# Turn Off Your PC!



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

"Power IT Down Day's objective is to raise awareness about what individuals can do to help clean up the planet. For every person who shuts off a CPU, monitor and printer from 5 p.m. until 8 a.m. the next day, 13 kilowatt hours of electricity are saved, according to the sponsors. The organizers claim that if just *1% of the 1.8 million federal government employees participated in Power IT Down Day, the government would save more than $24,000* - has there ever been an easier way to cut the deficit?"
http://www.bmighty.com/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219401089&cid=nl_BMIGHTY_DAILY_H


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I really doubt you save 13KWH for a 15 hour period unless you have a REALLY high power machine! My quad-core machine with three disks consumes less than 200W when it's idling, and that's with the monitor running. That drops 40W when the monitor goes into standby.

OTOH, while I don't turn mine totally off, I do have it sleep, which according to my Cyberpower UPS drops the power consumption to 2-3W for the whole rig. It's convenient and fast to wake it up, and I save 98% of the power I'd save by turning it off.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

JohnWill said:


> I really doubt you save 13KWH for a 15 hour period unless you have a REALLY high power machine! My quad-core machine with three disks consumes less than 200W when it's idling, and that's with the monitor running. That drops 40W when the monitor goes into standby.
> 
> OTOH, while I don't turn mine totally off, I do have it sleep, which according to my Cyberpower UPS drops the power consumption to 2-3W for the whole rig. It's convenient and fast to wake it up, and I save 98% of the power I'd save by turning it off.


They include printers.

They are also referring to offices. Overnight is a lot longer than at your home.

But I still think it is a waste to leave a PC consuming power when it is not being used.
Times how many million? Very wasteful.

How many people go from bed to keyboard? Surely the PC could be turned on before making coffee/tea or before going into the bathroom.

Plan ahead.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear RootbeaR,
Way to go Man!! This is what Greenpeace has to say on computers: " Buy a laptop instead of a desktop, if practical. It consumes five times less electricity.* Laptops are energy-efficient!*:up:

If you buy a desktop, get an LCD screen instead of an outdated CRT.

Enable the power management function on your computer, the screensaver does not save energy.

Check if your computer supports the more advanced Speedstep power management.

*SWITCHING OFF A COMPUTER EXTENDS IT'S LIFETIME, CONTRARY TO SOME** MISCONCEPTIONS. *Leaving a computer running the whole year will cost you more than 1,000 kWh/y, or almost as much a the total electricity consumption of a high-efficiency household.

Use one large power strip for your computer, broadband modem, scanner, printer, monitor, and speakers. *SWITCH IT OFF WHEN THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT IN USE.* This is a practical way to cut 200 kWh/y or more of standby losses (see standby). *(sorry for the bold type!)*
Minimise printing. Laser printers use more electricity than inkjet printers.

For more information see Greencampus Harvard and the Rocky Mountains Institute. source : http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/take_action/your-energy

*
*


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Sorry, but the convenience of having the machine available outweighs the few watts I consume in S3 standby, which is the machine totally powered off except for the standby 5V, the same as when you do a shutdown.

My machines wake up several nights to do overnight backups, and if I truly turned them off, I'd have to do these when I was trying to use the machine.

Oh, and whenever I leave the machine for more than a trip to the bathroom, I hit the sleep key before I go.

As far as laser printers using more electricity than inkjets, perhaps while they're printing. Of course, that totally ignores the economy of using a laser printer, not to mention the performance! It costs 4-5 times as much to print a page on a typical inkjet than it does a laser printer, primarily due to the cost of ink cartridges. The inkjet would also be printing much longer, since all but the very expensive ($1000 or more) inkjets are not nearly as fast as even a cheap laser printer.

We could all go back to using a abacus instead of a computer too, even less energy use. Let me know how long it takes you to do your taxes with your new abacus.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Me thinks you forgot to mention "candles" for 'bulbs"!


----------



## bp936 (Oct 13, 2003)

do not recharge your Hybrid, making the electricity pollutes :down: and charging a battery like for a car, uses electricity one has to pay for.
Rather have all government and office buildings have lights and computers off. :
but I'd rather keep out off this


----------



## ozziebeanie (Jun 24, 2009)

I agree with JohnWill about the printers, although in the home situation I switch it off when not using it, as of course I am not printing all day like in an office, but I opted for a laser printer myself as it does better what I want it to do than a ink printer, so chose it because of what I wanted it to do, rather than what was more power saving.

I am sure printers are more energy efficient than what they used to be, as to getting government departments or people in them to switch off their computers/printers during the out of office hours, the logistics of that is damn near impossible. 

In the two government departments I have worked for, one runs 24/7 and different people operate the computers at different times, depending on the shift (Police Station)

The other government department I worked at was a Regional Council, even if someone was not in the office working on their computer, (job out of town) others hop on it to do stuff, and just sign out and walk away, and in the spread out situation that Council was (buildings for various services over a 200 klm radius,) an IT person could not go around all those places to make sure all machinery is turned off. (very understaffed there as it was)

Then you have three lots of servers (one of them has four servers running together) over that 200 Klm area doing backups at midnight till 4am, and not all offices have others there that could check before leaving.

Some leave their computers on as they are so old (small percentage are like this) and don't like to wait about for them to boot up and sign in to servers etc, and just leave their name signed in but computer locked, (of course we can over ride this if we see a computer like that) but you can bet most IT departments are not staffed enough as it is let alone have the time to go around checking them all.

Nice thought though, that these government departments could be more economical but then you have the towns that are out in the sticks unstable power fluctuations and a UPS for every computer. Modems and switches etc running, depending on the type of connection, so a lot more than just computers and printers are using the power.

Just my opinion, from a IT assistant point of view.


----------



## itsjusme (Aug 19, 2006)

I don`t know what kind of equipment they are basing their 13 kwh on, that would be over 7 amps it would have to be drawing. All 3 of mine running at the same time with the printers on wont use that much unless theyre really humping it. But i do agree that we all need to conserve where we can. Except for sunshine, what energy sources we have here is all theres ever gonna be and we are using up it like it ain`t never gonna run out. Leaving off a few of those golfing trips or weekend getaways in Air Force One would probably save more . LOL


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

All of those studies seem to wildly inflate the usage figures to try to make their point. The real problem is, they reduce the credibility of the study by exaggerating the point.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

JohnWill said:


> All of those studies seem to wildly inflate the usage figures to try to make their point. The real problem is, they reduce the credibility of the study by exaggerating the point.


I think we need to study these studies, study it, then have a study on the studies studies.

10 -15 years ago they did a study here on where the best location was for the city dump. Twelve million dollars later, it was concluded that the best location was........right where it was.


----------



## itsjusme (Aug 19, 2006)

RootbeaR said:


> I think we need to study these studies, study it, then have a study on the studies studies.
> 
> 10 -15 years ago they did a study here on where the best location was for the city dump. Twelve million dollars later, it was concluded that the best location was........right where it was.


Here in the US, we would form ANOTHER federal agency to determine the feasibility of the study.

I wonder whose brother in law got the biggest portion of your 12 mil study? We have the same problems here, i guess it does create jobs! LOL


----------

