A Global Warming voice of reason?

[billvon 3,120]

>Less than half the size of Colorado.

Would be true if you assume 20% or greater converter efficiency. I've assumed 10% for the sake of argument. (10 watts per square foot net power out.)

>But more importantly, so?

So that level of energy is both available and unlimited, should we decide to tap it.

[nerdgirl 0]

Nope, only 10% coversion efficiency, over 100km^2 (versus the ~547km^2 you cited.)
Assumes siting in southwest US (& other similar high solar radiation areas around the globe) not Maine or the Pacific Northwest.

Quote

So that level of energy is both available and unlimited, should we decide to tap it.

So you agree with me - fantastic!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

heh - a microsoft dig in a discussion about global warming - priceless.

Not a dig. Just an observation that Windows uses more power consuming system resources than other operating systems available to consumers. I could offer relative strengths and weaknesses of most common operating systems, but since my post was about ways for individuals to reduce their energy consumption, I only pointed out that particular aspect.

Quote

Come on - your suggestions yield minimal reductions for Americans - I'd be shocked if it were even 20%, and that's someone trying to follow, and you have nothing forcing them to do so. Americans use substantially more energy than the norm, so small voluntary reductions will make one feel good, but be no better than Al Gore and his massive house. This isn't a "solution," it's akin to slapping a bumper sticker on your car. If you believe the threat is real, more than this must be done.

My list was not intended to be exhaustive. There are many, many ways to save a little bit of energy here and there. Do lots of small changes add up? Absolutely. In recent years I've heard a few reports about how applying many small tweaks to existing technology in cars allows for fuel efficiency improvements similar to or even slightly superior to newer, more costly technology.

Standby power alone is estimated to account for five percent of residential power use in the US. The study I linked to previously found it to account for nine percent, on average, of the power consumption of the small sample of California homes examined.

A typical home in the United States requires an average of 50 W of standby power. This amounts to 440 kWh per year per household (i.e.; 5 per cent of total residential electricity use). Considering that there are more than 100 million homes in the United States, the standby consumption represents 5 GW of power. (emphasis mine - jcd11235)

The range of standby power consumed by a single type of appliance can be wide due to differences in features, design, and choice of components. For example, the standby power of a compact audio system can vary 1.3-28.6 W. Certain appliances consume nearly as much power when they are switched on or switched off. For example, there is practically no change in power consumption of most digital TV decoders and many VCR and compact audio equipment.

I suspect small changes could reduce power consumption by more than twenty percent, but even twenty percent is a significant reduction. (If your employer wanted to reduce your salary by twenty percent, would you still consider that percentage to be only minimal?) By reducing consumption, the cost of generating one's own electricity via solar power, etc. is also reduced, since less power needs to be generated.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

> Nope, only 10% coversion efficiency, over 100km^2 (versus the
>~547km^2 you cited.)

Here's my numbers:

1000 watts/sq m STC = 100 watts/sq ft
10% efficiency -> 10 watts/sq ft net
1 square mile = 5280^2 * 10 = .278 gigawatts

28,000 gigawatts / .278 gigawatts/sq mi = 100,000 sq mi

That's to cover the entire world's future energy consumption with solar alone during the day. Naturally you'd need two (one on each side) to deal with day/night cycles.

>So you agree with me - fantastic!

Yep!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It is your attitude that results in nothing being done to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Let's all install linux and the world is saved!

I think not.

I said nothing of the sort. I mentioned using a less resource intensive, thus more power efficient, operating system as only one way to make a small difference in one's energy consumption. Nor did I mention Linux. There are many UNIX®/*nix operating systems available. I would be surprised if Linux is even the most widely used (it's probably number two).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Aaah, now I see where your misassumption is - you're trying to generate it all on the US soil.
Guess that would create a new commodity for the US to sell; something akin to Norway primarily using hydroelectric and selling most of the North Sea oil.

See figure 2/3rds down the page from this 2005 Science News Focus piece.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>you're trying to generate it all on the US soil.

Not at all; just using Colorado as a convenient measure of area. Indeed, areas like the Sahara, the Australian outback and the deserts of South America would be, overall, better places for such centralized generation (if we went that way.)

Of course, an even better way to go would be to distribute power generation across appropriate areas. Break up that 100,000 square miles into 10 square mile on the roofs of buildings in 10,000 cities and towns.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not a dig. Just an observation that Windows uses more power consuming system resources than other operating systems available to consumers.

But these other OS's are more likely to be left running 24/7 due to their superior stability, and will only consume fewer resources is the parts are chosen for less power, rather than picking the same parts and getting more potential work done.

I do have micro linux boxes that run on about 11W of power - primarily acting as file and music servers.

Quote

I suspect small changes could reduce power consumption by more than twenty percent, but even twenty percent is a significant reduction. (If your employer wanted to reduce your salary by twenty percent, would you still consider that percentage to be only minimal?) By reducing consumption, the cost of generating one's own electricity via solar power, etc. is also reduced, since less power needs to be generated.

As I said, if your stance is that the sky is falling and to think anything short of it is heresy, as your postings in this thread indicate, then a voluntary 20% reduction by Americans is not a meaningful answer. It's just feel goodism with a smack of elitism.

Real solutions will involve mandated pain - starting with people's cars and perhaps their A/C. Along with a huge increase in solar investment. And that's just a start point.

On that boat, a German bitched to the Canadian that he shouldn't be in the oil sand extraction business. The Canuck retorted that this was rich coming from a guy who flew 8,000 miles to Central America to dive. He sure as hell didn't get there on biodiesel. The Bay Area is full of similar 'environmentalists.'

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Break up that 100,000 square miles into 10 square mile on the roofs of buildings in 10,000 cities and towns.

That would be a far better use of all that surface area that is now going to waste. It would only take a bit of a change in positive thinking to orient all newer construction to optimize angles of incidence for maximum output.

PLUS...you would not have to fight environmental groups who would not want them in areas that are sensative such as some of the areas you are suggesting. One persons wasteland is another delicate ecosystem.

[mnealtx 0]

Less problems with enviros... more problems with collection/distribution. I wonder how feasible a distributed system like that would be in that regard?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Less problems with enviros... more problems with collection/distribution. I wonder how feasible a distributed system like that would be in that regard?

Think about what Bill does... uses what he needs and the rest goes back onto the grid for others to use.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But these other OS's are more likely to be left running 24/7 due to their superior stability, and will only consume fewer resources is the parts are chosen for less power, rather than picking the same parts and getting more potential work done.

All else being equal, the UNIX®/*nix boxes will typically use less power than Windows. I'm not trying to argue for or against Windows' stability, security, or anything else, only that it tends to use more resources than *nix OSs.

Quote

As I said, if your stance is that the sky is falling and to think anything short of it is heresy, as your postings in this thread indicate, then a voluntary 20% reduction by Americans is not a meaningful answer. It's just feel goodism with a smack of elitism.

No "sky is falling" mentality from me in this thread. I simply consider my sources, and when it comes to GW, those scientists that acknowledge it tend to rely on more credible evidence than the people who don't.

Quote

Real solutions will involve mandated pain - starting with people's cars and perhaps their A/C. Along with a huge increase in solar investment. And that's just a start point.

I'm not arguing for or against legislation. You wanted examples of what I thought could be done, and I gave them. They are simple changes that can be made at the individual level. If you didn't want to hear them, then why ask?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not arguing for or against legislation. You wanted examples of what I thought could be done, and I gave them. They are simple changes that can be made at the individual level. If you didn't want to hear them, then why ask?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I asked for real solutions. What you're saying is that either you don't believe it's a real problem, or you can't be bothered any more than rushmc to do what has to be done. So you might as well join the 'deniers' side.

And to be clear, I'm disputing your argument that unix systems consume fewer resources than Windows. My company's datacenter consumes more power than the city of San Mateo, CA. The only obvious efficiency gain comes when an older workstation is converted to linux rather than dumped.

[likearock 2]

Quote

All else being equal, the UNIX®/*nix boxes will typically use less power than Windows.

I assume from your previous posts, you're able to back up that assertion with a reference to peer-reviewed research?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I'm not arguing for or against legislation. You wanted examples of what I thought could be done, and I gave them. They are simple changes that can be made at the individual level. If you didn't want to hear them, then why ask?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I asked for real solutions. What you're saying is that either you don't believe it's a real problem, or you can't be bothered any more than rushmc to do what has to be done. So you might as well join the 'deniers' side.

Quote

Of course!!! Cause YOU are the only one on this site (or any where else in your mind) that REALLY knows what needs to be done!!!! WFJ

And to be clear, I'm disputing your argument that unix systems consume fewer resources than Windows. My company's datacenter consumes more power than the city of San Mateo, CA. The only obvious efficiency gain comes when an older workstation is converted to linux rather than dumped.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I asked for real solutions. What you're saying is that either you don't believe it's a real problem, or you can't be bothered any more than rushmc to do what has to be done. So you might as well join the 'deniers' side.

I fail to see the logic behind that assertion. Do you require legislation before you can be bothered to turn the light out when you leave the room? Do you need a law to require you to turn off your television if you're not watching it?

Quote

And to be clear, I'm disputing your argument that unix systems consume fewer resources than Windows. My company's datacenter consumes more power than the city of San Mateo, CA. The only obvious efficiency gain comes when an older workstation is converted to linux rather than dumped.

So, you acknowledge that an older system has the processing power to run Linux when it doesn't run Windows as well. How is that not evidence that Linux requires less processing power than Windows? Extending that logic, if Windows requires more processing power than Linux, then all else equal, Linux will also use less energy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

All else being equal, the UNIX®/*nix boxes will typically use less power than Windows.

I assume from your previous posts, you're able to back up that assertion with a reference to peer-reviewed research?

Touché. No, I don't have any peer reviewed research supporting the assertion. I only have (multiple) anecdotal observations of significant differences in resource usage on the same or very similar machines. My observations are consistent with literally thousands of internet forum posts with people complaining about Vista's speed and high processor usage at idle.

If you are aware of any peer reviewed research, please let me know, as I would be interested in reading it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>So, you acknowledge that an older system has the processing power to run Linux . . .

You're not drawing a similarity between processing power and electrical power, are you? If anything, running older PC's takes more power per MIP than newer PC's.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>So, you acknowledge that an older system has the processing power to run Linux . . .

You're not drawing a similarity between processing power and electrical power, are you? If anything, running older PC's takes more power per MIP than newer PC's.

Agreed. Newer processors offer more performance per watt. However, given the same newer hardware, the OS that can run well on the older, less powerful hardware can run on the new hardware with fewer demands on the CPU than an OS that is too CPU intensive to run well on older hardware. Combined with hardware technologies such as Intel Intelligent Power Capability, this allows the CPU running a less resource intensive OS (eg. UNIX®/*nix OSs) to use less power, all else being equal.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I fail to see the logic behind that assertion. Do you require legislation before you can be bothered to turn the light out when you leave the room? Do you need a law to require you to turn off your television if you're not watching it?

I can't make it any clearer - if you want to reduce the CO2 emissions in a significant manner, you have to force behavior changes on a wide level. Otherwise, the freeloaders will take up any slack that conservers provide. For every Prius sold there was also an Escalade and a Hummer.

The baby steps you talk about are much more useful for reducing peak load on the power grid, reducing the need for new plants or rolling blackouts. Still a good enough reason to do it (as well as the costs if your power is priced in tiers like in CA), but it's not good enough for this discussion.

Quote

So, you acknowledge that an older system has the processing power to run Linux when it doesn't run Windows as well. How is that not evidence that Linux requires less processing power than Windows? Extending that logic, if Windows requires more processing power than Linux, then all else equal, Linux will also use less energy.

Repeating myself again (sheesh), unix systems tend to be run 24/7, Windows machines do not. Even drawing twice the wattage, a machine running 6 hours a day take 50% that of one running 24 hours a day.

And Bill quite correctly points out that older components can draw more power and do less work - certainly true for CPUs and chipsets, but not for GPUs.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I can't make it any clearer - if you want to reduce the CO2 emissions in a significant manner, you have to force behavior changes on a wide level. Otherwise, the freeloaders will take up any slack that conservers provide.

I don't think there is currently a problem with people not already being able to use as much power as they want in the US. I also don't think "freeloaders will take up any slack that conservers provide," as the "freeloaders" will still have to pay for the electricity they use, just as they currently do.

Perhaps we will ultimately find that people will require legislation to reduce energy consumption. However, I'm optimistic that education can bring about change. I suspect that many people are unaware of some of the reasons they are paying for and using power unnecessarily.

Quote

The baby steps you talk about are much more useful for reducing peak load on the power grid, reducing the need for new plants or rolling blackouts. Still a good enough reason to do it (as well as the costs if your power is priced in tiers like in CA), but it's not good enough for this discussion.

If you're wanting a single magic bullet, you'll be waiting a long time. The problem has to be addressed in multiple ways, conservation of energy, alternate grid energy sources, self powered buildings, etc. From my perspective, what I can do right now is decrease my own energy use. And since utilities are included in my rent, I don't even have financial incentive; I just think it's the right thing to do.

Quote

Repeating myself again (sheesh), unix systems tend to be run 24/7, Windows machines do not. Even drawing twice the wattage, a machine running 6 hours a day take 50% that of one running 24 hours a day.

I've never known anyone who ran their computer 24/7 simply because it had a particular OS installed. I know people who shut down and restart their *nix boxes several times daily. I also know people that leave their Windows boxes on 24/7. It depends primarily on the function of the machine, not the OS that's installed.

Quote

And Bill quite correctly points out that older components can draw more power and do less work - certainly true for CPUs and chipsets, but not for GPUs.

Like I said, all else equal (ie. different OS on the same machine).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All else being equal, the UNIX®/*nix boxes will typically use less power than Windows.

I assume from your previous posts, you're able to back up that assertion with a reference to peer-reviewed research?

Touché. No, I don't have any peer reviewed research supporting the assertion. I only have (multiple) anecdotal observations of significant differences in resource usage on the same or very similar machines. My observations are consistent with literally thousands of internet forum posts with people complaining about Vista's speed and high processor usage at idle.

Then how come a 5 second google search brought up an actual benchmarked test, which shows just the opposite of your assertion? The difference in power consumption between the OSs is negligible at best and can even be seen to favor Windows in the linked study.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then how come a 5 second google search brought up an actual benchmarked test, which shows just the opposite of your assertion? The difference in power consumption between the OSs is negligible at best and can even be seen to favor Windows in the linked study.

You will notice that at idle, Fedora used the least power, although the difference was less than I would have expected. The other test is rather meaningless, since they don't even mention what applications are running. They only compared Windows with two *nix operating systems, a tiny fraction of what is available.

Given the similarity they found between XPSP2 and Vista, I can't help but to wonder just how unscientific their admittedly unscientific testing was.

They ran the test on an old technology Pentium CPU. All of the anecdotal examples I have witnessed have utilized updated, multi core technology, with much larger differences with Vista (only minor differences with XP, which may be nonexistent with SP3). Still, I readily admit that, to quote Kallend, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Then how come a 5 second google search brought up an actual benchmarked test, which shows just the opposite of your assertion? The difference in power consumption between the OSs is negligible at best and can even be seen to favor Windows in the linked study.

You will notice that at idle, Fedora used the least power, although the difference was less than I would have expected. The other test is rather meaningless, since they don't even mention what applications are running. They only compared Windows with two *nix operating systems, a tiny fraction of what is available.

Given the similarity they found between XPSP2 and Vista, I can't help but to wonder just how unscientific their admittedly unscientific testing was.

Why do I get this sense of deja vu? Just as when we debated the about the influence of Muslim radicals, you pick apart my supporting documents but offer none of your own. How can you reasonably expect to have any credibility when, in your posts regarding ID and GW, you insist on having peer-reviewed studies?

Forget peer-reviewed, just show me one benchmarked set of tests supporting the premise that Unix has better power consumption than Windows. And for the record, Windows != Vista. If all you have is anecdotes, I rest my case.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How can you reasonably expect to have any credibility when, in your posts regarding ID and GW, you insist on having peer-reviewed studies?

When someone claims a peer reviewed study is incorrect, but relies on rhetoric to rather than evidence, that rhetoric based argument lacks credibility.

Quote

Forget peer-reviewed, just show me one benchmarked set of tests supporting the premise that Unix has better power consumption than Windows. And for the record, Windows != Vista. If all you have is anecdotes, I rest my case.

A benchmark (at least the one to which you linked) is an anecdote. Either you find them acceptable, or you don't.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!