People thinking that they are saving money from more energy efficient products

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Tere is a wider picture though - there are benefits in reducing power draw - not necessarily to the individual, but as a social benefit. I referred to some of the issues involved here http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...ml#post3379497. Reducing peak current on the national grid can have significant impact on overall power generation efficiency, and hence on global energy consumption. But we aren't metered for those losses (although we ultimately pay for them as part of our overall energy costs)

Yes,I agree,but most people don't say its for the greater good though??

They are under the impression they are saving money for themselves.

Its like with my mates server. Its basically his old E8400 based gaming rig from years ago with a media card and a multiple HDDs. It also has a relatively inefficient PSU.

He was wondering whether he should get something newer. After whipping out the power meter,we calculated it would take him the better part of at least THREE(maybe 4) years to recoup the cost of the new parts even trying to take into account inflation. Considering how old the rig is(from 2009),it will probably go kaput before then anyway.

Basically he is going to get 6 to 7 years out of that rig. Far better and less wasteful then upgrading sooner IMHO.

We are moving towards a more throw away society and at times just using products a bit longer can be better for the environment as a whole,especially when you consider the timebomb which is the depletion of our rarer materials which are essential for a lot of modern electronics.

[shaithis]

If people want to be dumb, that's their lookout.

My main problem in this area is how all tax payers have subsidised solar panels for a small %age of the population (and in Britain where we don't get a lot of sun!). Solar panels that may never make back their install cost.

[wasabi]

If people want to be dumb, that's their lookout.

Problem is most people devolve their decision making to 'experts' and refuse to take individual responsibillty for anything. The 'getting fat? not my fault - sue Maccy D's' mindset. Also quite often experts aren't very expert, or their message gets very lost in translation thanks to politically motivated bodies and business/marketing/spin.

[MrComputerSaint]

Yes,but many of the people think by spending more on energy efficient products they will actually save money overall.

Look at something like computers for example - I see people go on about how they will spend more on a energy efficient CPU or GPU,but then overclock it,use a 5000W PSU,not consider any of the other parts of the rig and then keep said rig on 24/7 just because they CBA to switch the PC on. Someone with a less efficient rig who just uses it when they need to use it will probably use less electricity over the year.

Same with plasma TVs against LCD ones. I know people with plasmas who will only switch it on when they watch TV but then switch it off. There are people who will use an LCD and then just keep it on,or on standby instead(since it consumes less power).

Cars are more of the same thing. People spend disportionately more to get that extra 5MPG extra,but it will take them years to get that money back in fuel savings,and then drive to the shops instead since they CBA to walk for 10 minutes just to get a loaf of bread.

Usage habits are FAR more important than actual consumption ratings.

Yeah, getting a lower power consumption CPU and then having 7 hard drives, 2 graphics cards is a bit pointless, if your goal is to get the power consumption down. I think it's people's idea that their CPU is the main component that will deal with power distribution. Lazyness and ignorance really.

When I was buying a car I was looking at a diesel car, it was £500 more than the petrol model. Similar spec. I would have had to do over, I think it was, 15000 miles in the year to gain any cost saving from diesel compared with the petrol version. And because the petrol version is, in theory, cheaper with certain parts I chose the petrol variant. Although I do miss the economy of a diesel.

I think it's peoples attitude of not really caring and thinking that the companies will look after them in terms of making the best product that has the better power savings.

I mean the Prius seems a very economical car, however there is research that proves the manufacturing process is terribly inefficient.

[peterb]

If people want to be dumb, that's their lookout.

My main problem in this area is how all tax payers have subsidised solar panels for a small %age of the population (and in Britain where we don't get a lot of sun!). Solar panels that may never make back their install cost.

And thank you!

...but you don't need direct sunlight for solar panels, and mine should pay for themselves in around seven years. Today I have used solar for most of my power requirements - so that is power I am not taking from the national grid (and I've fed some of that back into it for others to use) which has reduced the amount of fossil fuel used. Its a small individual contribution, but multiply it by all the installed systems and it adds up. So far today I have generated about 8.5KWh.

[peterb]

But to get back on track - remember a few years ago when power supply manufacturers and resellers were pushing Active Power factor Correction - the big thing?

Power factor makes little diference to the domestic user who is charged by the Kwh, but make a huge difference to the generatorts and transmission systems.

Let me explain.

So - take a 500Watt perfect PSU with a power factor of 1.0 and 100% efficient delivering 500W of power. To make the maths simple, we'll connect it to a 250 V mains supply. It will take 2 amps and consume 500 Watts of power and if you run it for two hours, you will be charged for one unit of power. 1KWh. There wil be a power loss in the transmission line on the supply side of your meter, but that isn't your concern, and that los is attributable to the 2A flowing through the power lines.

Now connect one that has a power factor of 0.5. It is still 100% efficient -but now, your power meter will still show 500Watts being delivered, but the current being delivered is now 4 Amps if you measured it with an ammeter. But there is a phase difference betwen the current and voltage in the PSU so although no power is being consumed in the unit, and it is still consuming and delivering 500 W, the current in the mains conductors has gone up - but you will still be charged for 1 unit after 2 hours. But you should be a little bit concerned because your mains wiring is now carrying twice the current, and that current in the conductors is in phase with the voltage, so in practice you have increased the power loss in your cables which will have a tiny effect on your meter reading.

However, this is of greater concern to the supply company. Your low PFC PSU might not ne a problem, but multiply that by 10, or 100, or 1000, and suddenly those loses start adding up to significant amounts. Cables have to be thicker and more expensive, and that contributes to the overall cost of electricity.

and this was not a trivial problem as the use of switched mode PSUs became widespread in televisions and computers. And so legislation was enacted EU wide so that to gain CE compliance, PSUs had to have a minimum power factor, and Active Power Factor Correction was the way to meet the new regulations - so it wasn't just marketing hype, but a proper legislative approach to a very real problem.

[Hoonigan]

Is there a point that we're missing here? Is it really all just about whether or not it makes the money back, or are some people doing it to offer future generations a better future?

[peterb]

Is there a point that we're missing here? Is it really all just about whether or not it makes the money back, or are some people doing it to offer future generations a better future?

Both. The overall drive in using "renewable" sources like solar PV is to reduce the requirement to use fossil based fuels. The incentives to cough up the relatively large up front costs are the feed in tariffs and personal energy savings which recoup the costs. Roof space is largely unused, and the solar energy gfalling on them would be otherwise 'lost'. Solar PV arrays harness a proportion of that energy for personal use (offsetting the take from the grid) and feeding excess back so that it can be used elsewhere -offsetting further fossil fuel use.

Individually it isn't much, but looking at the growing numbers of solar panel arrays, it starts adding up.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, getting a lower power consumption CPU and then having 7 hard drives, 2 graphics cards is a bit pointless, if your goal is to get the power consumption down. I think it's people's idea that their CPU is the main component that will deal with power distribution. Lazyness and ignorance really.

When I was buying a car I was looking at a diesel car, it was £500 more than the petrol model. Similar spec. I would have had to do over, I think it was, 15000 miles in the year to gain any cost saving from diesel compared with the petrol version. And because the petrol version is, in theory, cheaper with certain parts I chose the petrol variant. Although I do miss the economy of a diesel.

I think it's peoples attitude of not really caring and thinking that the companies will look after them in terms of making the best product that has the better power savings.

I mean the Prius seems a very economical car, however there is research that proves the manufacturing process is terribly inefficient.

You get my point exactly.

But to get back on track - remember a few years ago when power supply manufacturers and resellers were pushing Active Power factor Correction - the big thing?

Power factor makes little diference to the domestic user who is charged by the Kwh, but make a huge difference to the generatorts and transmission systems.

Let me explain.

So - take a 500Watt perfect PSU with a power factor of 1.0 and 100% efficient delivering 500W of power. To make the maths simple, we'll connect it to a 250 V mains supply. It will take 2 amps and consume 500 Watts of power and if you run it for two hours, you will be charged for one unit of power. 1KWh. There wil be a power loss in the transmission line on the supply side of your meter, but that isn't your concern, and that los is attributable to the 2A flowing through the power lines.

Now connect one that has a power factor of 0.5. It is still 100% efficient -but now, your power meter will still show 500Watts being delivered, but the current being delivered is now 4 Amps if you measured it with an ammeter. But there is a phase difference betwen the current and voltage in the PSU so although no power is being consumed in the unit, and it is still consuming and delivering 500 W, the current in the mains conductors has gone up - but you will still be charged for 1 unit after 2 hours. But you should be a little bit concerned because your mains wiring is now carrying twice the current, and that current in the conductors is in phase with the voltage, so in practice you have increased the power loss in your cables which will have a tiny effect on your meter reading.

However, this is of greater concern to the supply company. Your low PFC PSU might not ne a problem, but multiply that by 10, or 100, or 1000, and suddenly those loses start adding up to significant amounts. Cables have to be thicker and more expensive, and that contributes to the overall cost of electricity.

and this was not a trivial problem as the use of switched mode PSUs became widespread in televisions and computers. And so legislation was enacted EU wide so that to gain CE compliance, PSUs had to have a minimum power factor, and Active Power Factor Correction was the way to meet the new regulations - so it wasn't just marketing hype, but a proper legislative approach to a very real problem.

Which again is all nice and good,but does not stop people spending more on a slightly more efficient PSU do save pennies.

Plus you talk about PFC and AFC - don't you get that if the EU had not forced it on companies,they would be selling AFC as a magic "power saving tech". You want a 500W PSU with AFC,pay £100 instead of £40 for the non-AFC version. Instead they had no choice but to put in all units. Otherwise they would be ripping off people to this day making lame excuses(most companies after all exist to maximise profits).

You really need to go on more forums to see how people actually get mistled by loads of advertising.

Point in hand - people get 750W Gold rated units and upgrading form 500W 80+ Bronze rated ones,thinking they will save money,when their rigs barely consume 300W at the wall.

Except they don't as it will take years to get the money back. This is nothing to do with AFC or PFC and even going back years,people still bought massive PSUs for rigs which barely needed that much power. It was the same problem back then.

I should know - I was using much lower wattage SFF units to run the same setups with people buying 600W units for.

The biggest units I have ever had were 500W and 520W and they were more than what I needed,and I was running midrange/low highend cards.

Look at my current system - I am lucky to see 200W at the wall,and even if I go for a card a tier above it I would be lucky to see 250W to 280W.

That is with a Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770,16GB of RAM,two SSDs,an HDD and a GTX660.

Valve Steam Box prototypes with a Core i7 4770 and a Geforce Titan were running off SFF 450W units.

The lowest wattage unit with reasonable build quality I could find under £45 at the time was the XFX PRO 450W.

Except,how easy is for me to find anything under £50 with a lower wattage and better efficiency?? There was one 360W Gold rated Seasonic unit which was hard to get.

It appears PSU makers don't like making decent quality lower wattage units since they say demand is poor.

Is there a point that we're missing here? Is it really all just about whether or not it makes the money back, or are some people doing it to offer future generations a better future?

Most of the time,lower power consumption is equated to lower leccy costs and hence the device will cost less over time,meaning a HIGHER initial price can be justified. You see that argument touted on multiple forums so many times.

Yet,in many cases the higher initial cost does not always equate to you spending less money overall including purchase cost,or the cost saving is overstated.

A lot of the time people don't seem to get how important usage habits contribute to the whole equation. They trust what the marketing and review sites tell them/sell them withut actually equating it to their situation.

The example MrComputerSaint gave is what I am talking about.

If people want to be dumb, that's their lookout.

The problem is when review sites,overstate costs savings and people end up thinking they will be saving money when they are not.

Then it gets perpetuated to more people and so on.

Cars are a good example - people will upgrade their "old" car to a new one for that extra 5MPG to 10MPG,and slightly lower road tax thinking they are saving money.

But in many cases,it will take years and years for any savings to be actually of any use.

Plus people always forget that building a new car itself is wasting resources. That has an environmental impact.

Very few people seem to actually care about saving the world per se or load on the national grid,etc while they are jetting off abroad on holiday or eating food imported from Africa or using their 3D surround 50" LCD. If they wanted to save the world they would just holiday locally and eat seasonal locally produced food as much as possible.

Ultimately,energy effiency is mostly sold as a money saving exercise - be it home appliances or cars. In many cases it comes with a premium though and a reason to get rid of the "old" junk. The problem is that unlike 30 years ago when that "old junk" was like maybe 10 years old,you are talking about things which are less than 5 years old,maybe even two years old.

Recycling is not keeping up with the increasing amounts of electronic waste being created which is another problem.

Plus again usage patterns are far more important,but ultimately is a message which never seems to be delivered by the media in the first place.

But OFC the media is more worried about selling the next big thing than trying to educate people.

[mikeo01]

You know, I will be up front. CAT in particular slapped me around to seeing power efficiency and consumption, and guess what I ended up with, a 450W PSU managing to supply an R9 290.

Also the difference in "price" from my older calculations (aka something like 350w vs 415w) was so small I could literally turn the kettle on once and all that "efficiency" would of been lost.


I think people assume the marketing guys are right. One word, efficiency, and your product will do a heck of a lot better.


Also the best point made in this thread here is habits. You boiled the kettle 3 times because first time you went to the toilet, the second time you realised you had the bathroom light switched on and finally the third time you forgot to turn off your TV in the living room.

= higher bills, more electricity being pulled from the grid = knock on effect for the big guys generating that electric = more fossil fuels being burnt.

Also people need to understand that being efficient, whether that be for your own bills or the environment isn't about using a specific product, but rather not relying on the big factories to power your habits.


Solar panels, wind, water, they all rely on natural sources, though it takes fossil fuels to make them. It is all about "in the long run" on an individual level.


Doing your part is good for a couple of reasons, helping the environment by not supporting bigger businesses that eat power/energy (which one? ) for lunch and secondly your bills.
Reason why some people make a garden, use solar panels, change their habits. Environment and bills. Why support the big guys that are making profits to feed their power usage?

It depends on how long you have that device on for which determines whether you need to fork out for something more efficient.


Last point: People cannot be bothered, and will not be bothered to research people have day jobs, they want to come home and want stuff to just work. I'd place a bet that the majority couldn't give a rats... bum about anything that does not effect them in a personal way.

[Hoonigan]

Most of the time,lower power consumption is equated to lower leccy costs and hence the device will cost less over time,meaning a HIGHER initial price can be justified. You see that argument touted on multiple forums so many times.

Yet,in many cases the higher initial cost does not always equate to you spending less money overall including purchase cost,or the cost saving is overstated.

A lot of the time people don't seem to get how important usage habits contribute to the whole equation. They trust what the marketing and review sites tell them/sell them withut actually equating it to their situation.

The example MrComputerSaint gave is what I am talking about.

I fully understand this, and it will always be the way. To make something more efficient costs money in development and often materials.

My question is: Should we be doing this to save ourselves some money? Or should we do it because future generations don't want a planet like that seen in the film Wall-E?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I fully understand this, and it will always be the way. To make something more efficient costs money in development and often materials.

My question is: Should we be doing this to save ourselves some money? Or should we do it because future generations don't want a planet like that seen in the film Wall-E?

The thing is we really want to help the environment,we really need to make changes to out lifestyles too - more efficient items can only help so much. But also there is an environmental penalty to repeatedly upgrading things too - so actually using certain things longer might end up being more environmentally friendly too. Don't underestimate the cost of production too.

One of the things which is a slight worry is Rare Earth Elements. A lot of electronics and modern tech use these,and they can only be found in very few places around the world. If we are not careful in managing these through better recycling we could hit some real problems in the next few decades IMHO. China has already started securing as much of the sources of them as possible.

You know, I will be up front. CAT in particular slapped me around to seeing power efficiency and consumption, and guess what I ended up with, a 450W PSU managing to supply an R9 290.

Also the difference in "price" from my older calculations (aka something like 350w vs 415w) was so small I could literally turn the kettle on once and all that "efficiency" would of been lost.


I think people assume the marketing guys are right. One word, efficiency, and your product will do a heck of a lot better.


Also the best point made in this thread here is habits. You boiled the kettle 3 times because first time you went to the toilet, the second time you realised you had the bathroom light switched on and finally the third time you forgot to turn off your TV in the living room.

= higher bills, more electricity being pulled from the grid = knock on effect for the big guys generating that electric = more fossil fuels being burnt.

Also people need to understand that being efficient, whether that be for your own bills or the environment isn't about using a specific product, but rather not relying on the big factories to power your habits.


Solar panels, wind, water, they all rely on natural sources, though it takes fossil fuels to make them. It is all about "in the long run" on an individual level.


Doing your part is good for a couple of reasons, helping the environment by not supporting bigger businesses that eat power/energy (which one? ) for lunch and secondly your bills.
Reason why some people make a garden, use solar panels, change their habits. Environment and bills. Why support the big guys that are making profits to feed their power usage?

It depends on how long you have that device on for which determines whether you need to fork out for something more efficient.


Last point: People cannot be bothered, and will not be bothered to research people have day jobs, they want to come home and want stuff to just work. I'd place a bet that the majority couldn't give a rats... bum about anything that does not effect them in a personal way.

Agreed. BTW,I think you have pointed out how much power requirements for graphics cards can be overstated at times. At the wall I suspect you will see less than 300W especially with your CPU.

[Zak33]

My main problem in this area is how all tax payers have subsidised solar panels for a small %age of the population (and in Britain where we don't get a lot of sun!). Solar panels that may never make back their install cost.

everything is subsidised by something else though bud, you don't have to tie one thing up to another.

Cigarettes help pay for the NHS for example

My dad's solar panels will be paid back within 7 years easily.. and yes it's subsidised by the tax wer pay.. but so is his winter fuel rebate payout thingy. Mean time he draws nearly zero electricity from the grid which helps the power company provide a more stable and efficient power supply to the factory down the road... as an example.

Without them, we will need more power stations. In my back yard. ... for example

Large engines inneficient cars help pay (via fuel duty) for ... i dunno... tanks and guns in war zones...

it's all one big pot.

[wasabi]

Cat - your falling into the same trap - you don't consume power - you use or draw power. You consume energy! Energy = power*time. Energy is what you pay for (domestically - factories have a different tariff structure based on VA).

Yes, and no. In your case it is important because you're consuming power serially to match your solar power output. For everyone else the difference is academic.


it reminds me of how a few years back people jumped up on the gallons per mile thing and said we'd all got it wrong. We hadn't - they had. Their entire argument was based on an assumption was that everyone runs a fleet of cars so should be making a decision which of the fleet to get rid of.

[MrComputerSaint]

Once I buy my own house I think I'll be getting solar panels (and if planning laws allow it) a small wind turbine, charge controller and some batteries. I'll have then one of those feed in tariffs and the majority of my electric will be pumped back into the grid, this is a very lose plan at the moment. But yes, I know it will take a while for the cost to be made back.

My friend has some solar panels that have been installed by the council and his electric bill is really small, ie VERY small. I think he effectively pays for 3 months electricity a year I think he said. He does generate electric on dull days however.

I've been trying to work out if LED lights bulbs are going to be a suitable replacement for my standard energy saving light bulbs I have in my flat. Anyone been looking at the LED light bulbs?

[badass]

Yes,I agree,but most people don't say its for the greater good though??

They are under the impression they are saving money for themselves.

Its like with my mates server. Its basically his old E8400 based gaming rig from years ago with a media card and a multiple HDDs. It also has a relatively inefficient PSU.

He was wondering whether he should get something newer. After whipping out the power meter,we calculated it would take him the better part of at least THREE(maybe 4) years to recoup the cost of the new parts even trying to take into account inflation. Considering how old the rig is(from 2009),it will probably go kaput before then anyway.

That's an incredibly bad example.
Payback over 3 years is equivalent to nearly 27% interest on the investment. Yes, the new server will eventually break but I doubt it waill last less than 6 years.
Look at it another way: If someone offered you a savings account that paid 27% interest, would you not move as much of your money as you could to it and even consider getting a loan at 4% to put more money into it?