turn off or pollute? 5

[lionelhill]

Reading in New Scientist, I see someone's come up with a super-fast boot-up system, targetted towards the multi-function multi-media/television/homePC/internet market. The business argument is that people don't want to hang around several minutes for their system to boot before they can watch that DVD.

Microsoft's response is that most of the multimedia users they've asked never turn their system off anyway, so it is always booted and ready; boot time is not an issue.

I notice the trend to leave things turned on has spread hugely in IT, not just in multimedia things.

(1) Is it morally acceptable to leave your system turned on all the while; even with reduced power consumption in sleep modes, it doesn't take much thought to work out that the world-wide power consumption of idling computer systems is vast? And all this contributes to global warming, pollution and all the rest.

(2) Is it morally acceptable to design products/offer services that encourage the user to leave them turned on? (be that hardware or software)?

I'd be interested to hear what others think (but mostly interested in the actual question rather than microsoft fan/hate postings...)

(my personal bias is towards turning off, and shortening boot times as far as possible. Whatever Microsoft say, I'm certain they're aware of people like me, because XP for the first time in Msoft history booted faster than its predecessors, something which no doubt took a great deal of ingenuity and skill from its creators. I'll be interested to see what longhorn or whatever it's called will do?)

 

[SF0751]

I, personally, am in the "turn it off if it's not being used" camp. Not just for my PC, but for lights, the television, radio, etc. That's how I was raised, and I'm making sure that my kids get the message, too (They pay me 50¢ every time I have turn off the light after they've left the room - money talks, especially to a 12 year old!).

And, yes, shorter boot times are nice - but I think that too many people expect instant gratification from EVERYTHING (and EVERYONE). You stated "The business argument is that people don't want to hang around several minutes for their system to boot before they can watch that DVD." For myself, I use those "several minutes" to go get a cup of tea (or wander around the house, looking for lights to turn off!) ;-)


Susan
_{You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner.}
^{Aristophanes, 424 B.C.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.}

 

[garyrimar]

I like not wasting energy as much as the next user. I have a 100-node WAN for which I'm responsible. I have my users leave their computers on because I have to run their virus scans every evening, and if I did it during the day when they were there it would slow down their ability to work.

 

[jrbarnett]

<slightly off topic>
The trouble with many consumer electrical devices (hifi, VCR, DVD player) is that unless they are switched off at the mains, they still use mains power to operate the clock and maintain the channel presets.
PC's with an ATX style motherboard are in a similar situation, in that they can be switched on via a Wake on Lan magic packet or BIOS power up at a certain time. This still requires a small current from the motherboard and the ability to activate full power when required.
Older AT style motherboards had a true &quot;Off&quot; switch which would cut power.
</slightly off topic>

Is it ethical to switch off devices where possible? Certainly in the eyes of environmentalists, but is it better in terms of wear and tear on the electronics within the PC?
Personally, I leave the PC running during the day and shut down overnight, but switch the monitor off (19&quot; CRT) when I'm not using it during the day. During the time, my box runs seti@home in the background, so it is not idling away doing nothing.

John

 

[RoyVidar]

Not all sources of electrical power pollutes or contributes to global warming (although the consumption of the power might). At least, there are different degrees of pollution depending on the source. Getting power out of waterfalls is quite common where I reside (can't remember the english word for it), and provides for nearly all of our consumption.

Would it be fair to take into consideration what source is used to generate the electrical power when evaluating question 1 and 2?

Roy-Vidar

 

[jrbarnett]

RoyVidar

You are thinking of hydroelectric dams.

John

 

[manarth]

The power required to switch on a fluorescent tube is usually equivalent to an hour of operation. Therefore, turning it off is only economical if it's going to be off for longer than an hour.

Of course, with Bill Gates' talk of personal servers, the always-on machine becomes more likely.

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please tell us if our suggestion has helped[/li][li]need some help? faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[Rhombus65]

I look at this from a different angle!

There is technoligy evolving which would could generate electricity with much less pollution.

Is it moral that the government and corprorations squash these technoligies because they do not want to disrupt oil industry?

People have come up with motor generator sets that are so efficient that oce the generators prime mover is up to speed the it is so efficient that it can get it's power from the generator and still produce excess electricity.

This technoligy and others gets bought up and thrown away so that the oil and coal companies can continue to get rich and pollute the world.

So in my opinion the computers are not the problem. It is much, much bigger than that.

Jim: A+, MCP W2k, Master Electrician

&quot;The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for for existing...&quot;
-Albert Einstein

 

[svanels]

&quot;Is it moral that the government and corprorations squash these technoligies because they do not want to disrupt oil industry&quot;?

The oil must come from somewhere and it is not inexhaustible.

The costs of production and distribution of energy are sky-high, and only if you are confronted with a 4 hour total black-out at 9:00 PM, you would be glad that you are not the CEO of the local energy distributor.

Installing more computers/technology also demands more investments in energy and infrastructure.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[johnwm]

Rhombus65

you say: <People have come up with motor generator sets that are so efficient that oce the generators prime mover is up to speed the it is so efficient that it can get it's power from the generator and still produce excess electricity.>

Could you give us some reference to support a perpetual motion machine? There's going to be hell to pay when the theoretical physicists find out that all their basic premises about entropy and the arrow of time are wrong!

________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'

 

[Rhombus65]

I do not have any specific examples. I do recall reading about it a couple of times over the years in scientific magazines.

My point was more that leaving the computers on is not as much of a problem as the government and corporations collaborating for profits and that often ideas are squished so as not to disrupt an industry.



Jim: A+, MCP W2k, Master Electrician

&quot;The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing...&quot;
-Albert Einstein

 

[johnwm]

With the greatest respect sir, any argument based on a belief in perpetual motion machines may be fatally flawed.

Even if such an idea was possible, it would only exacerbate the problem of use of energy in excess of net insolation.

________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'

 

[DrJavaJoe]

You get me one of those perpetual motion machines, I'll take my chances with the governemt and oil companies.

My thought about the whole thing is that there is a finite amount of oil and coal and the sooner that it is gone the sooner we'll get on with discovering new cleaner forms of energy. In the scheme of things what does it matter if we spew out all of the exhaust from fossil fuels for the next 60 years or the next 80 years, because in a hundred years it's going to be gone. I believe the natural tendancy to want a cleaner planet is great and I teach my children to turn off the lights and conserve but facing reality I'm not to worried because this planet will recover from this little blip of 200 years of burning up all of it's fossil fuels. Atleast I hope it doesn't because we're not going to stop until it's all gone.

 

[DrJavaJoe]

Atleast I hope it doesn't because we're not going to stop until it's all gone.

 

[DrJavaJoe]

meant does - keyboard isn't cooperating this morning.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Its not just government and oil companies. People are idiots.

Here is South Australia there is a project for a wind farm. Guess what the people basically don't like the way the wind farms look. They complain about the short term construction and that it will be a &quot;distraction to drivers&quot;. Also a complaint about the actual noise....tho no one actually lives that close to the proposed site.

There are other articles from actual green groups complaining about destruction of natural habitat by the farm. The 20 windmills have a minimal footprint and the land is currently and will stay grazzing land for domesticated farm animals.

I'm getting sick of people wanting their cake and eat it to. I'm all for sustainable energy but people need to screw their heads on straight.

http://victorharbor.yourguide.com.a...ry_id=279268&category=General+News&m=1&y=2004

 

[KornGeek]

SemperFiDownUnda,

I just saw an article recently (although I confess that I only read the headline and not the full article) about environmentalists complaining about some wind farms in my area. Apparantly, some birds have been flying into the spinning windmill blades.

It just goes to show that there is no perfect solution.

My opinion is that the IT industry is moving towards a pattern of leaving computers running. This is due to lost time during system startup, automatic backups, virus checking, and other factors. I think manufacturers should take this into account and continue looking for ways to minimize power consumption and power companies should continue to seek ways to minimize environmental impact. We've already made considerable progress in both of these areas, but I think we should continue to do so.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

I've heard of that issue before too...but then these blades are 33m long....they don't exactly rotate like a prop plane. I've seen birds kill themselves by flying into our summer place's huge bay window....I call this natural selection of stupid birds getting killed off.

On the topic of keeping computers on...I keep some of mine on 24/7. My firewall goes 24/7. My main server goes 24/7 because of apps running. My sons computer normall gets turned off along with my linux box and personal box when not being used but my development maching stays on to support me while away. One thing I have to admit is if I turn off all my computers my place is strangely silent and I, only then, realise how much noise the fans make.

 

[MakeItSo]

jrbarnett:
&quot;Is it ethical to switch off devices where possible? Certainly in the eyes of environmentalists, but is it better in terms of wear and tear on the electronics within the PC?&quot;

Depends on where you set your priorities - our planet and survival or PC health.
OK, that's a bit exaggerated. But: Leaving your PC on 24/7 means 24/7 of wear and tear on each component running. The main wear is put on the components during the turn-on phase, so I prefer leaving my machine running if I'm only short time away from it. However, if I'm away from my PC for more than an hour, I turn it off. This is better in terms of energy consumption. If time goes up to let's say four hours or more, it is also better to at least put the PC to sleep mode. And I mean &quot;better&quot; in terms of better for your PC.
This does not apply to vital systems, or to such as two PCs in my office: They are used as data servers and as network storage and must be accessible to each engineer at all times. Of course we could let the last engineer in the evening turn that thing off and the first one turn it on in the morning - but these servers are my &quot;babies&quot; and I don't want other fingers than mine or those of my substitute to touch the PCs... ;-)

Semper: You're right, I know the windmill issue only too well. People can really be id##ts when it comes to wind farms. Of course they are not that pretty but they're always located away from residential areas (at least they're supposed to).
If you see anyone protesting against these things, ask him if he would rather have a nuclear plant there - presupposed he would also allow the deposit of nuclear waste in his garden... ;-)

 

[lionelhill]

On the wear and tear thing, maybe you have to look at why you throw out your computer components. Is it because they're worn out, or because they're out of date?

Thanks everyone for such a constructive and interesting set of replies.

Yes, agree about windmills. It's probably related to the people who want to be able to use their mobile phone everywhere, but don't want phone masts.

I still feel that cutting down energy consumption is probably, at the moment, easier than producing energy more cleanly. Although the second is a good long term aim, perhaps the first is a good short term aim?

Yes, I see the point that the oil's going to be gone some time, so does it matter when? But my house is not so far above river level, and I quite like some of the 25% of species threatened with extinction by global warming. Slow changes cause less damage than fast ones... Lets not rush getting through that oil. Why make a problem a certainty in 50 years when it could be a possibility in 200?