the case with today's consumer electronic goods."
Mindstormy @ May 22nd 2006 7:54AM
My ds lives in sleepmode.
David @ May 22nd 2006 8:04AM
@ jay
I believe you misunderstood something somewhere because fluorescent lights are ridiculously more economical and power efficient then incandescent lights, which are the standard light bulb you would find in an average house.
Incandescent bulbs use only about 5% of the energy they consume to produce visible light, so over 90% of the energy required to power them is lost from heat output, whereas fluorescent is a bit more then 20% which comes to 1/3 or 1/4 as much electricity. Fluorescent bulbs also have about 15 times the life span of an incandescent bulb.
Now thats mostly technical jargon which most people won't even care about but it's still good to know.
Oh and as far as I understand NO electrical component requires up to 8 times the energy to switch them on as opposed to keeping them running. It is simply a matter of convenience and startup time, most notable in computers. People should really learn to use the Hibernate function instead of standby mode for long sessions when not in use.
Staticneuron @ May 22nd 2006 8:20AM
WoW, people ease up on ZeroCorpse a little. I like to turn things off when I am not using it but is this article saying that my electronic devices are directly creating the CO2?
"the average home actually contributes more to global warming than the average car. This is because much of the energy we use in our homes comes from power plants which burn fossil fuel to power our electric products."
http://eartheasy.com/article_global_warming.htm
Sounds to me like we are overdue to use more faster and cleaner energy producing plants. I know there are multiple ways of producing electricity for the masses. I guess the only big issue issue much money it would cost to do a change, any change for that matter.
Clay @ May 22nd 2006 8:28AM
No. 9: I agree wholeheartedly.
Branewalker @ May 22nd 2006 8:42AM
"Also for comparison:
390,000 metric tonnes = 390,000,000 kilograms(kg), or 859,802,823 pounds(lb's) of pure Carbon Dioxide
1 Human exhales about 1 kilogram, or about 2.2 lbs, of co2 per day"
6,591,405,211 humans on earth...
So that's 6,591,405,211 kilograms of CO2.
In other words, it would be much more energy-efficient if we all stopped breathing out. Or, better yet, all humans need to be fitted with catalytic converters so that our CO2 output can be reduced. JEEEZ, guys, look at how much energy we could save!
--Branewalker
Branewalker @ May 22nd 2006 8:54AM
Oh, yeah, tha's DAILY on the humans. The figure for consoles is ANNUALLY.
So all the humans on the planet exhale 2,405,862,902 tonnes annually, their game consoles add 390,000 tonnes.
Or, to put it in perspective...
390,000/ 365 : 1068 tonnes per day
So, essentially that's about the output of around a million people.
In a world with 6,500 times more people than a million, and lifespans that far outweigh the average console, I think our human pollution problems are much greater.
I'm with you ZeroCorpse: we can't eradicate all pollution and waste. It's entropy. Focus our efforts on the stuff that makes a difference, and don't waste our breath.
--Branewalker
Reeve @ May 22nd 2006 9:03AM
The PS2's always set in standby mode, but it's connected to an outlet controlled by a switch on the wall, which is usually turned off during the day. The computers are usually always on, though...
Gimbal @ May 22nd 2006 9:06AM
For those people who can't bring themselves to be concerned about energy consumption, you could look at this another way: Cutting your energy use saves you money. The money saved can buy more games.
You know, I was thinking...maybe I should just wire the outlets I have all my A/V equipment on so they are hooked up to a switch. That way it isn't annoying or inconveiniant to power everything off and on.
Wait, then how would my TiVo record stuff when I'm not around? Gah! Screw it. I'll just build a windmill out of solar panels. We have enough sun and hurricanes here in Florida that I should be able to leave everything on 24/7 then.
Eric @ May 22nd 2006 9:11AM
I have been leaving my PS2 on standby since I bought it. I was going to keep turning it off, until I realized I would have to move the damn thing around, give er the old reacharound, and flip the switch on the BACK...Whereas all I have to do to keep it on standby is touch the green button on the front. It's Sony's fault for making it much more convenient to keep it on standby.
As far as eveyone crying about global warming, there is no cure for that disease people. I don't care if you come out with a more efficient or "alternative" this or that, the fact of the matter is there are too many things out there contributing to global warming to really help anything. I'm pretty sure drastic climate change is irreversible...just get used to the fact that we are the generation that is going to pay for the sins of the industrial age/information age.
So, sorry that my PS2 is helping kill us all.
Eric @ May 22nd 2006 9:26AM
You should be more concerned with the "push" towards High Definition televisions. The power consumptions on most HD tv's is grotesque.
I read a report somewhere that if everyone right now had an HD tv, there would be a global blackout because power production would not be near the power consumption demand of the TV's alone.
Which brings an interesting argument against Sony and their blu ray "trojan horse" for HD. If it were up to them everyone would have an HD tv....But if that were the case there would be choas from the global blackouts that would ensue.
Although, from what I've read, the new SED displays will consume about 1/3 or 1/4 the power of todays HD displays...sounds promising.
elmimmo @ May 22nd 2006 9:41AM
Is there a way to measure how much a gadget in your house is consuming? (like how much my iMac G5 consumes when at full power, or if its screen is off, or if it is sleeping?)
Phil @ May 22nd 2006 9:58AM
You know, I always assumed I was wasting power when leaving my PS2 on standby. There have been times where my PS2 is on standby for months without me even touching the thing. I think I'm going to turn it off when I go home today. Thanks for the tip!
Griffon @ May 22nd 2006 10:23AM
LMAO @ Branewalker
"we can't eradicate all pollution and waste. It's entropy. Focus our efforts on the stuff that makes a difference, and don't waste our breath."
Another flawed argument along the lines of "ah well other stuff produces more CO2 so I'm not gonna be arsed flicking a switch to save some energy"
Not to mention your crazy remarks about breathing, come on, puh-lease! Thats gotta be the worst comparison I've ever seen! I don't know if you've noticed but it's considerably harder to stop breating (and still live) than it is to switch something off when your finished using it.
tomato @ May 22nd 2006 10:26AM
DanielD, although in the US we aren't great about power conservation, this study was done about the UK.
ZeroCorpse, by your same logic, people PAID for their gas guzzling SUV and therefore have the right to use their gas guzzling SUV. They pay for the extra gas so why shouldn't they use it the way they want to? Besides, is a cold boots 5 extra seconds really that bad?
Jaded, as Rocky said, a transformer used to convert power from AC to DC will waste a lot of electricity. Just about every electric device has poor energy efficiency (same can be said about everything though).
Eric, that is a very limited way of thinking. The "I'm just one person what can I do?" mentality is killing the US. It has created tons of apathy and selfishness. People complain about President Bush but of the people who vote, he won. Who knows how it would have turned out if everyone who COULD vote DID vote.
A little about power generation. A typical power generator burns something to generate heat (nuclear, coal, natural gas). So their are heat loses due to heat escaping to the surrounding area. Then its used to heat water which turns to steam and runs a turbine. Efficiency wise, I would say the whole steam cycle is maybe 40% efficient, probably less. So that means that less than half the energy produced by burning is being converted to electricity. Then they transform the electricity to high voltage low amps signals and send them over the huge power transmission towers. From here, its fed to each neighborhood/city. There are power losses associated with sending the power. Then it comes to your house as alternating current. Most electronic devices use direct current hence the need for the large power "bricks" such as on the XBox360. If you have ever felt one of them, they get warm/almost hot because they aren't efficient at turning power from AC to DC. Then it finally gets into your electronic device where even there there is power loss. So it's not a simple matter of "oh, my device only uses a small amount of power" because to generate that power, a ton of very inefficient things are going on.
Night Elve @ May 22nd 2006 10:27AM
"9. No, we don't need to turn things off in America because we're better than everyone else."
Yes your beloved country is way better because you didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol.
So yeah congratulations for being so frigging insensible about our world that need our help.
Mupwangle @ May 22nd 2006 10:28AM
>>Is there a way to measure how much a gadget in your house is consuming? (like how much my iMac G5 consumes when at full power, or if its screen is off, or if it is sleeping?)
Usually the manufacturers publish it somewhere. Ask Apple or search their site.
I found somewhere that the 360 on standby uses about 14Watts. My 32" LG HDTV uses 3W.
What can be annoying is that a lot of devices now don't have on/off buttons. My hdtv for example only has a standby switch so to actually turn it off you have to move it away from the wall, move the unit it sits on and unplug it. Not exactly convenient.
Griffon @ May 22nd 2006 10:38AM
Great post tomato, especially regarding the efficiencies of power generation. I think this is something that should probably be brought to the attention of the public more as I?m sure most people don?t know or care to know about this stuff.
The ?I?m just one person mentality? is tricky to overcome and I think the easiest way to get round this is for manufactures to be more conscious of the way they design their products.
If they can make it so that the consumer doesn?t have to worry about the problem then that?s an easier route than trying to lecture the individual into remembering to switch devices on and off. That?s not to say getting manufactures on board is an easy task!
Josh @ May 22nd 2006 10:43AM
To everyone bashing David Lane, he was being sarcastic, speaking the mentality of much of the American public.
Also, to Night Elve, the US signed the Kyoto Protocol, but declines to ratify it. :)
Mike Nathan @ May 22nd 2006 10:48AM
The fault here lies mostly with the manufacturers of electronic components. My DVD player, receiver and CD changer all lack real "off" switches - only "standby" buttons. Unplugging is majorly inconvenient, especially if you've gone to the trouble of hiding all the wires.
As for the PS2 (the original, not slim model), Sony touted it as being stackable with all other electronic components in your media center. Many people, myself included, have done this, making the real "off" button (in the back of the console) nearly impossible to get to.
Until there is a both a power button as well as a standby button on the front of the units, energy will keep being wasted. The problem is that manufacturers have one of three stances on this:
1. That most consumers want everything to work "fast" and "now", so most will use the "standby" option by default.
2. That the average consumer would be confused by what they would see as an "additional power button".
3. That there is currently a trend in "minimalist" product design when it comes to home theater electronics and that too many additional buttons and LEDs would ruin a product's appearance.
jccalhoun @ May 22nd 2006 10:52AM
I've got all my stuff attached to two powerstrips and I turn them off at night. The only thing I don't turn off is my cable box which takes 10-15 minutes to turn back on. Nothing else from my tv to my surround sound reciever shows any negative effects from being turned off over night except for clocks being reset. The reciever even remembers radio presets and I've had it unplugged for weeks before. I see no reason for why these things need to be on standby. They don't do anything. Moreover, I got in the habit of turning off the powerstrips when I lived in the dorms and the sound from the stuff kept me up at night from its humming, so not only do they waste electricity, but they make sound too. (not to mention heat)
David @ May 22nd 2006 10:57AM
@ Branewalker
While your math is sort of right, it mostly isn't. For one thing this study was in the UK only, and I'm sure you know there are many many many more people in the world then in just the UK. Lets look at the numbers.
United Kingdom ? Population: 60,441,457
Germany ? Population: 82,431,390
Japan ? Population: 127,417,244
United States ? Population: 295,734,134
So there I took 4 big modernized industrial countries, and if you notice in this list the UK is the smallest in population, and by that you can infer that the other countries, Japan and the United States in particular, being the tech savy places that they are, will 100% positively have much higher numbers of electronics that are used daily.
Another point I'd like to make is baby steps. No one has ever said that fixing X or X to be eco friendly will solve all of humanity's problems miraculously. It's a matter of doing X + X + X + X, people have to do a combination of things if we want our race to be living here for the next few hundred years, and at some point everyone is going to realize that and be scared shitless enough to do something about it.
@ Eric
If you're going to harp on somone for energy consumption do your buisness with the computer people and their 600 watt, and growing, power supplies to get those critical 120 fps with full settings in crysis. HDTV sets power usage was notably high when the technology was making way into homes less then 10 years ago, but has been lowering steadily, and promising new tech, such as mentioned SED's will only help narrow that energy pipe.
@ elmimmo
Every electronic device you purchase should at least online have a tech spec sheet where you can see exactly how much energy it uses. Just google the name and "energy consumption" or something similar.
eSeamus @ May 22nd 2006 11:00AM
"So it's not a simple matter of "oh, my device only uses a small amount of power" because to generate that power, a ton of very inefficient things are going on."
So, let's change those very innefficient things rather than blame the end user. What is preventing anyone from developing alternative sources of power? Hell, we already know we can get power through photovoltaic cells and windmills. How about hydroelectricity, not just from dams, but from waterfalls as well? Why do we have to use fossil fuels to "create" all the "energy" on this planet?
Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, but it can be radiated out into space gradually, until we have achieved equilibrium with the surrounding space.
Nimby @ May 22nd 2006 11:00AM
You know I hate to admit this but I have to give some credit to the notion that we cannot truly stop all of the CO2 creation in the world. Do I think we should turn off our electronic devices, yes. Do I think we could save by taking a walk instead of a drive, of course. Do I believe that all of us, with all of our nice electronic devices that we all love so much for how much better they make our lives, are really going to stop global warming, no. We, especially here in the states just consume too much. We like our big cars, and homes, and even big food. We take in because we can. Just hundreds of years ago when kings and queens still ran countries where they fat or slim? Some were down right obese. Why? Because they could. They had wealth, and control. We are flonting what we have. Turning off your PS2 is a good way to do your part. But, and I hate to say this, if we really wanted to stop what we are doing to the planet then we would need to throw out the PS2 altogether. Maybe the tv while we are at it.
To not take that road any farther (because you can all see where it goes) I would like to make another point. The world has had major changes in climate before. Is it currently believed that there were two ice ages? The animals that died during those periods would have been so lucky to have a coal power plant feeding an energy hungery Xbox360. They would have laid next to it's warm green glow. I do not believe we are as powerful as we think we are to truly control this earth. Does the greenhouse gas we produce affect the planet. You bet your a$$ it does. Will the earth actaully care if we can't live here anymore because we pushed it past our own survival limits. I am geussing the earth could care less.
-Nimby
ill trooper @ May 22nd 2006 11:08AM
I come back a few hours later to see that the funniest comment has been given a negative star?
I seem to remember Daniel D was at 'zero stars' when I read his comment - which was cleverly alluding to Bush refusing to acknowledge scientific studies' results that global warming is really happening.
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/09/10/bush/index.html
I hope people can develop some special way to transmit 'sarcasm' in the future, these darn internets will be a lot funnier!
Mupwangle @ May 22nd 2006 11:10AM
@eseamus
Because that is the basic problem. this will not get better until everyone takes responsibility for the problem at an individual level. If consumers act then governments and corporations act because, to them, it seems good PR. You can't just say that it isn't your problem and the power companies should fix it because they won't.
dvddesign @ May 22nd 2006 11:14AM
@#34
There is such a device. You can plug it into the wall socket of every device you want to test and it'll tell you on average how many kilowatts it takes to power that device.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/7657/
Griffon @ May 22nd 2006 11:18AM
ESeamus, we use fossil fuels for two main reasons:
1) At this time it's cheap to produce electricity using this fuel (renewable energy is costly) and
2) More importantly fossil fuels (and Nuclear) offer steady constant power production on a large scale. No renewable power source we have today can offer that. A wind turbine might seem great but you need 1000's of them to replace the output of a single power station and they only work when the wind blows.
Perhaps the future will bring us a clean energy source that can satisfy our huge demand (Fusion power, anyone?) but till then were stuck burning the fossils