[Peter Irwin]

geoff wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/3/2009 11:49 PM Mr.T spake thus:

I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....

Average domestic electicity use in US - around 940 kwh/month.
5% of 940 is 47
There are around 720 hours per month. (24x30)
47/720 =.065
So if phantom power is 65 watts all the time it will equal
5% of typical domestic electricity use.

Is this really unrealistic or bad arithmetic?

Peter.
--

[Richard Crowley]

"Mr.T" wrote.
In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes to
REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

Population stats for Europe and USA for many years have shown
that birth rates are MUCH lower than the status-quo replacement
rate of 2.1 per couple. If you want to complain about population
growth, you will need to be politically-incorrect about specific
segments of the global population. Perhaps you have been listening
to the wrong asses.

[Mr.T]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
I don't think so. It's a real energy sink; researchers estimate
phantom power as 5 to 10% of household energy usage.

Those researchers - what kindy were they from ? Clearly hadn't learned
basic arithmetic yet....

Like all such figures, you have to carefully read the actual claims,
carefully read the "research" objectives, carefully read the untested &
unverified assumptions, and then throw it all in the bin where it belongs.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Peter Irwin" wrote in message
...
Average domestic electicity use in US - around 940 kwh/month.
5% of 940 is 47
There are around 720 hours per month. (24x30)
47/720 =.065
So if phantom power is 65 watts all the time it will equal
5% of typical domestic electricity use.

Is this really unrealistic or bad arithmetic?

Yes!

Do you think the average household leaves all their appliances in standby
mode, and all their plug packs plugged in for the month, and *never*
actually uses anything? When the devices are in use, it is NOT "phantom"
power usage!
And 65W would be closer to worst case rather than the "average domestic
household".

But that's the trouble when you make assumptions, you can arrive at any
answer you want. Science involves actual measurement.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**I'm disputing your points. The big problems are water heating, space
heating and cooling, pool filters and the other stuff. FWIW: I measured my
STB in standby. 20 Watts! 22 Watts when operating.


It's faulty! (or your measurements are)
Unless it has a solid state disk drive, there is no way the hard drive
consumes 2W or less!
Does the hard drive *really* spin in standby mode?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
In any case the REAL problem is too many people, until someone proposes
to
REDUCE global population, they are simply talking out of their ass!

Population stats for Europe and USA for many years have shown
that birth rates are MUCH lower than the status-quo replacement
rate of 2.1 per couple.

Yep, but the problem is GLOBAL climate change. The Global population is
steadily increasing, and expected to double again in the next couple of
decades.

If you want to complain about population
growth, you will need to be politically-incorrect about specific
segments of the global population.


That's the problem with the "politically correct" brigade, they stifle valid
discussion. With some countries having around a billion people or more, and
still increasing, is it really wrong to ask why?


Perhaps you have been listening to the wrong asses.

Well our politicians (Aus) are still planning to double the population
through baby bonuses and immigration, and use coal fired power stations to
desalinate the water required (since we don't have enough of it now), and
somehow reduce carbon emissions at the same time. Do YOU want the standard
of living required to balance those conflicts?
Just reducing immigration levels would be a far better local solution IMO
(and quite a few others), the planet is still going to suffer anyway.

MrT.

[Trevor Wilson]

Mr.T wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**I'm disputing your points. The big problems are water heating,
space heating and cooling, pool filters and the other stuff. FWIW: I
measured my STB in standby. 20 Watts! 22 Watts when operating.


It's faulty! (or your measurements are)
Unless it has a solid state disk drive, there is no way the hard drive
consumes 2W or less!
Does the hard drive *really* spin in standby mode?

**Oops. First off: I SHOULD have said: I am NOT disputing your points.

Next off: My measurements are not in error. I've measured several devices
from the same manufacturer. Some PVRs and some standalone STBs. All consume
between 16 ~ 20 Watts on standby. Operational power consumption is
marginally more.

The hard drive does not spin in standby. The operational measurement may not
have included hard drive operation. In fact, it is likely that it was not
operational, since the hard drive was not required at the time. I set it to
go to sleep when not required. The likely reason for the extra power
consumption was probably the display.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
The hard drive does not spin in standby. The operational measurement may
not
have included hard drive operation.

Make that definitely did not, if the figures are accurate as you claim. So
the difference is far more than 2 watts when the drive is actually in use.


In fact, it is likely that it was not
operational, since the hard drive was not required at the time. I set it
to
go to sleep when not required. The likely reason for the extra power
consumption was probably the display.

Sounds about right.
Now calculate how far you can drive your car for the same emissions as
running the PVR for a year in standby :-)
It does work out to over $20 a year in electricity costs. How much was the
box though?

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:56:25 -0800, Richard Crowley wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
never happened.

[Richard Crowley]

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:56:25 -0800, Richard Crowley
wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
never happened.

and with that you fold

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:32:41 -0800, Richard Crowley wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:56:25 -0800, Richard Crowley
wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
never happened.

and with that you fold

No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and into
the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.

[Mr.T]

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
never happened.

and with that you fold

No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and into
the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.


Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving carbon
credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/8/2009 5:58 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and
into the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.

Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving carbon
credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

Look, Bub, you can't have it both ways. First you sound as if you're
arguing against the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming (OK,
"climate change" if you prefer weasel words), to which I say you're full
of ****, not even worth arguing that.

Then you complain that carbon credits, etc., are a bad idea, to which I
say "Duh!". To show you how I agree with you on this point, and to give
you an amusing little video to watch as well, check this out:

http://storyofstuff.org/capandtrade

[video ~ 10 mins.]

Carbon credits, "cap and trade" all suck. What's needed is strong carbon
*regulation*. (Oh, but we can't have any of that, dontcha know, bad for
business. Who cares that the planet's getting ****ed up in the process?)


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:58:51 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
It was written by reasonably intelligent and diligent folks whose
judgement I trust.

You are far more trusting (gullible?) than I am. More and more
of those so called scientific reports look like they were written
by politicians. They are full of weasel-words and written by
people whose jobs depend on continued funding by whoever
supports that viewpoint. Climategate is just the tip of the ice-
berg.

Of course. Emissions can't affect climate. Smog is a myth and has
never happened.

and with that you fold

No, it's true. It's ok to dump trash into the rivers, oceans and into
the air and in any quantity. They magically vanish and never
accumulate. CO2 is lovely. It'll still be fine when the atmosphere
has move CO2 than anything else. We'll seal out houses, and wear
oxygen masks the few times we venture outside. Space travel will be
easy by the time the earth's atmosphere is poisonous.


Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving carbon
credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

Not my idea. We all agree that pollution is harmless in any quantity.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
Instead of being so stupid, maybe you can explain to us how giving
carbon
credits to the major polluters and allowing them to trade them, whilst
steadily increasing the global population actually solves the problem?
Enquiring minds would love to know I'm sure.

Look, Bub, you can't have it both ways. First you sound as if you're
arguing against the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming (OK,
"climate change" if you prefer weasel words), to which I say you're full
of ****, not even worth arguing that.

Where did I say that, you're the one full of ****!
Climate change is a problem not helped by 7+ Billion people all trying to
increase their standard of living whilst steadily increasing the population
on a finite planet.


Then you complain that carbon credits, etc., are a bad idea, to which I
say "Duh!". To show you how I agree with you on this point,


I'm glad we agree on something then.


Carbon credits, "cap and trade" all suck. What's needed is strong carbon
*regulation*. (Oh, but we can't have any of that, dontcha know, bad for
business. Who cares that the planet's getting ****ed up in the process?)


What we also need is strong population regulation, but it seems we can't
even talk about that!


MrT.

[Mr.T]

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
We all agree that pollution is harmless in any quantity.

We do? You can only speak for yourself of course.

MrT.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:24:24 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
We all agree that pollution is harmless in any quantity.

We do? You can only speak for yourself of course.

MrT.

Check your mail. I'm sending you a sarcasm detector.