
War On Standby: Do the figures actually stack up? - iand
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/29/energy_saving_trust_report/
======
AndrewDucker
What makes sense, to me, is to regulate electrical devices so that standby
power levels are as low as can reasonably be achieved. This saves energy
without consumers having to make an effort.

Things like the 1-Watt initiative have made huge strides in this direction:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative>

~~~
nodata
Why not make it zero watts?
[http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048559/fujitsu-
sie...](http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048559/fujitsu-siemens-
monitor-draws)

~~~
AndrewDucker
I'm entirely in favour of dropping the wattage once it becomes feasible to do
so.

If it's something that all manufacturers could do, without adding a dramatic
amount to the cost of the monitor, then the regulations should enforce that!

------
gala8y
Buy a quality kill-o-watt - you will know for yourself (it's fun).

My take-away after few weeks of measurments:

\- Mind your old devices! (My old Sony midi-hifi was running 20W on standby!
Killed.)

\- Make a shortcut to switch off LCD monitors everytime you go AFK - energy
consumption can drop 80W for two monitors (havn't checked LED monitors)

\- Don't obsess about chargers left in sockets (0.1W)

\- Modern big LCD TV is around 5W in standby; changing options of image (vivid
vs. cinema vs. energy saver, etc.) while watching can make a difference of up
to 50W.

------
antidoh
Turn you device on and off twice a day, stress the electronics, and send it to
the landfill much earlier than necessary, and build another one (consuming
resources) that much earlier.

TANSTAAFL

