The ON/OFF power debate and "energy independence"
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by Anonymous via the Cypherpunks on August 24, 2006, 11:00 pm
Please log in for more thread options Here are my reasons for leaving my ADSL2+ modem OFF when the computer is off. My modem runs hot and consumes 5-7 watts; typical for external AC-adapter-powered units. If I power the modem on/off once a day, that's only 365 cycles per year. How many thousands of cycles are these modems rated for? I've been turning my entire computer on/off daily (more than once) for 6 years will no known ill effects. I usually use Hibernate mode to speed startup times. All my old computers were running fine at the time I upgraded. Modems are solid state, but even hard drives are often rated at 50,000 power cycles, which is 136 years of daily cycling! Are people still insisting that they'll fail before the computer is obsolete? When drives do crash, how many times in recent years has it been proved to be a power-cycle issue? Those old "cyclic shock" tales seem to come from the days of discrete components and hard drive heads that had to be parked. Hand-me-down stories tend to linger through hearsay. It doesn't seem logical that electronics will last longer when everything's constantly cooking. If something is rated for N power cycles, why stick with the old stories? It always seems to be some Right- wing ruse about conservation being unnecessary. I'm not running a server so nobody else cares if I take the modem offline. For general privacy I also don't want the same (dynamic) IP address for long periods of time. It makes more sense to be totally offline when the computer is off. It also feels safer in terms of power/line surges. The only thing I leave on all the time is my TiVo, because it forces me to. This aspect has me curious: My ISP's tech support suggests leaving the modem on but they admit it will grab another IP address automatically. The modem synchronizes in 15-20 seconds when I power up, so why would they care? Is there a reason they ask you to waste energy with a modem you paid for? Can it impact their network when someone grabs a new IP address once or twice a day? I just don't agree that it's better to leave something on and waste energy for the sake of minor conveniences. The excuses usually come people who think consumption equals prosperity. I LIKE the idea of saving energy, no matter how "insignificant" it may seem. Americans have the world's highest per capita energy consumption and keep making excuses for it. In truth, every "small" reduction will help if millions of people are doing it. N.C. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by DLR on August 25, 2006, 5:49 am
Please log in for more thread options Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: us 24/7. Thermal shock is real but rare. But real. You'd likely consider me right wing but I have dimmers all over and florescent lights in many places. :) > I'm not running a server so nobody else cares if I take the
> modem offline. For general privacy I also don't want the same > (dynamic) IP address for long periods of time. It makes more > sense to be totally offline when the computer is off. It also > feels safer in terms of power/line surges. The only thing I > leave on all the time is my TiVo, because it forces me to. Basically Tivo is a server. :) If you have more than one computer in the house or a computer used by folks who don't understand networking, modems, etc... then leaving it on can make domestic life much more bearable. > This aspect has me curious: My ISP's tech support suggests
> leaving the modem on but they admit it will grab another IP > address automatically. The modem synchronizes in 15-20 seconds > when I power up, so why would they care? Is there a reason they > ask you to waste energy with a modem you paid for? Can it impact > their network when someone grabs a new IP address once or twice > a day? When the reconfigure their network or want to re-flash the modems firmware or settings, if it's on at 4 am, they are less likely to cause complaints if they do it then. And if 100 typical users turn the modem off when they aren't using the computer 10 will forget to turn it on at first and one of those will call tech support. Been there. Got the hat. > I just don't agree that it's better to leave something on and
> waste energy for the sake of minor conveniences. The excuses > usually come people who think consumption equals prosperity. I > LIKE the idea of saving energy, no matter how "insignificant" it > may seem. Americans have the world's highest per capita energy > consumption and keep making excuses for it. In truth, every > "small" reduction will help if millions of people are doing it. I go for the big ones. Attic ventilation to reduce AC costs. Spending extra on the water heater, ceiling fans instead of AC when possible. Etc... If I keep the computer and Tivo running without effort by the "others" they listen better on the big ticket items. :) Although it would be nice if more "wall warts" would notice when power is not being drawn and shut down most of their draw. How many cell phone charges, microwave clocks, on by remote TVs, cordless phones, etc... do you have that have their "wall warts" plugged in all the time? Now back to the power of the modem. 7 watts. That's 1/14th the draw of a 100 watt bulb. So turning off a 100 watt bulb 2 hours a day will cover the cost of a day of modem use. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by kingpen on August 26, 2006, 9:09 am
Please log in for more thread options
Is there an electrical power shortage? Sure, we should should conserve energy. I believe there is an abundance of electrical power. High power consuption devices should be our concern not a 5-7 watt device. Paying a few extra pennies a year for powering a 5 watt device shouldn't be problem for most people. Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: > Here are my reasons for leaving my ADSL2+ modem OFF when the
> computer is off. My modem runs hot and consumes 5-7 watts; > typical for external AC-adapter-powered units. > > If I power the modem on/off once a day, that's only 365 cycles > per year. How many thousands of cycles are these modems rated > for? I've been turning my entire computer on/off daily (more > than once) for 6 years will no known ill effects. I usually use > Hibernate mode to speed startup times. All my old computers were > running fine at the time I upgraded. > > Modems are solid state, but even hard drives are often rated at > 50,000 power cycles, which is 136 years of daily cycling! Are > people still insisting that they'll fail before the computer is > obsolete? When drives do crash, how many times in recent years > has it been proved to be a power-cycle issue? > > Those old "cyclic shock" tales seem to come from the days of > discrete components and hard drive heads that had to be parked. > Hand-me-down stories tend to linger through hearsay. It doesn't > seem logical that electronics will last longer when everything's > constantly cooking. If something is rated for N power cycles, > why stick with the old stories? It always seems to be some Right- > wing ruse about conservation being unnecessary. > > I'm not running a server so nobody else cares if I take the > modem offline. For general privacy I also don't want the same > (dynamic) IP address for long periods of time. It makes more > sense to be totally offline when the computer is off. It also > feels safer in terms of power/line surges. The only thing I > leave on all the time is my TiVo, because it forces me to. > > This aspect has me curious: My ISP's tech support suggests > leaving the modem on but they admit it will grab another IP > address automatically. The modem synchronizes in 15-20 seconds > when I power up, so why would they care? Is there a reason they > ask you to waste energy with a modem you paid for? Can it impact > their network when someone grabs a new IP address once or twice > a day? > > I just don't agree that it's better to leave something on and > waste energy for the sake of minor conveniences. The excuses > usually come people who think consumption equals prosperity. I > LIKE the idea of saving energy, no matter how "insignificant" it > may seem. Americans have the world's highest per capita energy > consumption and keep making excuses for it. In truth, every > "small" reduction will help if millions of people are doing it. > > N.C. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Ken Abrams on August 26, 2006, 6:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Is there an electrical power shortage? Sure, we should should conserve
> energy. I believe there is an abundance of electrical power. High power > consuption devices should be our concern not a 5-7 watt device. Paying > a few extra pennies a year for powering a 5 watt device shouldn't be > problem for most people. > It's all about good stewardship of natural resources and the environment for future generations. Are you not aware that 90+ percent of the power generated now burns oil, coal or natural gas to run the generators? None of those things are in infinite supply and burning them creates air pollution and global warming. There are about 220 million people in the U.S. now. If only half of them left one unnecessary 5 watt device running all day, it would waste 1 million, 100 thousand Kilowatt/hours each day.......and a correspondingly huge amount of oil/coal/gas. Alas, the average American probably wastes a LOT more than 120 watt/hours each day. The ultimate fate of mankind is that we all will freeze to death, in the dark. That fate is hastened by morons who think "there is an abundance of electrical power". | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Caesar Romano on August 27, 2006, 1:02 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:58:47 GMT, "Ken Abrams" "energy independence": >global warming.
> >There are about 220 million people in the U.S. now. If only half of them >left one unnecessary 5 watt device running all day, it would waste 1 >million, 100 thousand Kilowatt/hours each day.......and a correspondingly >huge amount of oil/coal/gas. >Alas, the average American probably wastes a LOT more than 120 watt/hours >each day. Just think of how much *you* wasted by having you computer turn on while you type that s__. Lead by example. Turn off your computer now. -- Slimes-Daily motto: 1) Tax and Spend, 2) Change the Constituion to make it easier to do (1). | |||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| The ON/OFF power debate and "energy independence" | August 24, 2006, 11:00 pm |
| Re: The ON/OFF power debate and "energy independence" | August 26, 2006, 4:49 pm |
| Power-Up Sequence | December 6, 2005, 10:36 am |
| DSL Ethernet over power line | July 27, 2005, 9:18 pm |
| DSL and band power, telco regulations | August 27, 2008, 8:59 pm |
| Linksys Power Light wont stop Blinking | January 12, 2005, 11:29 am |
| Power Requirements for Alcatel Speed Touch Home external DSL modem | January 8, 2006, 10:05 am |
> computer is off. My modem runs hot and consumes 5-7 watts;
> typical for external AC-adapter-powered units.
>
> If I power the modem on/off once a day, that's only 365 cycles
> per year. How many thousands of cycles are these modems rated
> for? I've been turning my entire computer on/off daily (more
> than once) for 6 years will no known ill effects. I usually use
> Hibernate mode to speed startup times. All my old computers were
> running fine at the time I upgraded.
>
> Modems are solid state, but even hard drives are often rated at
> 50,000 power cycles, which is 136 years of daily cycling! Are
> people still insisting that they'll fail before the computer is
> obsolete? When drives do crash, how many times in recent years
> has it been proved to be a power-cycle issue?
>
> Those old "cyclic shock" tales seem to come from the days of
> discrete components and hard drive heads that had to be parked.
> Hand-me-down stories tend to linger through hearsay. It doesn't
> seem logical that electronics will last longer when everything's
> constantly cooking. If something is rated for N power cycles,
> why stick with the old stories? It always seems to be some Right-
> wing ruse about conservation being unnecessary.
>