What appliance uses most electricity

mute_posting

Bismarck wrote: »

70p a go??? Sheesh....it's something I'd not really thought of...

follow the thread a few posts down (post 14 onwards I think) ... there was some discusion about the rates used.

Cardew

mech wrote: »

I think your TVs are probably atypical. I have one TV which on standby uses 3.6kWh per month. Or 8kWh/month by the time you factor in the freeview box and VCR/DVD player and call it one setup. No cinema sound system or consoles on standby either. On that basis I hardly think 16kWh per month is very high.


It depends on how you spin the figures. Most electricity usage sounds cheap when you start to break it down. If you save £2 a month on electricity, that doesn't sound like much, but if your yearly bill is £240, that's a reduction of 10%. Many people would welcome a 10% reduction in their electricity bill with zero investment and little effort.

There's nothing else I can do to reduce electricity usage without replacing household goods that it would take years before there was payback.

I don't believe that my TV standby consumption is atypical.

Most manufacturers signed up years ago to have a standby consumption of less than 1 watt. My 2 CRT TVs(both about 7 years old) have a consumption of 0.6W for a 32" Sony, and 0.9W for a 27" Panasonic. My LCD 37" is well under 1 watt.

Also plenty of people have posted on here, and other sites, of similar consumption - the latest Sony TVs are 0.4W I believe.

I agree with your comment that it depends "how you spin the figures" and, with respect, your example of a £2 monthly saving on a very low annual bill of £240 is a classic example that would make Alistair Campbell very proud!;)

£2 a month represents a 24/7 standby load of 27 Watts. Bearing in mind that the devices are in use some of the time that is certainly a standby load in excess of 30 watts. That is a lot of electrical equipment for a property that only spends £240 a year.

In fact I am not sure that it is fair to consider Sky boxes/PVRs as having a standby load. It is intended that they should be in use (i.e. on standby) 24/7.

I am not in any way suggesting that people shouldn't switch off standby, it is just that the emphasis on standby is counter-productive IMO.

Without including a Sky box, I believe that my standby costs would be pence per month, even if I didn't switch things off.

mech_2

Cardew wrote: »

I don't believe that my TV standby consumption is atypical.

Most manufacturers signed up years ago to have a standby consumption of less than 1 watt. My 2 CRT TVs(both about 7 years old) have a consumption of 0.6W for a 32" Sony, and 0.9W for a 27" Panasonic. My LCD 37" is well under 1 watt.

Also plenty of people have posted on here, and other sites, of similar consumption - the latest Sony TVs are 0.4W I believe.

OK, perhaps a typical TV does consume 1 watt or less. I don't really know. (I don't know how old my TV is. I bought it second hand). But it certainly doesn't apply to the standby mode of household goods as a whole. If a Freeview box and/or DVD player etc are consuming 5 watts on standby each, it's a little irrelevant what the TV consumes.

I agree with your comment that it depends "how you spin the figures" and, with respect, your example of a £2 monthly saving on a very low annual bill of £240 is a classic example that would make Alistair Campbell very proud!;)

If I think of the things I've seen friends and family leave plugged in, it probably isn't unrealistic. My sister reacted with shock when I told her her PC was effectively on standby when she thought it was off. Often the issue is that people don't really know their standby consumption. Maybe we all need Wattsons to measure our real background power consumption when we think everything is turned off.

£2 a month represents a 24/7 standby load of 27 Watts. Bearing in mind that the devices are in use some of the time that is certainly a standby load in excess of 30 watts. That is a lot of electrical equipment for a property that only spends £240 a year.

Not really. It isn't necessarily 'a lot of electrical equipment'. It depends how much the items consume on standby. I've got a spare VCR, for example, which uses 12 watts on standby on its own. That's more than a third of the way there with one item.

A typical PC setup: My PC speakers use 3 watts when off at the woofer, plus 3 watts for the PC, plus 4 for the broadband router. 10 watts and that's a fairly minimal setup. No cordless this or wireless that or external drives. The monitor and printer only have mains on/off switches.

It's easy to see how a one-person household could save £2 a month without really trying.

Some people do have a lot of electrical equipment anyway. Think of all the gizmos with cheap adapters out there. I've worked in a consumer electronics shop before; I know what kind of rubbish people buy.

In fact I am not sure that it is fair to consider Sky boxes/PVRs as having a standby load. It is intended that they should be in use (i.e. on standby) 24/7.

Well that's a silly statement. Everything with a standby mode or without a proper off button is designed to be on standby. Doesn't mean it has to be.

I am not in any way suggesting that people shouldn't switch off standby, it is just that the emphasis on standby is counter-productive IMO.

It's a lot harder to explain what different things consume in use and persuade people to alter their behaviour. And if they have already done all that, there's only standby left. If people can't manage to avoid standby what chance do you have getting them to do anything else?

Without including a Sky box, I believe that my standby costs would be pence per month, even if I didn't switch things off.

Well I think mine is somewhere around 16kWh/month. I could switch one or two more things off, but don't as they're hassle (router takes ages to connect after being off and the PC takes too long to shut down, so I don't bother waiting). Without trying to avoid standby I think it could be 38kWh/month. ie 22kWh/month more. My consumption is around 2100 kWh a year, so I've probably saved less than 10%, with stuff switched on for some of the time, but it's not miles off. And I'm not exactly laden with gadgets, though plenty of people are.

Most of the stuff I actually use has been selected by me as low-consumption anyway. That's why I have an integrated DVD/VCR with a standby consumption of 2 watts and the 12 watt VCR is in the loft.

Cardew

Quote:
In fact I am not sure that it is fair to consider Sky boxes/PVRs as having a standby load. It is intended that they should be in use (i.e. on standby) 24/7.
Well that's a silly statement. Everything with a standby mode or without a proper off button is designed to be on standby. Doesn't mean it has to be.

My Sky+ box(a PVR) is used for recording items late at night/inconvenient times for playing back later. It also downloads updates from Sky at night when they become available.
Also after switching off at the mains it takes some time to get everthing reset.

Of course it could be switched off at the mains, but given the purpose for which it was purchased it is not sensible to do so for most people.

You could argue that we should switch off our microwaves & cookers at the plug(and reset the clock every time). Ditto CH boiler and timer, wireless router(I have an internet phone).

My point was that it is impractical for most people to do so - or simply the savings are so minimal, we don't bother.

mech_2

I did some reading. Average standby power consumption of new TVs is 1.8W (though most people will have relatively old TVs). The average standby consumption of new Freeview boxes is currently 6.6W.

Domestic UK standby usage for 2006 is estimated as being somewhere between 6.1TWh and 12.2TWh. Taking a mid-point of 9.15TWh and dividing by 25 million households, that makes an average of 366kWh in 2006. Or 30.5kWh/month. Around 7.85% of an average household's electricity consumption (4662kWh). However this consumption figure is probably biassed upwards by the 9% of households who use electricity for heating. The usual figure quoted is 3500kWh, making the estimated average standby consumption for 91% of households just over 10% of their total consumption.


Some links, if anyone is still interested:
http://www.mtprog.com/ApprovedBriefingNotes/PDF/MTP_BNXS36_2007October11.pdf
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=lbnl
http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/faqs/energy_consumption_faqs2#a_id9075

moonrakerz

I must confess to finding this ongoing "discussion" about electrical equipment being left in standby to be getting more than a little boring.

The whole standby thing was a Government generated "sound bite" designed to show that the Government was doing "something"to save the planet. Far more effective ways of saving money - and the planet, were ignored because they just didn't fit in with the publicity hungry method of Government.

How many people who religiously switch everything off at night have no idea of the depth of lagging in their loft ? How many people are aware that they can have the cavities in their three bed house filled for less than £200 ? According to the Energy Saving Trust these two measures alone will pay for themselves in 4 - 6years. That is a big saving in energy.
Arguing over whether your 95" lcd-plasma-HD-dolby- NICAM-turbo charged-TV uses 1W or 2.7W in standby completely misses the point - in fact the energy used in arguing the point will more than use up any possible savings made by sitting there waiting for your Sky box to re-tune itself every morning!

nick74

Another consideration is that most of the energy being consumed by appliances left on standby is given out as heat, which provides a small amount of additional background heating in the house.

This may not be a lot of use in the middle of summer, but in colder weather the heat will proportionately reduce the amount of energy used by the heating system to keep the house warm.
Just because appliances consume energy on standby doesn't necessarily mean it is being wasted.

mech_2

moonrakerz wrote: »

I must confess to finding this ongoing "discussion" about electrical equipment being left in standby to be getting more than a little boring.

The whole standby thing was a Government generated "sound bite" designed to show that the Government was doing "something"to save the planet. Far more effective ways of saving money - and the planet, were ignored because they just didn't fit in with the publicity hungry method of Government.

That's rather cynical. It sounds like an excuse not to do anything to me.

More to the point, can you find fault with the figures? Can you tell me what these more effective measures would be?

For a saving with zero outlay it would be foolish to ignore unnecessary standby consumption simply for political reasons. You don't harm the government by wasting an extra 10 watts of electricity, only your wallet.

How many people who religiously switch everything off at night have no idea of the depth of lagging in their loft?

I don't know. Maybe you can find some figures for me. I suspect most home-owners do know whether they have loft insulation. Who buys a house and never looks in the attic?

How many people are aware that they can have the cavities in their three bed house filled for less than £200? According to the Energy Saving Trust these two measures alone will pay for themselves in 4 - 6years. That is a big saving in energy.

I don't trust the Energy Saving Trust's figures. Their savings are hugely inflated, presumably due to links to the insulation industry. If you want an example of a misleading government vehicle for energy saving look no further.

Even if you ignore that for a moment. Pay-back in 6 years? Reducing standby consumption pays back straight away!

Arguing over whether your 95" lcd-plasma-HD-dolby- NICAM-turbo charged-TV uses 1W or 2.7W in standby completely misses the point - in fact the energy used in arguing the point will more than use up any possible savings made by sitting there waiting for your Sky box to re-tune itself every morning!

I'm not making a point to save energy (well not my own anyway), I'm here to dispel cynicism for cynicism's sake and to prevent people from being discouraged from minimising their standby energy consumption.

And yes, wasted electricity does produce heat, but even ignoring Economy 7, 79% of households heat with gas which even in an inefficient boiler will be a fraction of the cost of the heat generated by the wasted electricity. Let's be pessimistic and assume you'll retain 60-80% of the saving.

moonrakerz

mech wrote: »

I'm not making a point to save energy (well not my own anyway), I'm here to dispel cynicism for cynicism's sake and to prevent people from being discouraged from minimising their standby energy consumption.
.

(My highlighting)

Could I thank you for supporting my argument so convincingly !

If you really believe that switching off your TV, at the wall, between programmes is a more effective way of "saving the planet" than lagging your loft properly - then it just goes to show that my cynicism is totally justified.

barrymung

Cardew wrote: »

... Their posts nearly always say "and I switch the TV off standby" as if this is the most important path to savings.

I used to fix tellies and sets used to come in with broken power switches, mainly by people of an older generation.

(It seems that it was a throwback to the 50's where a number of houses burnt down due to valve tellies catching fire!)

Anyway, these sets used to come in every 18 months or so and the cost of replacing the mains switch far outweighed any saving that was made in electricity, probably by a factor of 5 to 10.

The moral? Always ensure that your energy saving measures aren't going to cost you more elsewhere, further down the line!