# Energy Saving - the great standby fallacy



## Gulliver (22 Mar 2007)

Lots of sources will tell you that there are huge energy losses when electrical items are on standby. I have heard it quoted that items (e.g. TVs) on standby use 1/3 of the energy of full operation. The UK government is reported to be about to legislate to remove the standby facility in future.

Here are the facts. My family averages 17.75 KWh per day according to my latest ESB bill. My TV (Pioneer 43") consumes 287w in full operation, and 0.4w in standby. If we assume 21hrs standby each day, then the equation for a 24hour period becomes:-
21 x 0.4 = 8.4w in standby
3 x 287 = 861w in operation​ So standby represents less than 1% of the energy used by the TV.
And standby represents .047 of 1% of the family's usage of electricity. In other words, I would have to have 21 similar devices on before standby would consume 1% of the family's usage.

If we expressed standby as a percentage of the total family usage of energy (heating oil, petrol, electricity) then standby is an even smaller percentage.

And what behaviour change would the removal of standby induce? I believe that we might leave the TV on for a minute or two more on average, since we have to get up from the couch to turn it off. Two minutes of extra TV would result in an overall higher energy usage.

I have checked other devices in the house, and the results are similar.

Someone in authority needs to get the facts straight.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Mar 2007)

Gulliver said:


> 21 x 0.4 = 8.4w in standby
> 3 x 287 = 861w in operation​



Shouldn't those figures be in kWh and not W?
​


----------



## Gulliver (22 Mar 2007)

Nope, Clubman

If you want to express them as KWh then they would read:-

21 x 0.0004 = .0084KWh

The figures in the original posting are correct


----------



## ClubMan (22 Mar 2007)

Gulliver said:


> My TV (Pioneer 43") consumes 287w in full operation, and 0.4w in standby.


How do you know that it consumes 0.4W *per hour *in standby which is what your calculations assume?


----------



## Gulliver (22 Mar 2007)

Clubman - I read the detailed specification - but if you really want to double check, I have the metering equipment with which I can check it precisely


----------



## MOB (23 Mar 2007)

I have often wondered about all the fuss made of turning off lights and electrical devices.   Does the law of conservation of energy have any practical meaning in a domestic setting?  It seems to me that most of the energy from a light bulb is in the form of heat, so it isn't really going to waste, just because you are not there to see it: - it is still (slightly) warming the room.

It seems to me that  by far and away the two biggest things we can do to stop 'wasting' energy are:

1.  building with better insulation and 
2.  the simple act of wearing a jumper indoors and turning down the thermostat.

I am not that old, and I can still remember frost on the inside of the window panes.  Didn't do us any harm at all.


----------



## Carpenter (23 Mar 2007)

The use of energy saving lighting and controls offers the best savings in terms of energy consumption in an office or commercial environment for the simple reason that unwanted heat produced by lighting places an extra burden on the air handling/ cooling equipment required in those types of buildings.  I'm sure that more modern appliances use less power on standby now than they did some years ago,but nonetheless I don't like to see appliances in standby mode at home when they are not being used.
I agree with MOB more insulation and turning down the thermostat are two of the most effective ways to conserve energy.  Also the use of more efficient boilers and "A" appliances in the home should be considered.  We are still putting a lot of quite innefficient oil burners into our new homes, at the very least we should be looking at condensing models or models that will run on biofuel.  I really want to "believe" in CFL bulbs but I've had 3 or 4 of these "blow" on me at home after very little service (less than a 100 hours?).  Conventional wisdom seems to suggest they are most suited for applications where lighting is left on continuously or for long periods without switching.


----------



## pat127 (23 Mar 2007)

Is the message being conveyed by the 'power of one' campaign being missed here? It's not what one person or household can save but it's the effect achieved when a small saving is multiplied by for example the number of households in the country. 

My pet hate is the number of lights that are left on inside or outside houses at night. Just as an example, 100W x 10hr = 1Kw x 1M households = 100Mw if my wonky maths are right. I'm not remotely against using lights overnight, but a PIR doesn't cost much and will make a huge difference to an outside light and low-energy bulbs etc will help inside.

Curiously, the 'power of one' website claims a saving of 20% if appliances are not left on standby. Do older TVs (still in the majority I'd say) use significantly more power on standby? What about stereo systems, computers, radios, microwaves, ovens, electric clocks, power-sockets and bars with indicators etc etc?


----------



## alert (23 Mar 2007)

I don't know if you guys watched Dragon's Den on BBC2 last Tuesday night, there was an hitherto unheard of situation whereby all the dragons invested in an invention, two guys had come up with a system, (using a simple microporcessor to read then store the signal frequency of your remote), such that when you placed the tv/box-set into standby, from the comfort of your armchair, the chip would cut the power to the appliance. According to these guys certain box-sets consume the same amount of energy in standby as in 'on' mode.

I reckon we'll be hearing more about it in the coming months.

ALERT.


----------



## Hoagy (23 Mar 2007)

I think this may be the device.

http://byebyestandby.co.uk/

Wonder what it uses on standby.......


----------



## alert (23 Mar 2007)

It charges rechargeable batteries when appliance is on.

ALERT.


----------



## aircobra19 (23 Mar 2007)

Problem with generalisation about standby energy consumptin is that it depends on the specific device you are talking about.


----------



## Towger (23 Mar 2007)

alert said:


> According to these guys certain box-sets consume the same amount of energy in standby as in 'on' mode.



Sky digi boxes are always on, so they can load software updates and have instant up to date program listings. When in standby more they just shut down the RF and Video outputs.

Towger


----------



## michaelm (23 Mar 2007)

Carpenter said:


> I really want to "believe" in CFL bulbs but I've had 3 or 4 of these "blow" on me at home after very little service (less than a 100 hours?).  Conventional wisdom seems to suggest they are most suited for applications where lighting is left on continuously or for long periods without switching.


I've had similar problems with CFLs.  AFAIK they have only so many on/off's before they blow so are not ideal in every situation.  I think I read some nonsense idea recently about banning or putting extra tax on the standard light bulb.


----------



## z107 (23 Mar 2007)

> so it isn't really going to waste, just because you are not there to see it: - it is still (slightly) warming the room.



It might be slightly warming the room, but it's doing it very inefficiently. It would be a very expensive way to heat your house.


----------



## ClubMan (29 Mar 2007)

MOB said:


> It seems to me that  by far and away the two biggest things we can do to stop 'wasting' energy are:
> 
> 1.  building with better insulation and
> 2.  the simple act of wearing a jumper indoors and turning down the thermostat.


Indeed. 


> *Hidden electrical bandits*
> 
> *Things that use electricity even when they're off*
> 
> *Most people waste so much energy that they don't need to worry about this section -- they'll get LOTS more benefit by insulating, using the AC less, installing ceiling fans, using compact fluorescent lights, and turning out lights when they're not using them**.*


As ever it probably makes sense to concentrate on the things that give the biggest bang for one's buck first. However usually it's not much hassle to also deal with some of the smaller things such as switching off devices rather than leaving them on standby so why not do it?


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Mar 2007)

I don't see why like a computer like powersaving can't be in more everyday devices like water heater immersions etc. I mean if you leave a immersion on for over 3 hrs its obviously by accident. I'm sure theres other things aswell. Kettle with no water. How about devices that have no human activity for  hours VCRs, DVD/HD recorders. They should automatically go into powersaving. Most don't. 

I'm driven mad with heating systems. Quite often the thermostats setting have no real effect other than off/on switches. On a hot day the heating will still come on. Seems to be a common problem.


----------



## Carpenter (29 Mar 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> I mean if you leave a immersion on for over 3 hrs its obviously by accident. I'm sure theres other things aswell. Kettle with no water.
> I'm driven mad with heating systems. Quite often the thermostats setting have no real effect other than off/on switches. On a hot day the heating will still come on. Seems to be a common problem.


 
Immersions do have a cut-off thermostat, which is accessible when you remove the cover.  So if you do leave the immersion on accidentally (presuming it is not faulty or set too high) it will cut out once the set temperature has been reached.  There's also the additional option of fitting a timer control.   Most newer kettles feature a "boil dry" automatic cut-off device which is designed to protect the appliance, mainly.

This is not a personal comment but in my experience most problems with heating systems that do not perform as expected can be attributed to either of two things: improper use of the existing controls (through ignorance of the user) or faulty controls/ poor design or installation.  A little basic knowledge about the simple functions of TRVS, room stats and motorised valves are central to understanding how to use our heating systems most effectively.


----------



## Gulliver (29 Mar 2007)

Back to the start of the thread - I agree with turning off lights.  I agree with insulation.  I agree with any form of genuine energy saving.

But I detest being bullied by false information.  We are being sold a lie in the debate about standby.  I have checked the numbers, believe me.  Modern TV, DVD, HiFi, etc. uses an infinitesmal amount of energy in standby.  Less than 4 kwh if my 43" TV was on standby 24x365 for a full year.  Less than 1/10th of the smallest CFL bulb.

Removing standby from these items will not save a significant amount of electricity - even when applied to the whole population.  It's a myth, a fallacy.


----------



## Carpenter (29 Mar 2007)

Gulliver said:


> It's a myth, a fallacy.


Perhaps it's an over simplification or a case of "gilding the lily" but I think the campaigns do help to raise the collective awareness about energy use- why have something on standby mode unless it's necessary, why leave lights on unnecessarily?  There are a great many people who don't care about energy use at all.


----------



## Gulliver (29 Mar 2007)

And when such campaigns are exposed as founded on a fallacy, the whole energy message is compromised.


----------



## Carpenter (29 Mar 2007)

Fair point, it doesn't help with getting the message accross...  I suppose the alternative: tell people to stop buying (lower initial purchase price) less energy efficient appliances, stop taking short haul flights etc can be socially divisive- not everyone can afford the "A" rated appliance, air travel is at last available for the less well off.  I digress, I apologise...


----------



## DrMoriarty (29 Mar 2007)

I've been all over that 'Mr Electricity' website that ClubMan linked to/quoted from above... the guy certainly has lots of useful advice to offer (not to mention a great photo gallery!) 

I'm surprised his energy conservation tips don't include the obvious one, though... _[broken link removed]_...


----------



## KalEl (29 Mar 2007)

Gulliver said:


> And when such campaigns are exposed as founded on a fallacy, the whole energy message is compromised.


 
Is there anyone else for whom energy conservation/global warming/carbon footprints is the new Northern Ireland? As in, change the channel...no interest!
Just curious


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Mar 2007)

Carpenter said:


> Perhaps it's an over simplification or a case of "gilding the lily" but I think the campaigns do help to raise the collective awareness about energy use- why have something on standby mode unless it's necessary, why leave lights on unnecessarily?  There are a great many people who don't care about energy use at all.



People forget, kids turn things on. You have to help people help themselves if possible.


----------



## Gulliver (29 Mar 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> I've been all over that 'Mr Electricity' website that ClubMan linked to/quoted from above... the guy certainly has lots of useful advice to offer (not to mention a great photo gallery!)
> 
> I'm surprised his energy conservation tips don't include the obvious one, though... _[broken link removed]_...


 
Mr. Electricity does the same calculations as I did above... but not for a TV.  He does it for a VCR... which I guess is probably old.  It uses more than 10 times as much on standby as a modern TV


----------



## sherib (29 Mar 2007)

> Originally Posted by *Gulliver*
> _He does it for a VCR... which I guess is probably old. It uses more than 10 times as much on standby as a modern TV_


The only appliance I unplug when not in use is the TV - because I was told ages ago a TV is a potential fire hazard; could that be true? In view of the above re a VCR, should that be unplugged too?


----------



## ClubMan (29 Mar 2007)

Gulliver said:


> Mr. Electricity does the same calculations as I did above... but not for a TV.  He does it for a VCR... which I guess is probably old.  It uses more than 10 times as much on standby as a modern TV


Interesting that he challenged his initial skepticism about the microwave clock using more power than the microwave oven itself by crunching the numbers and finding that what he thought was a fallacy could actually be true - see here:


> [SIZE=+1]*The clock on the microwave uses more energy than the oven*[/SIZE]
> The first time I heard that statement I thought,"Great, another electrical myth, like the myth that you should leave lights on because they take a lot of electricity to start up.". After all, I knew that the oven uses about 1000 watts while the clock uses five.
> But then I thought, wait a minute, the clock is running 24/7, while the oven is running just a few minutes a day. Then I did the math:*How much energy the clock uses in a day:* 5 (watts) x 24 (hours) = 120 (watt-hours)  *How long it takes the microwave to the same amount of energy:
> * 120 watt-hours / 1000 watts = 0.12 hours, or 7.2 minutes​This means that if you use a typical microwave oven for less than 7.2 minutes/day, the clock uses more electricity than the oven. Wow.


----------



## ClubMan (29 Mar 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> I've been all over that 'Mr Electricity' website that ClubMan linked to/quoted from above... the guy certainly has lots of useful advice to offer (not to mention a great photo gallery!)


He looks like a cross between _Howard Stern_ and _Ron Jeremy_!


----------



## GeneralZod (29 Mar 2007)

I bought a wattage and current meter to measure what I'm getting from my various appliances. Here are the measurements I've made so far.

21" TV CRT (10 years old)          73W on          12W standby 
Set-top box (few years old)        21W on          7W standby
800W Microwave with LCD clock  1250W on       0W standby
Sony LCD clock radio                 0W radio on    0W clock on  (below sensitivity of meter)
Laptop                                     65W charging + disk + network activity
                                              46W Charged + disk + network activity
                                              40W Battery removed
Desktop iMAC 20"                     95W on          1W in sleep

Newer devices do seem a lot better than my museum piece TV set-up.


----------



## Gulliver (29 Mar 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> Newer devices do seem a lot better than my museum piece TV set-up.


 
Correct, Zod.  And all of the newer devices can be easily brought well below 0.5w.  Far better than banning the concept of standby


----------



## pat127 (29 Mar 2007)

Gulliver said:


> Correct, Zod.  And all of the newer devices can be easily brought well below 0.5w.  Far better than banning the concept of standby



If however a very large percentage of devices in the country are still of the type that consumes a lot of power on standby and it'll take years to replace them all, then surely there is a case for at least encouraging their owners to switch them off at the mains?

I don't know how representative I am but most of the devices in my house are probably in this inefficient category and I don't see any reason why I should replace them until I have to.


----------



## ClubMan (29 Mar 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> I bought a wattage and current meter to measure what I'm getting from my various appliances.


You mean [broken link removed] that I was looking at on _eBay_?


----------



## GeneralZod (30 Mar 2007)

ClubMan said:


> You mean [broken link removed] that I was looking at on _eBay_?



Yes Clubman. It wasn't that exact model as that seller didn't seem to accept paypal payments.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Mar 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> that seller didn't seem to accept paypal payments.


Oops - missed that!


----------



## skenn_ie (30 Mar 2007)

When did facts get in the way of propoganda ?.  The government need to look at much larger things...like using heatpumps rather than convector heaters in the multitude of poorly insulated school pre-fabs.  Also, eliminating motorway lighting, except for illumination of signs !.


----------



## Gulliver (31 Mar 2007)

ClubMan said:


> You mean [broken link removed] that I was looking at on _eBay_?


 
That's fine for measuring standby on older and less efficient devices.  Well-designed modern devices are below the 1-watt threshold for this meter and will not register.  I suppose if you had a few devices on a trailing socket it could measure the combined wattage.


----------



## ang1170 (31 Mar 2007)

I've only just read the post about the microwave on standby, and it's an absolute classic of its kind.

The maths is 100% acurate so how could anyone disagree with the conclusion: we're all madly profligate!

The first thing I'd ask is what kind of device needs 5W to work out the time and display it? Think about it: the smallest button cell can power the average watch for a couple of years. I'd check that microwave if I were him, or more likely the meter he's using to measure it.

The second thing I'd ask is how much a percentage of total household consumption the microwave's clock, even if the 5W figure is correct.

Clearly there are enough old/badly designed appliances out there for there to be a potential problem. To my mind the best way to tackle this is through regulation of the suppliers: competition amongst manufacturers in domestic appliances is so fierce they won't invest even a few cents in anything that doesn't give a clearly demonstrated market benefit.

Regulation could be either to ban standby power consumption over a certain level (as a percentage of the active consumption) or mandate energy rating labelling at point-of-sale (e.g. similar to fridges/washing machines etc.) that are clearly understandable.


----------



## pat127 (31 Mar 2007)

sherib said:


> The only appliance I unplug when not in use is the TV - because I was told ages ago a TV is a potential fire hazard; could that be true? In view of the above re a VCR, should that be unplugged too?



Any device containing electronics could potentially be a fire hazard. Probably not a major issue although I have heard of several new LCD TVs catching fire. A friend of mine had his house burnt down when a clock radio caught fire. My standard policy overnight is to switch off all electronic equipment at the mains (TV, VCR, DVD which are conveniently all on one mains switch), and the PC and Router. When out of house I switch off the clock radio as well.

Just because you're not paranoid etc....


----------



## gipimann (1 Apr 2007)

If individuals decide to make the "standby to off" change, perhaps the manufacturers could help by making equipment that has an off switch to begin with!   I've got a DVD player, VCR, Chorus decoder and an older stereo which have no off switches!    Accessing the electrical socket(s) for these items isn't easy as all the wiring is behind the TV unit.


----------



## GeneralZod (1 Apr 2007)

Three more measurements, this time power adapters connected to the mains but without the device connected.

Dell laptop adapter    7W
Apple MacBook         11W

Seems like there's scope for improvement here when no load is being placed on the transformer. 

Nokia mobile phone charger   0W      (below sensitivity of the meter).  

I often hear that mobile phone chargers plugged in all the time mentioned are a problem. It looks like laptop power adaptors are individually more of a cause for concern, although there's probably far more phone adapters left plugged in.

Perhaps all sockets should come with on/off switches on them to save having to pull the plug in and out. Although I expect more efficient adapters will be introduced eventually.


----------



## KalEl (16 Apr 2007)

George Hook had an interesting guy on this evening during the technology slot with Karlin Lillington of the Irish Times. It did blow some popular views out of the water.
Your TV uses 1% of normal power when on standby for example. Also leaving your phone charger plugged in for one year uses the same amount of energy required for one hot bath.


----------



## GeneralZod (16 Apr 2007)

As mentioned in previous posts it depends on the device, newer ones are less likely to be wasteful.

My 10 year old CRT TV uses 16% of normal power when on standby.


----------



## Carpenter (17 Apr 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> I often hear that mobile phone chargers plugged in all the time mentioned are a problem. It looks like laptop power adaptors are individually more of a cause for concern, although there's probably far more phone adapters left plugged in.


 
I think the biggest danger with these is the fire risk if they overheat.


----------



## Joe Nonety (17 Apr 2007)

Can anyone with one of their meters check out another myth I heard which is that TVs (presumably CRTs) use a higher rate of electricity the longer they're left on?


----------



## Towger (17 Apr 2007)

Can anyone with one of their meters check out another myth I heard which is that TVs (presumably CRTs) use a higher rate of electricity the longer they're left on?

That would not make sense. As something heats up its resistance increases, so as the heaters in the tube heat up less power is drawn. If the TV kept drawing more power it has to go somewhere and eventually it would go bang.

Towger


----------



## BlueSpud (17 Apr 2007)

Another myth is that buying A rated appliances saves loads of cash.  Not so clear cut.  Take a fridge, it does not use much electricity, and therefore does not have the potential to pay back the €150 extra you paid for it.


----------



## KalEl (17 Apr 2007)

BlueSpud said:


> Another myth is that buying A rated appliances saves loads of cash. Not so clear cut. Take a fridge, it does not use much electricity, and therefore does not have the potential to pay back the €150 extra you paid for it.


 
According to the guy with George Hook a couple of evenings ago fridges and freezers do use a lot of power. A pretty obvious one, but he said tumble dryers are a disaster power consumption-wise...as any apartment dweller will confirm!


----------



## pinkyBear (17 Apr 2007)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/garden/12clothesline.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This artical made for interesting reading - there was also a small mention on the Right Hook last night where one of the contributers had a device that calculated how much enery was being used. The drier was the worst offender...
Leaving the TV/DVD on standby use minimal energy...


----------



## Imperator (18 Apr 2007)

This has been an interesting post on a topic which interests me. It appears that a general message 'out there' is that devices use power in standby mode. Many people I know did not actually know this.  They did not appreciate that televisions, computers and other devices use power at this time. So the most important thing to realise and appreciate is that stuff uses power at times wen we did not think it was doing so.  As far as I am aware, even a kettle plugged into the mains draws a tiny amount of power over time. I used a meter plugged in for a couple of days and there was a very small draw of power.

The next topic to consider is the amount of power on standby. It seems to have been quite large in the past (I note 16% was quoted for an older device) but is getting smaller now. All well and good. My main point I suppose is that just because technology is reducing the amount of *waste* doesn't mean its not waste and that we shouldn't make an effort to reduce waste. I'm not saying that that suggestion was made here, but I get an impression that people will say to themselves (or are already saying to themselves) 'well, it's not much, I'll leave it on standby'. This strikes me as short-term thinking.

Another poster mentioned the cumulative effects of standby power for devices across the population. I thought this was an interesting point and performed some rough sums. I preface the following calculation with thenote that percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number, and will state what I believe to be reasonable assumptions as I go.  I will provide links to information sources at the end of this post.

There are approximately 1,500,000 households in the state. Approximately 98% of these have televisions. Approximately 50% of households have a second television. This amounts to 2,220,000 televisions. Let's assume that about 35% are modern units with low standby ratings, and that 65% are older units with a higher energy use on standby. This gives us 777,000 units with a standby power use of 0.4 W and 1,443,000 units with a standby power use of 12 W. I think a lot of people watch too much of the box, but I'll assume that the televisions are on standby for 19 hours of each day.  the instantaneous load of these televisions is (777,000 x 0.4) + (1,443,000 x 12) Watts, which is *17.6 MW*. On a yearly basis this gives us 365 days by 19 hours by 17.6 MW which gives approx *122 GW hr*. 


There are 555,555 computers in use in households. I'll assume that the average computer is on standby for say 3 hrs each day, and that each computer uses, say, 10 W on standby. The daily standby load is *5.6 MW* and the yearly volume is *6 GW hr*

A similar excercise for the 1,050,000 microwaves gives 1 MW load and volume of about 9 GW hr.

My favourite is lightbulb use. Lets say that each household on average keeps 2 lightbulbs on when they don't need to be. I'll pick two 60 W bulbs for 2 hours over the year. This gives an load of * 180 MW * and a yearly volume of *131 GW hr*

Summing standby use of televisions, computers and lightbulbs as well as inappropriate use of bulbs gives 204 MW and a yearly volume of 270 GW hr. 

The volume of electricity used by the state in 2005 was 24,800 GW hr, and expected instantaneous loads are approx 5,000 MW. So we can say that use of *household*standby power in this calculation (for what it's worth) accounts for 4% of instantaneous load and over 1% of total volume of electricity.  I note that I did not include DVD players, video recorders, printers and other items of equipment. I am also being generous in my use of standby figures - I suspect there are many empty rooms with televisions and stereos playing at full power.

Now, in dealing with the original points raised: the power is small as a percentage, but its not zero. It can be measured, accounted for, and controlled at the flick of a switch *for very little human effort*. If I had to climb on to the roof of my house while dodging flying monkey-bats to switch off the television and PC I'd say to hell with the ESB. If the simple step of moving my fundament off the sofa and over to the TV switch will contribute to a saving of 4% of the power requirement of the state, then I'll do it.

Imperator

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Apr 2007)

As with many things I think you save pennies to save pounds. Also wasting resources is the death of a thousand paper cuts. You won't go wrong turning things off as much as possible, especially if it becomes a habit. 

I notice that in Europe lights that turn themselves off by timer are commonplace and much less to here. I think devices that turn themselves off should be the standard, not the exception.


----------



## KalEl (18 Apr 2007)

An interesting post...well done on your calculations!

However, I think most people would say for a 1% saving they couldn't be bothered.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Apr 2007)

KalEl said:


> An interesting post...well done on your calculations!
> 
> However, I think most people would say for a 1% saving they couldn't be bothered.



Yes if you never forget and leave things on by accident.


----------



## Bootdog (8 May 2007)

MOB said:


> I have often wondered about all the fuss made of turning off lights and electrical devices.   Does the law of conservation of energy have any practical meaning in a domestic setting?  It seems to me that most of the energy from a light bulb is in the form of heat, so it isn't really going to waste, just because you are not there to see it: - it is still (slightly) warming the room.



The easiest way to see this is that in an apartment block, the warmest apartments are generally those with apartments above and below, the heat rises from the apartments below, (the top floor apartments have higher losses through the walls to the air). 

Similarly, any appliance that generates heat while in standby is likely consuming a significant amount of electricity while in standby. The items I've found are : old stereo system, and the transformers in the cable to a laptop and a printer (although there is no heat loss from the printer, there is heat continually lost from the transformer)...


----------



## rkray (19 Jun 2007)

Yes indeed. I have also been checking standby costs using my Electrisave monitor (www.electrisave.ie if you are interested). I am finding that our CRT TV, our DVD and VCR consume negligable amounts of power on standby. 

IMHO people should focus on the heavy loads like 1) immersions, 2) computers switched on 24x7 3) tumble dryers, etc. 

Once all of these are taken care of, by all means look at the stand by stuff and mobile phone chargers.

Just my 2c.

Ronnie Kav


----------

