Oh, Pete, I fear you may have opened the floodgates! OK, here's "what's
wrong with that" as you ask. Mankind is BONE IDLE and 9 times out of 10
will not get up off his @rse to cross the living room to switch off an
appliance when he could just press the red button on the remote instead.
And manufacturers wont really start to lower standby power until it
hurts sales not to. But you knew all that [;;)]

I have been doing some research. I have an old analogue 14 inch TV.
Switched on, it burns 60W. OK, I'm watching it. Switched off, it burns
7W. It gets worse. Attached to it is a Digibox. Switched on it burns
14W. Switched off (i.e. little green light on the front turms red) it
burns - wait for it - 14W. ARE THEY HAVING A LAUGH??

My nice new plasma screen burns 250W when switched on, 29W (!!) on
standby AND 24 WATTS WHEN SWITCHED OFF BY THE "MAINS" BUTTON ON THE TV!
I wonder how many people even REALISE that? The only way to kill the
consumption fully is to RIP THE PLUG OUT. And how many can be bothered
to do that? (See para 1).

I already have an easy half-answer to this. On such devices where there
might be at least reasonably regular useage patterns (I am not generally
watching TV after midnight or before 5PM weekdays, different at the
weekends) I have simply installed a 7 day TIMESWITCH. Simple, and it
works.

Here's another even better idea - I reckon I could easily build a
prototype, but proper type approval for mainstream production rules out
small guys like me - a variation on the timeswitch or "Smart Socket(r)"
(which are really good, by the way). Imagine a plug-in socket which ONLY
switches on its output when it sees an IR pulse (ANY IR pulse - it
doesn't need to decode it) and then switches off after (say) two hours
if it has seen no further pulses. Few of us can watch the same channel
for much longer than that without reaching for the remote to adjust the
volume of something.

That would sort out Mr LARDY BLOKE in para 1 (which, let's face it, is
all of us), and probably save the planet, to. A bit.

So, you energy concious types out there, tell me if YOU would be
interested in such a device, and what you think you would be prepared to
pay - I might look into a handful of prototypes if the demand is there
[:D]

Remember- every wasted standby-watt is costing you around a pound a year
in round numbers

While you are figuring out what such a device might be worth to you or
anyone else, here's something else to make you think. I have read more
than once that it is FIVE TO SEVEN TIMES CHEAPER to not waste energy in
the first place, than to try and generate it locally from renewable
resources (wind/solar/hydro/tidal or whatever). Make ya think, dunnit?
[:-/]

Laurence Wilkins


--- In Beyond_cheap_fuel@..., "Peter" <petereggleston@...>
wrote:
>
> If having appliances on standby wastes so much energy, I can't
> understand why manufacturers make things with a standby facility.
> In the old days we switched the television on when we wanted it and
> when we finished we switched it off. What is wrong with that?
> Peter
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]