Charge your iPod, kill a polar bear?

[Birka]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009214989_apeugreenergadgets.html


Environmental alarms raised over consumer electronics

Charge your iPod, kill a polar bear?

By GREG KELLER

AP Business Write
PARIS —

Charge your iPod, kill a polar bear?

The choice might not be quite that stark, but an energy watchdog is alarmed about the threat to the environment from the soaring electricity needs of gadgets like MP3 players, mobile phones and flat screen TVs.

In a report Wednesday, the Paris-based International Energy Agency estimates new electronic gadgets will triple their energy consumption by 2030 to 1,700 terawatt hours, the equivalent of today's home electricity consumption of the United States and Japan combined.

The world would have to build around 200 new nuclear power plants just to power all the TVs, iPods, PCs and other home electronics expected to be plugged in by 2030, when the global electric bill to power them will rise to $200 billion a year, the IEA said.

Consumer electronics is "the fastest growing area and it's the area with the least amount of policies in place" to control energy efficiency, said Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst at the IEA.

Electronic gadgets already account for about 15 percent of household electric consumption, a share that is rising rapidly as the number of these gadgets multiplies. Last year, the world spent $80 billion on electricity to power all these household electronics, the IEA said.

Most of the increase in consumer electronics will be in developing countries, where economic growth is fastest and ownership rates of gadgets is the lowest, Waide said.

"This will jeopardize efforts to increase energy security and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases" blamed for global warming, the agency said.

Existing technologies could slash gadgets' energy consumption by more than 30 percent at no cost or by more than 50 percent at a small cost, the IEA estimates, meaning total greenhouse gas emissions from households' electronic gadgets could be held stable at around 500 million tons of CO2 per year.

If nothing is done, this figure will double to around 1 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2030, the IEA estimates.

Televisions are one area where much improvement could be made, Waide said.

The IEA estimates the world will soon have 2 billion TVs in use - or an average of 1.3 televisions for every household with electricity. In addition to becoming more numerous, TVs are also getting bigger screens and are being left on for longer each day. The group predicts 5 percent annual increase in energy consumption between 1990 and 2030, just from TVs alone.

Waide said simple measures, such as allowing consumers to regulate the energy consumption of their gadgets according to the features they actually use, should be adopted to counter this growth.

He said governments also need to encourage minimum performance standards and easy-to-read energy labels, so consumers can take energy efficiency into account along with price when buying home electronics.

[Euroblood]

Very interesting article.

Trade-offs are not mentioned here, one can easily reduce their environmental impact in many other ways. In regards to energy, turning off un-needed lights can save energy and therefore that extra energy is just diverted to the iPod or whatever other device you have.

Reducing energy consumption is something I would encourage everyone to think about, but articles like these don't tell the whole story (in my opinion
).

[SwordoftheVistula]

The world would have to build around 200 new nuclear power plants just to power all the TVs, iPods, PCs and other home electronics expected to be plugged in by 2030, when the global electric bill to power them will rise to $200 billion a year, the IEA said.

Let's get working then! That will provide much better 'stimulus' then extending welfare checks and bailing out poorly run corporations.

[Rainraven]

Save the polar bears! (http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/polarbear/polarbear.html) :D

[Tabiti]

Very interesting article.

Trade-offs are not mentioned here, one can easily reduce their environmental impact in many other ways. In regards to energy, turning off un-needed lights can save energy and therefore that extra energy is just diverted to the iPod or whatever other device you have.

Reducing energy consumption is something I would encourage everyone to think about, but articles like these don't tell the whole story (in my opinion
).
Yes, that's the easiest way, because we are so addicted to our electronic gadjets that nobody seem to throw out them easily. I think following some simple rules would also work - not to turn on your computer when your TV set is working, not to forget lights on in bathroom or rooms you are not in, for example. I'm sure most of us make the following mistake - seeting in front of computer on all lights turned on, our player/TV set working, something cooking in the oven, charging our Ipod/phone in separate plug...

[Birka]

I urinate outside my back yard as much as I can, which is about 70% of the time. I figure I am saving at least 1 gallon of fresh water every time I go outside, not having to flush the toilet. Oh, and I am helping to fertilize the back yard grass.

Birka, the urinating environmentalist. :thumb001:

[The Lawspeaker]

The problem is not that those gadgets use electricity and that making them means using resources- the problem is that a the majority of electric power is still produced using fossil fuels and that we still don't seem to understand that we could also recycle. It is a double-edged sword btw: if we would use renewable energy instead and recycle more we can keep on consuming and it will not become a burden upon our economy and environment and it will make us also less dependable on those countries exporting those resources that we have to use now and those countries are usually either Islamic, socialist or African.


Frankly it would perhaps be wise to get more self-sufficient and start looking for new ways for making those gadgets using as little resources as possible from said hell-holes anyways- and for people that have the means of doing so to produce your own electricity, water (and where possible as much as your own food as can be done) and recycle as much waste as possible.
If you have a detached home with a yard or even when you share a duplex and a yard with another family you could try to get off the grid as much as possible.

[Groenewolf]

Of course products that safe energy are also increasing. Btu 2030 is still far away. And against that time we could have cold nuclear fussion and other technologies that are still highly experimental.

In other news I have just read (http://www.nu.nl/economie/1965035/christenuniesgp-wil-eu-geld-voor-superbus.html) that busses riding on electricity are apearentaly friendly for the enviroment. Like the electricty does not have to be produced some how.

[The Lawspeaker]

The question I am asking myself then is this one: why are we morally forced to step away from signs of individualism like the family car or warned about our gadgets and using electricity, warm water, gas (and the like) and told to "cut down" or "use public transport" ? I think that the reason may be clear for all to see: we are slowly being forced into a mold. Perhaps prepared for something socialist.

I believe that the environmental problems are genuine but that the present solutions that are being shown to us are not. Look at them: they are all collective. And forcing you back into a single mold.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I'm sure most of us make the following mistake - seeting in front of computer on all lights turned on, our player/TV set working, something cooking in the oven, charging our Ipod/phone in separate plug...

Well yeah, because I'm watching TV, using the computer, and cooking all at the same time. Increased energy usage is a natural result of civilizational advances. Agreed about turning off lights when you don't need them etc, but this won't cure our energy needs.

[Euroblood]

I believe that the environmental problems are genuine but that the present solutions that are being shown to us are not. Look at them: they are all collective. And forcing you back into a single mold.

To protect the environment some solutions that are never really provided are the ones that ask for sacrifice.

I've seen so called "Green ads" and they say something like "Do you want...(something to help the environment) without sacrificing... (some convenience of our modern world).

As long as modern environmentalism can co-exist, or pose no threat to the established materialistic order of things it is fine. Any solution which would require a new way of life (that is not in the mold they have defined) it is bad.

[Lahtari]

an energy watchdog is alarmed about the threat to the environment from the soaring electricity needs of gadgets like MP3 players, mobile phones and flat screen TVs.

Do they think we're stupid? Yes they do. Or was it so much better before, when instead of ipods and flat screens we used to have those walkmans or portable CD-players and tube screens? :mmmm:

A cassette/CD player is based on physical movement of the media, containing an evil, polar-bear-grinding machine powered by electricity. A consumption contest between a digital music player and a mechanical one is like a consumption contest between a motorbike and a truck, going uphill. A tube screen is no friend of polar bears either: A picture tube is a high-voltage component that can generate voltages of even 50 000V. Just listen to it when it goes on and off. I'm quite sure that not even the oversized modern flat panels can match the demands of a traditional TV.

So new and more eco-friendly technologies are being developed - nobody uses those clumsy and flippy portable CD-players anymore, and the last tube screen TV's will go to the telly heaven within decades. But these guys somehow manage to turn it the other way around? :mmmm:

But well, the essential is told right there:


Most of the increase in consumer electronics will be in developing countries, where economic growth is fastest and ownership rates of gadgets is the lowest, Waide said.

So, the 2 billion citizens of China and India wants to have ipods? ..And someone is willing to sell ipods and power to them at the price they can afford? ..And their governments are not doing anything about it?
So now, what am I supposed to do about it? To agree to have myself being ruled by a multi-national Politbyro? :tongue :crazy:

[Lahtari]

The question I am asking myself then is this one: why are we morally forced to step away from signs of individualism like the family car or warned about our gadgets and using electricity, warm water, gas (and the like) and told to "cut down" or "use public transport" ? I think that the reason may be clear for all to see: we are slowly being forced into a mold. Perhaps prepared for something socialist.

I believe that the environmental problems are genuine but that the present solutions that are being shown to us are not. Look at them: they are all collective. And forcing you back into a single mold.

That's right: if they would really want to do something about pollution, they could just simply strike at the root of the problem and put a tax on the polluting energy forms. The result? Price of power rises -> People use less power -> The supply of non-polluting power is increased -> Pollution is decreased. Repeat from the step one if needed.

But it's just much more convenient to use it as a reason for regulating the people, so they can both further their agenda and build new bureaucracies to do the regulating (so the commies can have new free jobs). Two flies with one strike. :tongue

[Skandi]

. A tube screen is no friend of polar bears either: A picture tube is a high-voltage component that can generate voltages of even 50 000V. Just listen to it when it goes on and off. I'm quite sure that not even the oversized modern flat panels can match the demands of a traditional TV.


* Microdisplay rear projector: 0.13 watt per square inch
* LCD: 0.27 watt per square inch
* Plasma: 0.34 watt per square inch



If power efficiency is all you're after, the clear choice is rear-projection technology. Of the three, plasma screens are generally the most power hungry. Flat-panel LCDs often have a good brightness-to-consumption ratio, but they're not exactly consistent. Some LCDs are as low as 0.11 watt per square inch, but some go as high as 0.37 watt. Luckily, more and more new TVs are coming with a power-saver mode, which we've found can drastically cut power consumption.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's right: if they would really want to do something about pollution, they could just simply strike at the root of the problem and put a tax on the polluting energy forms. The result? Price of power rises -> People use less power -> The supply of non-polluting power is increased -> Pollution is decreased. Repeat from the step one if needed.

But it's just much more convenient to use it as a reason for regulating the people, so they can both further their agenda and build new bureaucracies to do the regulating (so the commies can have new free jobs). Two flies with one strike. :tongue
Yes they do it commie style- while they could just subsidize massive research into solar panels and technology to purify water (like in space craft) and ask the people to get more self sufficient. What needs to be done is that as much homes as possible get solar panels on their roofs (or integrated in walls of flats and skyscrapers as is already possible), and integrate ways to purify used water in your own home. Modern architecture already allows ways for a single dwelling to be fully self sufficient- why not try to research whether that can be applied to duplex or row houses as well ? Let alone subsidizing people that want to step over to cars that are more eco-friendly but can't afford to take the step.

No - they just throw all the money in idiotic campaigns, an expensive welfare state for foreign leeches and development aid.

[SwordoftheVistula]

That's right: if they would really want to do something about pollution, they could just simply strike at the root of the problem and put a tax on the polluting energy forms. The result? Price of power rises -> People use less power -> The supply of non-polluting power is increased -> Pollution is /decreased. Repeat from the step one if needed.

Yeah, they did that here too with the gas tax...but then their tax revenues declined when people bought hybrids and fuel efficient cars, and now my state and some others want to put transponders in all the cars to track them and measure millage so they can collect a tax on that to replace the lost gasoline tax.