BBC News - Standby power scare story

Did anyone see the scare story on BBC 6 O'Clock News tonight.

They had some *+^%$ who was a "power detective" go through someone's house, and point out the error of their ways.

Whilst I agree we should all be doing more to conserve energy, the two things that really stood out as b*ll*cks were
1) the fridge was "only" energy efficiency banding B - it needed to be improved (to A or A+, next bands up - I would have understood if it had be C or D, but B!!!!)
2) the "energy defective" stated that equipment on standby consumed 90% of the electricity that would be used by the equipment if it were still on. What utter garbage! - at the bottom of the link below from Strathclyde University, it states that on average, standby consumes 13% of full power usage, and this is including worst possible case.
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/W...fo/Standby.htm

I think we need to do more, but scare-mongering and bad reporting is not the way to do it.

ps My house is double-glazed, with loft and wall insulation, energy saving bulbs, and we switch the TV and PC off at night (but not the HiFi, SetTop Box, or HD recorder - they go to standby, as I don't wish to reset clocks every day).

we dont need to do anything . All that needs to happen is build more nucleur power stations and we will be cool

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

we dont need to do anything . All that needs to happen is build more nucleur power stations and we will be cool

Or, if we live near the stations, "hot"

yeah but they aint that dangerous are they.If they go bang an area dies in for thousands of years.If we keep burning fossil fuels then eventually the global warming will destroy a good portion of the planet. We can send the waste from these stations into space and let people a few million miles away worry about it

[danielf]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

<snip>
2) the "energy defective" stated that equipment on standby consumed 90% of the electricity that would be used by the equipment if it were still on. What utter garbage! - at the bottom of the link below from Strathclyde University, it states that on average, standby consumes 13% of full power usage, and this is including worst possible case.
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/W...fo/Standby.htm

I think we need to do more, but scare-mongering and bad reporting is not the way to do it.

ps My house is double-glazed, with loft and wall insulation, energy saving bulbs, and we switch the TV and PC off at night (but not the HiFi, SetTop Box, or HD recorder - they go to standby, as I don't wish to reset clocks every day).

This post by Stuart C suggests that the STB may still be using a fair amount of energy in standby. But otherwise, yes. I agree with most of what you say.

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

yeah but they aint that dangerous are they.If they go bang an area dies in for thousands of years.If we keep burning fossil fuels then eventually the global warming will destroy a good portion of the planet. We can send the waste from these stations into space and let people a few million miles away worry about it

The Times reported this - ONLY 56 people have so far died directly as a result of the explosion at Chernobyl in 1986, including 9 children with thyroid cancer. In the end, perhaps up to 4,000 people will die from radiation-caused illness.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...768368,00.html

Not good, but not the end of the world scenario that was originally envisioned.

[Skatoony]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

we dont need to do anything . All that needs to happen is build more nucleur power stations and we will be cool

I'd rather there wasn't a single nuclear plant on this planet. We need fusion

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

I'd rather there wasn't a single nuclear plant on this planet. We need fusion

Agreed - but however, for fusion to occur the atoms must be confined in a magnetic field and raised to temperatures in excess of 100 million Kelvin or more, several times hotter than the centre of the sun.

That's quite hot.

Here's hoping for the JET Tokamak

[Dan_Sette]

According to the spec sheet, a Paasonic plasma TV consumes 0.3w ph.

Frankly, my next door neighbour's drive security / courtesy consumes more power.

Or, in a direct comparison, I'll have one less cup of coffee per month to compensate for leaving it on standby.

There has to be some perpective.

D

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

I'd rather there wasn't a single nuclear plant on this planet. We need fusion

thats still nucleur

[Nugget]

Hopefully, we'll be able to get more wind farms built that will provide fully sustainable energy. That is, if all the NIMBYs don't prevent them all from being built (and then complain about the increasing number of nuclear power stations )

Originally Posted by Nugget

Hopefully, we'll be able to get more wind farms built that will provide fully sustainable energy. That is, if all the NIMBYs don't prevent them all from being built (and then complain about the increasing number of nuclear power stations )

tidal power should be another option - more difficult, as river estuaries need to allow shipping, also, but where we live it might be possible?

[handyman]

I like wind farms I think they look cool especially the ones near Kendal. We should have loads of them.

[TheNorm]

We can send the waste from these stations into space and let people a few million miles away worry about it

Not a great idea - you just need one "shuttle" to explode soon after launch to contaminate a large portion of the upper atmosphere...which will then slowly make its way down to earth...

[idi banashapan]

how about fitting all new house builds with solar panel roofing? If legislation made it mandetory on all new builds, that would be a lot of homes more self sufficient. Ok, so it may cost more in the short term, for the builders, but if it became the norm, people wouldn't even notice a price difference (which at most will be a minimal increase)