[huskerlug] Re: A 100 watt laptop requires 960 lbs of coal per year!
- From: tw <techworld.mail@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:55:42 -0500
Sorry Joseph,
Since 2003, the first year that network from my link was put in place
temperatures are dropping. It's mostly bunk science and politically
motivated at best. I mean, you can disagree with that all you want but
you're parroting the lines that people have used for the past hundred
years to 'prove' their claims of both disastrous global warming and
cooling. None of their claims have come true yet. There's a reason for
that.
On the entire reputable scientific community, I'd point out that the
second that any scientist goes out and speaks out against global
warming, global cooling, or whatever politically popular topic it
happens to be, he's instantly declared insignificant. It's pretty sad
actually.
Debating this is a waste of time, but I would point out that even
liberal media is calling it climate change now, not global warming.
It's time has come and I guess the future will reveal the truth.
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 20:37 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> Decided I better go research this cooling you were talking about. I
> won't bore you with the details, if you really want to know, you'd go
> research it yourself.
>
> Ocean temperatures fluctuate--- BUT, all evidence shows that the trend
> over the course of the last 40 years is rising ocean temperatures.
>
> for example...
> 4 5 8 10 9 6 8 11 12 10 8 9 14 15 10 13.... see the trend?
>
> so while that last 10 might look a lot smaller than its neighboring
> 14, 15 and 13... its still warming.*
>
>
> *if you feel this insults your intelligence, maybe you should consider
> what "spin" has been placed on what you read before you go and
> disagree with the entire reputable scientific community.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2008, at 10:39 PM, tw wrote:
>
> > If the oceans are cooling as a whole then ice probably isn't melting
> > as
> > a result. Wouldn't the responsible thing to do before committing a
> > huge
> > amount of our nations time and energy (time + energy that should be
> > spent upon technological innovation) is to be sure we know exactly
> > *what* is going on and why? And, once we understand that we need to
> > understand exactly what needs to happen to make changes if *indeed* we
> > are responsible for anything or can even affect anything!
> >
> > Because, lets face it, people for the past century have said the exact
> > same things, and the polar opposite of what you're describing and use
> > some version of bastardized science to prove their point.
> >
> > On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 22:18 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> >> I find it irresponsible to justify our carbon footprint because
> >> countries like China and India have large ones too...
> >>
> >> http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Glaciers
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 30, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Jim Worrest wrote:
> >>
> >>> My, I wish I had said it that well. If one looks at the 1930's we're
> >>> in a
> >>> cooling period. We could get secondary climate benefits if we stop
> >>> depending
> >>> so much on foreign energy, I would reduce the dependence for reasons
> >>> other
> >>> than climate, but it should have a little benefit there. I
> >>> emphasize "little"
> >>> since countries like India and China would take up the slack in our
> >>> purchases
> >>> of foreign energy, and they have no intention of controlling their
> >>> own
> >>> coal industries.
> >>>
> >>> As I pointed out, the last I heard, UNL climatologists, were not
> >>> jumping off
> >>> of buildings because of global warming. There are sound political
> >>> reasons to
> >>> stop our dependence on foreign energy, and it would have some
> >>> environmental
> >>> benefits as well. ---Jim
> >>>
> >>> tw wrote:
> >>>> I'd agree with that. I'd also totally believe in global warming if
> >>>> it
> >>>> amounted to more than it does. Gravity is something that we can
> >>>> find in
> >>>> experiments. We can eliminate variables, tweak variables and
> >>>> explore
> >>>> them fully. Global warming directly requires variables that we
> >>>> simply
> >>>> do not understand yet. We can make guesses but as the links below
> >>>> show
> >>>> there are constant surprises that drastically alter what we thought
> >>>> we
> >>>> know about it. Surprises that call into question the models
> >>>> themselves.
> >>>> Read the second link, it's interesting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Global warming, by it's very nature isn't something that we can
> >>>> chart
> >>>> variables. We can make guesses but to have the variable that
> >>>> matters
> >>>> most, we'd have to have instruments in place for millions of
> >>>> years to
> >>>> get the scope necessary to make such judgments. Sure, it's
> >>>> possible to
> >>>> make guesses on what it was, but that requires models based upon
> >>>> something that we don't understand. It's circular logic :p
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm just hesitant to do things that only make sense if we
> >>>> understand the
> >>>> picture fully. Things like sinking tens of trillions of dollars
> >>>> into
> >>>> changing the way we live that could very well be entirely
> >>>> unnecessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole movement behind global warming is, if we don't act now,
> >>>> it'll
> >>>> be too late. It's too pushy, it seems too much like the chicken-
> >>>> little
> >>>> scares that people have had on this exact subject for the past
> >>>> hundred
> >>>> years. I'd be unimpressed back then, and I'm unimpressed now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, here's one reason why I'm so skeptical about global
> >>>> warming:
> >>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
> >>>>
> >>>> This specifically addresses the modeling analogy you brought up.
> >>>> http://ace.mu.nu/archives/258152.php
> >>>>
> >>>> That's about all I have to say on the subject, I actually came here
> >>>> to
> >>>> learn about Linux and technology, not rehash tired political
> >>>> debates.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 22:21 -0500, Mark Bauer wrote:
> >>>>> Models are just that, some are better than others, I don't
> >>>>> believe
> >>>>> that we understand gravity yet, but I trust the models that we
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> to be close enough that I don't want to jump out of a window. The
> >>>>> concept of global change is easy, it is (and always has been)
> >>>>> happening.
> >>>>> The impact on society of these changes is the question. With such
> >>>>> a large part of the population living along costal regions they
> >>>>> might be
> >>>>> impacted greatly if the sea levels rise by any significant
> >>>>> amount. I
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> not personally read the reports, but I believe that most of the
> >>>>> models
> >>>>> indicate that if the latest trend continues, this will be a
> >>>>> problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Models improve with time (and work). If everyone has the attitude
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> they will refuse to change until we know for sure, how will we
> >>>>> prove it
> >>>>> to them. If you don't believe the models we have today, what
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> it take to convince you. If we wait until the change has occurred
> >>>>> before
> >>>>> we act, why model at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody is claiming they fully understand anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think that calling these models chicken-little theories
> >>>>> will
> >>>>> help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:42 PM, tw wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, oceans have been cooling over the past decade, etc,
> >>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>> problem with the chicken-little theories is that they assume they
> >>>>>> fully
> >>>>>> understand the model of the earth, weather patterns and even
> >>>>>> solar
> >>>>>> patterns. We don't. There's a bunch of articles going on right
> >>>>>> now
> >>>>>> about how a bunch of our weather models are falling apart. On
> >>>>>> top of
> >>>>>> that, saying that climate change is bad assumes that this is the
> >>>>>> only
> >>>>>> climate that's good. I'd argue that that's a bit silly
> >>>>>> especially
> >>>>>> given
> >>>>>> all of the climate changes that have already happened over the
> >>>>>> course of
> >>>>>> the earths past.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, I'd agree with you that climate-change occurs. You only have
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> have the smallest glimmer of intelligence and understand the
> >>>>>> smallest
> >>>>>> bit of history to understand that. The problem with all the
> >>>>>> other
> >>>>>> things you have is that they are theories, we don't have all the
> >>>>>> facts
> >>>>>> and we're still learning. When we fully understand what is going
> >>>>>> on,
> >>>>>> THEN it is time to act. But guessing about what is happening and
> >>>>>> trying
> >>>>>> to push through legislation honestly just hurts us as people.
> >>>>>> Since we
> >>>>>> don't understand what we're doing it's like cavemen trying to
> >>>>>> build a
> >>>>>> computer. They simply don't understand.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It simply amazes me that people get so swept up in emotion over
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> topic that they lose reason.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As far as the gravy train, as with the debate going on right now
> >>>>>> regarding earmarks, politicians clearly send money where it helps
> >>>>>> their
> >>>>>> cause. Make no mistake, the politicians cause is to get re-
> >>>>>> elected.
> >>>>>> Make no mistake, they want do push every political hot-button
> >>>>>> right
> >>>>>> now
> >>>>>> there is and global warming right now clearly is one. That
> >>>>>> generates
> >>>>>> funding for scientists who claim they can help us understand it
> >>>>>> better
> >>>>>> or how to prevent it. That weeds out scientists who are
> >>>>>> skeptical
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>> it or that are publishing different data.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you don't think that scientists are being funded to provide
> >>>>>> expected
> >>>>>> (politically motivated) results you simply don't understand how
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> process works. The entire process is markedly unscientific.
> >>>>>> It's
> >>>>>> political. It's also ironic how quickly scientists who disagree
> >>>>>> aren't
> >>>>>> respected they're ridiculed and dismissed. That should set off
> >>>>>> warning
> >>>>>> bells with anyone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All of that being said, here in a few decades/centuries/
> >>>>>> millennium we
> >>>>>> may understand things to the point that we can understand these
> >>>>>> causes.
> >>>>>> Then we act but right now, it's all speculation and politics. If
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> disagree to THAT, you're being rather unscientific.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 21:21 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>> it amazes me that people still think climate change isn't real.
> >>>>>>> You
> >>>>>>> have ignore a great wealth of evidence- not the least of which
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> measurable sea level increases, increased global temperature
> >>>>>>> averages,
> >>>>>>> mass extinction of amphibians (upwards of 50% of all amphibian
> >>>>>>> species), etc..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and some consequences that are already playing out:
> >>>>>>> Longterm droughts in the southwest of the US, Africa, and
> >>>>>>> Australia
> >>>>>>> possible shutdown of the gulf stream, which will result in a
> >>>>>>> cooler
> >>>>>>> Europe
> >>>>>>> a few islands that are actually underwater now (remember that
> >>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>> evacuated last year, over 75,000 people-- i don't want to take
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> time to find a lin, you all can use google)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> etc, etc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> AND WHAT GRAVY TRAIN?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> seriously... there is a hell of a lot more money to be made in
> >>>>>>> destroying the environment then saving it. Politicians have
> >>>>>>> plenty of
> >>>>>>> reasons NOT to cap carbon emissions and research grants pale in
> >>>>>>> comparison even to the money spent lobbying against carbon cap
> >>>>>>> measures.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I really hope governments start listening to experts and not
> >>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>> average american idiot that doesn't understand the dynamics of
> >>>>>>> climate
> >>>>>>> change short of the crap he/she reads in the news and on "will
> >>>>>>> post
> >>>>>>> anything for shock value" internet news sites.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Joe
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Jim Worrest wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, it would be a good idea to get a 10 watt laptop to replace
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> 100 watt
> >>>>>>>> one! ;-) Now, I am all for saving money when it come to the
> >>>>>>>> utility
> >>>>>>>> bill, and
> >>>>>>>> one shouldn't be wasteful with resources, but are you sure that
> >>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>> this global
> >>>>>>>> warming won't go away when the political season is over and we
> >>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>> suffer the usual amount of hot air from politicians when the
> >>>>>>>> main
> >>>>>>>> election is
> >>>>>>>> over? 8-) By the way, a lot of this global warming may be
> >>>>>>>> fueled by
> >>>>>>>> politicians and by the scientists who enjoy being on the grants
> >>>>>>>> gravy train?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Another Ice Age?"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/
> >>>>>>>> Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The chicken littles do get the most feed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It seems that UNL climatologists, haven't joined the fire
> >>>>>>>> breathers
> >>>>>>>> yet?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is something of a repeat of another message which didn't
> >>>>>>>> seem
> >>>>>>>> to make
> >>>>>>>> it to the list? ---Jim
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Joseph Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Apple seems to be more 'green' than your average computer
> >>>>>>>>> company.
> >>>>>>>>> All =20=
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> apple computer- notebooks through desktops- automatically go
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> sleep =20=
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> after a preset amount of time. Sleep mode has all the
> >>>>>>>>> advantages of
> >>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>> just leaving your system on and none of the disadvantages.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Sleep mode consumes a very small fraction of the power having
> >>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>> computer 'on' does.
> >>>>>>>>> -When asleep it can be 'woken up' by LAN activity so your
> >>>>>>>>> computer
> >>>>>>>>> is =20=
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> still available for remote connections.
> >>>>>>>>> -At least on Macs it won't go to sleep if you have a program
> >>>>>>>>> actually =20=
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> doing something (for most people, their computers sit idle
> >>>>>>>>> most of
> >>>>>>>>> the =20=
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> day acting as dumb loads)
> >>>>>>>>> -Computers generally 'wake up' in less than 5 seconds
> >>>>>>>>> -All your open programs will still be there!
> >>>>>>>>> Even if the cost of electricity isn't a concern to you
> >>>>>>>>> consider the
> >>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>> amount of power that would be saved (and CO2 that wouldn't be
> >>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>> released) if Windows and other OSs besides OSX had sleep
> >>>>>>>>> mode as
> >>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>> default behavior of an idling system.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where I work all of the Windows and Linux severs stay ON
> >>>>>>>>> 24/7/365.
> >>>>>>>>> I =20
> >>>>>>>>> guess I should do my part and bring up the benefits of
> >>>>>>>>> changing
> >>>>>>>>> a =20
> >>>>>>>>> couple of simple settings in windows..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Joe
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:00 PM, GreyGeek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Excellent comments, Charles!
> >>>>>>>>>> I went out to Amazon to see what a "Kill-a-watt" would cost
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> saw =20=
> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>> interesting comments. Here is one:
> >>>>>>>>>> "If you are a "Miser," this device will be your best
> >>>>>>>>>> friend. I
> >>>>>>>>>> bought
> >>>>>>>>>> the "Kill-A-Watt" because I suspected that our old Fridge was
> >>>>>>>>>> shooting
> >>>>>>>>>> up the electric bill. I plugged the Fridge into the meter and
> >>>>>>>>>> left
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> for 3 days. I was very surprised to find out the the fridge
> >>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>> burning about 1.5 KWH (Kilowatt Hours) per day, which is
> >>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> what it
> >>>>>>>>>> should.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now I am going around the house and plugging other appliances
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>> couple days. The real shocker was that my "economical"
> >>>>>>>>>> eMachines PC
> >>>>>>>>>> along with a CRT monitor was using more energy than the
> >>>>>>>>>> fridge!
> >>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>> computer was burning almost 2 KWH per day. I made changes to
> >>>>>>>>>> the =20
> >>>>>>>>>> energy
> >>>>>>>>>> saver software in Windows, so that the monitor automatically
> >>>>>>>>>> shuts
> >>>>>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>>>>> in 10 minutes and the computer hibernates in 1 hour. This has
> >>>>>>>>>> brought
> >>>>>>>>>> the daily consumption down to 1 KWH.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For those of you who don't understand KWH, its a
> >>>>>>>>>> measurement of
> >>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>> electric
> >>>>>>>>>> usage by the power company. To be simple, using a KWH is
> >>>>>>>>>> about .
> >>>>>>>>>> 08=A2 =
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> our area. So, if you save 1 KWH per day, you save .08=A2
> >>>>>>>>>> After a =
> >>>>>>>>> month's
> >>>>>>>>>> time, it's about $2.48. After a year it's about $30 bucks.
> >>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>> savings
> >>>>>>>>>> add up over time.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> With the Kill-A-Watt, I've found out lots of interesting
> >>>>>>>>>> things:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My Mac Mini with a LCD monitor uses about 1/2 the power of my
> >>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>> eMachines
> >>>>>>>>>> Tower with CRT. That's 70 Watts vs. 140 Watts.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My Electric Blanket which I though was "economical" pulls 120
> >>>>>>>>>> Watts
> >>>>>>>>>> during operation. It actually uses 1 KWH per day. I even
> >>>>>>>>>> found out
> >>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> the blanket burns 10 Watts when the power switch is off!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I found many "power bandits" in my home. These are devices
> >>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>> cellphones, scanners, routers, modems that have those little
> >>>>>>>>>> black
> >>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>> power
> >>>>>>>>>> blocks. Most of these devices use 5 to 10 watts with the
> >>>>>>>>>> power
> >>>>>>>>>> switch
> >>>>>>>>>> off. With the Kill-A-Watt, I was able to find the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>> offenders =20=
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> plug them into a timer that shuts off each night when they
> >>>>>>>>>> are not
> >>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>> in use.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you are truly obsessive about your electrical bill like
> >>>>>>>>>> me, you
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>> make a nice Excel spreadsheet will all you appliances. You
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>> enter
> >>>>>>>>>> Watts, Kilowatt Hours, Price per hour and than figure if
> >>>>>>>>>> replacing a
> >>>>>>>>>> device would pay for the purchase and how long it will take.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As everyone says in their reviews, "This device will pay for
> >>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>> self."
> >>>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>> Charles Leslie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually turning off your laptop won't make a relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference, I
> >>>>>>>>>>> would argue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alternatively you could run your laptop off of a charge
> >>>>>>>>>>> from a
> >>>>>>>>>>> solar
> >>>>>>>>>>> panel or other renewable energy source. But you'll see why
> >>>>>>>>>>> it's a
> >>>>>>>>>>> moot point here in a minute...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here's some more technical information on how much energy a
> >>>>>>>>>>> laptop =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>> uses...
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000562.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So as you can see, simply turning it off doesn't solve that
> >>>>>>>>>>> problem =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>> the battery is charging/discharging.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But wait... In fact most consumer electronic devices consume
> >>>>>>>>>>> power
> >>>>>>>>>>> even when they are not powered on. Here's an interesting
> >>>>>>>>>>> article
> >>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> that...
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://wcco.com/consumer/plug.in.appliances.2.372422.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So as you can see, you can't enjoy a modern lifestyle and
> >>>>>>>>>>> still be
> >>>>>>>>>>> 100% eco friendly unless you make some seriously drastic
> >>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> most average people aren't affluent enough or willing to
> >>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> time or resources to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Most people that spend all their time sorting their garbage
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> protesting SUV fuel consumption usually would never think to
> >>>>>>>>>>> turn
> >>>>>>>>>>> their air conditioning up by 5 degrees in the summer time,
> >>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> stop
> >>>>>>>>>>> having babies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that our looming energy crisis is going to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> helped by
> >>>>>>>>>>> your personal efforts. It can only be solved
> >>>>>>>>>>> macroscopically by
> >>>>>>>>>>> economic force, or collective social policy. All turning
> >>>>>>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>> lights (or unplugging your laptop) is going to do is help
> >>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> save a
> >>>>>>>>>>> few dimes on your electric bill.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, GreyGeek
> >>>>>>>>>>> <jkreps@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves[1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Running one 100 watt computer for one year requires 876 =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kW·h (100 W
> >>>>>>>>>>>> &tim24 h/day ×365 {days in a year} =3D 876000
> >>>>>>>>>>>> W·h
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =3D =
> >>>>>>>>> 876
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kW·h). Converting this power usage into physical
> >>>>>>>>>>>> coal =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consumption:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It takes 438 kg (966 pounds) of coal to power a computer
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> full year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One should also take into account transmission and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> losses[2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> caused by resistance and heating in the power lines, which
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the order
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of5–10%, depending on distance from the power station
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> factors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It also generates about 800 lbs of CO2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Moral: Turn you laptop off when you are not using it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- Links ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line#Losses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Type: image/png
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- File: 541a6f12f0b495022ce2949aea4a5057.png
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ----
> >>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
