Forum menu
72kwh not 7kwh, we use around 20 to 25 kwh per day here. 😥
Is that Scully? Blimey...
I think I actually fancy her more as a mousey schoolteacher. 😯
EDIT: No it's not her. I thought 'cos it said 'starring' Gillian Anderson', that she was the schoolteacher. Little viewer window din't help.
No, she's doing the voice over at the end.
Trouble is, I now want her to be a mousey little schoolteacher. All prim and proper....
Oooohh....
Time for a lie down? But Nurse, it's not even dark yet....
Dibbs - Member
No, she's doing the voice over at the end.
Her eyeballs are sliding down the window at the end 🙂
The problem with token gestures like un-plugging a TV is that they make people feel green when they aren't.
So does that mean we shouldn't do it in case people accuse us of tokenism?
i leave everything on standby. It may use 1w of power, but 100% of that power is distributed as heat (or light, which is absorbed by things around it, and converted to heat) which in turn reduces my heating bill. You can't have inefficient generators of heat, so if you had electric heating the cost would be 0.
I have gas, which is cheaper to generate heat from than electricity, but frankly i'm too lazy to get up to turn the tv on, and i earn enough money to spend it on my laze.
It may use 1w of power, but 100% of that power is distributed as heat (or light, which is absorbed by things around it, and converted to heat) which in turn reduces my heating bill.
However you are mostly heating the house at night and when you are out at work (if you are) which is pretty pointless. Plus the heat ends up in one corner of your living room too (typically) which is also daft.
and i earn enough money to spend it on my laze
I'm amazed people can't think beyond the money issues.
So does that mean we shouldn't do it in case people accuse us of tokenism?
Yes, if by doing it you think 'I'm doing my bit' so don't actually go on and do something that actually could make a difference. If it is part of a proper regime of energy saving then by all means do it.
Right, but posts along those lines LOOK like you're saying it's pointless to even bother, which it's not. It's exactly the kind of argument people use to avoid having to do anything.
well, a gas fired power station creates 350g co2 per kwh, a coal one around 950. So lets say 750g/kwh as a generous blend.
a typical car uses around 160g/km of co2 per km - around 250g/mile
my tv uses 0.5w on standby. so approx 4.5 kwh per year. That means that if I avoid one single round trip of 6.5 miles each way in my car, I've saved as much carbons as I put out leaving the tv on standby.
Frankly, the best way to save the world is to not have kids. An extra 2 humans in the world will use far more power (especially in the next generation) than you could ever save in yours. Yet I'm not going to not have kids to save the world, so I may as well not turn the tv off.
An extra 2 humans in the world will use far more power (especially in the next generation) than you could ever save in yours
How do you know that?
Yet I'm not going to not have kids to save the world, so I may as well not turn the tv off.
Well done 5lab, good [s]post[/s] attitude 😐
If we all thought like you there may not be a world for future children, thought of that one?
a group of 500 cyclists who gathered at Manchester Velodrome on Friday for an event organised by Soreen, the fruity malt loaf company.
I wonder how many of them drove there.
my tv uses 0.5w on standby. so approx 4.5 kwh per year. That means that if I avoid one single round trip of 6.5 miles each way in my car, I've saved as much carbons as I put out leaving the tv on standby.
What that should show you is how damaging driving is, rather than TV standby not mattering.
The fact is that standby power does waste a lot of power, for no real benefit. Not rocket science.
Yet I'm not going to not have kids to save the world, so I may as well not turn the tv off.
The thing that really winds me up about this is that people keep thinking in relative terms. X is worse than Y, so Y therefore doesn't matter.
We need to reduce everywhere we can. Do you not realise that lots of little things add up to big things?
(And let me stress again that I am making an ACADEMIC argument. I am not trying to pretend that I am better than anyone else, because I'm not.)
ok well lets compare it to something else.
The average human breathes out 900g of co2 per day. With an average life expectancy of 79.9 years, that's 26 TONNES of Co2 per lifetime. Just through breathing, not even including the co2 produced by the food we eat, the warmth we require, and so on.
in fact, just breathing for 3 days is going to use more co2 than leaving your tv on standby for a year.
Yeah well the trees have got used to us breathing over the years -
Breathing doesn't liberate CO2 from underground though does it.
ok well lets compare it to something else.
No, let's not. Comparisons are meaningless. Total amount is what's important. There's no point in NOT turning your TV off when it's so easy. Solving the world's transports issues is a very difficult problem that ties in economies and people's lifestyles, and will take a lifetime to change if it can be done at all.
Turning your TV off at the wall is the flick of a switch, literally. So do it.
The average human breathes out 900g of co2 per day
Which ultimately comes from the atmosphere. The carbon footprint of food is of course greater than that, which is why it's important to buy local food.
Doesn't sound like you really understand the issues. It's ALL important.
Breathing is essential for life, leaving your tv on standby is not.
_________________ pahhhhh, aahh, huh, aahh-huh, ahh hus, ju, just held my bre.. breath for 90 seconds, huuuhah huhhh.
How many more minutes until I've off-set a flight to NYC?
For all you people that don't turn things off at night, why don't you do the sums, save some money and then treat yourself to some nice shiny bike bits. It seems to me that you are throwing money down the drain that could go towards some cool anodised bike parts.
Do a deal with your self that all the money you save you treat on yourself. If you did it on the quiet the wife wouldn't even notice!!
heh, I'm not winning this one, but I'll keep going (why not)
what about the energy cost of getting up to turn your tv off?
if you weigh 180 lbs (approx right for me) a brisk walk uses 5.5 calories a minute. lets say that standing up, walking to the tv, turning it on, and walking back to your chair takes around 30 seconds, of similar output (it takes less time, but standing up, and bending down to fiddle around at the sockets is harder than just walking around). so 2.5 calories each time. The food intake of a average person is 2000 calories a day, the co2 output from breathing is 900 g of co2, so each calorie burned is 0.45g of co2. So every time you turn the tv on, or off, its going to cost you just over a gram of co2. If you leave your tv on standby all day, the cost (of my tv, at a rather hungry 0.5w) is using about 10g co2 per day, so if you turn your tv on more than 5 times a day (I probably do if you count all the tvs in my house), its actually better to use the remote.
on the same kinda basis, how bad for the environment is cycling as a hobby? all those big meals after a ride don't come for free
what about the energy cost of getting up to turn your tv off?
Lol! One of the very best examples of detailed straw-clutching I have ever seen.. chapeau 🙂
The impact of cycling is an interesting one. If you are then able to cycle to work every day then that's great. If it just makes you live longer and eat more food, then I am guessing it has a negative impact. Plus the energy cost of making all those bikes...
What I want to know is why all gym equipment isn't fitted with dynamos or something...
Up and down the country, each day their must be millions of people working away like rats on spinning bikes and eliptical trainiers etc. At the very least they could capture this energy to power the treadmills?
5lab - your theory only works if you never walk psat your tv on the way to the place that you'll watch it from, and if your remote is always in the place that you sit?
Imagine the carbon conundrum if your remote is on a seat further away from you than the actual tv!
Some gym stuff is powered by your own effort, and not plugged in. Makes sense to me.
There was also a gym in the news a while back that was entirely powered by the people inside it. Bit of a one-off tho.
Imagine a velodrome powered by the riders - the bikes would have to be held stationary, and the track revolve underneath them. Sweet 🙂
For all you people that don't turn things off at night, why don't you do the sums, save some money and then treat yourself to some nice shiny bike bits.
Somebody did them up there - what shiny bike bits can I get for £1.05?
your theory only works if you never walk psat your tv on the way to the place that you'll watch it from, and if your remote is always in the place that you sit?
Well I generally don't walk past the TV - it's in he furthest corner from the doors, and the remote is normally within reach where I sit (if not there's a good chance I'll walk by that).
Are people really so lazy they can't be arsed switching their tellies off? 😯
It's Obese Britian. No wonder you're all so fayt. 🙄
And they call it progress
My god most peopple walk PAST their tvs when they enter/leave the room. It takes literally no effort to press the button.
Sometimes people take energy saving to far trying to impose it on other people but some things are just a huge waste.