[huskerlug] Re: A 100 watt laptop requires 960 lbs of coal per year!
- From: Mark Bauer <mbauer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:21:26 -0500
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
Other related posts:
