This would cost more than 50 EUR per year at current prices, and is sizeable compared to the average German citizens consumption of 1500 kWh electricity
Let's just say this is not ideal given the current energy shortage in Europe...
“Network-connected standby devices
Modern appliances are increasingly connected to the internet during standby mode, consuming higher amounts of energy. This includes networked televisions and decoders, printers, game consoles and modems.
- Specific requirements for network-connected standby devices were introduced in 2013.
- Since January 2017 networked standby devices must not consume more than 3 to 12 Watts depending on the product.
This compares to 20 to 80 Watts previously. This decrease is expected to save an additional 36-38 TWh.”
I think this TV is from 2014, so it would have to comply with the older regulations, which I think are https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A..., but that doesn’t mention anything close to 80W.
It does mention 6W and 12W limits, but only starting at January 2015.
⇒ it seems this device doesn’t break that regulation.
Everything from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's...
Remember in europe we have a lot more old stuff - especially old houses that are family owned for 100+ years tend not to have things replaced often unless they're unrepairable.
Even modern class D amps can be 30+ watts when not playing anything tho.
The much more standard class AB still uses 25% with no output, 100 W idle would be a stereo 200 W amplifier. Or a 5x 80 W surround amplifier.
this isn't standby and is a good way for your vintage amp to become defective
edit: additionally tvs that don’t turn off are in some cases of limited utility.
I wondered how much power it could really save because it was a DVR with a spinning hard drive that would always record the last 30 minutes of the current channel even if you didn't set it to record anything explicitly.
So I measured it while on and also in "power savings mode" where the video output was off.
14.5W when on and 14.0W when in "power savings mode"
What a joke.
A software upgrade that saves 3% across hundreds of thousands of people doesn’t seem that pointless in the aggregate.
Also, if we’re talking consumer tech from the 1970’s or 1980’s, I think it’s twofold.
Firstly, the market cared more about “time to wake up” than about power usage. People had fewer devices, they were (relatively) more expensive, and people were used to fully switching off stuff, so standby power usage wasn’t seen as a big issue.
Secondly, the tech itself didn’t exist. Nowadays, your power supply has a CPU that knows how much power your hardware needs and can optimize for it. Then, you would be lucky if your hardware had a switching power supply.
CPUs didn’t have power states. If you were lucky, you could halt them and have them start again on interrupt. Hibernation didn’t exist, so in computers you’d have to power RAM, anyways. And because of that, OSes didn’t bother with the complex task of properly powering down peripherals when going on standby.
Here's a teardown of a 2015 macbook pro charger that includes a Texas Instruments MSP430.
https://www.righto.com/2015/11/macbook-charger-teardown-surp...
From Wikipedia. Emphasis mine.
However startup time would be minimal - a couple of seconds - compared to warmup for the CRT, which would usually be at least 10 seconds before it would look settled. But I recall devices generally being much faster to start up. A C64 would boot to READY prompt in 3 seconds. The penalty for turning off completely and needing to wait for boot was small, and for computing devices, wait time was dominated by loading, not booting. You might have to wait for a rewind with a VCR, and you'd certainly wait for tape loading on devices in the C64 class. Consoles with cartridges didn't take long to boot up and load though.
Servers usually have out of bands management builtin and that's on all the time, even if management network is not connected. Should be just few watts tho
For the record mine mostly has 1-2W standby consumption. With some spikes to 10 or 20W for a few seconds sometimes. And once in a while it never enters deep sleep and gets stuck on 20W. Enabling HomeKit (Apple TV) on standby is a sure-fire way to have it standby on 20W permanently. I can’t disable it after unless with a factory reset. I’ve not touched Chromecast settings at all so can’t say if it has the same effect.
25W * 8760h * 0,5€ = ~109€ per year.
The price hurts, yes, but the waste of power is _criminal_.
So while it's true that that standby consumption is at least good for something in winter, a lower standby consumption and in turn turning up the central heating a little more would normally still be the better choice.
This would cost more than 50 EUR per year
*for non-uk: the Tories are The Conservative Party, considered right wing, and certainly not 'socialist' by any stretch.
Reading any UK newspaper of late, I would consider a £20pcm saving tip almost front-pageworthy. I also believe Viz might accept it in their Top-tips section, if you want to reach a wider audience.
The government has taken those signals away by agreeing to pay whatever the price is
They could have simply given £1000, or £100, or £10000, to every household, but they chose not to.
You misspelled "get future generations to subsidise the power companies profits today".
A far better solution is to give the money directly to the average person and let them choose what to spend it on.
Do you think these price increases are strictly on the retail side?
However just paying the suppliers directly gives no incentive to invest in increasing energy efficiency - if I'm paying 70p a unit and can spend £1000 to save 3000 units it makes sense. If the government is capping it at 20p a unit then why would I bother paying to increase the efficiency? That means more needless energy use
In less than two years, the price of the usage of public grid electricity will have increased in the U.K. from ~£1,600 to £6,500. These useless household statistics only help to hide the fact that businesses, who do things with this electricity that don't include running a T.V. pointlessly for 8 hours a day, or heating an unoccupied room, are going to suffer more than anyone. It's easy to take the British consumer's word for it, and understand that a bill which served as a relatively small expense in a past life will now be 4x bigger than it was before, but the reality is that doing things is significantly less affordable. Manufacturing, hospitality, healthcare, public and private services etc. will all be smashed to bits, and their utilities bills aren't going up 300% but more like 500-1500%.
Is it remotely possible to push energy efficiency to the point that we are using half of the energy we were before? It's entirely possible, in my mind. With trillions of dollars of investment.
It's simply not worth it. It's better to take the money and run, if daddy warbucks is offering to give us 3.9% APR on a couple hundred billion dollar loans, than it is to pay in cash and pray for better times with improvements that come along with science and technology.
Loans on the scale that nations take add additional risk to the creditors - the risk of not paying them back is a final one.
If a million people don't pay their credit cards off in a year, it doesn't matter - the market is full of those that will. But if U.K. gilts don't pay out, then a lot more people are screwed, and there's a lot more incentive to keep that cash cow mooing.
My company has a lot of equipment it keeps on needless because it's cheaper than the manpower to turn it off and back on. If demand is lower at the weekend they could use the money to shift some of their electric use to a weekend and pay people more to use it then.
Instead we are encouraging people to use energy as before, which was slightly more profitable than another option, rather than taking the same money but putting the power into the hands of the people using it. It's a paternalistic socialist approach which disempowered the person buying on the market, it's the exact opposite of what the conservative party should be about.
Assumming you never use TV (if I calculated correctly it's 219kWh for 24/7/365 standby 25W waste). Many people have switched on TV for 3-10 hours per day, heck I don't watch that much TV and I have it switched from 8-11 PM plus my kids around one hour a day. I'm sure my retired mother would easily do 8-10 hours per day.
Also I mean if you are bothered with it just unplug TV or switch off the socket.
My whole household yearly consumption including AC (26C) is ~1200 kWh.