Moderator: Greg Downing

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Topic Locked  
 First unread post  | 19 posts | 
by Neil Fitzgerald on Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:54 pm
User avatar
Neil Fitzgerald
Regional Moderator
Posts: 9238
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Member #:00240
Reading a thread in Digital Topics I was surprised to learn that many people leave their computers running 24/7. Apparently increased wear and tear at start-up is a prime concern. Since I have always been told, and believed, that having an appliance like that running when not used is pure wastage I did a quick search.
I think this should be of interest to any computer user/photographer who has any concern for the environment. Remember no form of energy generation is without negative environmental impacts.
From http://www.recyclingadvocates.org/newsl ... ay2002.htm:
It's estimated that one workstation (computer and monitor), if left on after business hours and without automatic power management, produces nearly one ton of carbon dioxide per year. This is five times the amount produced if the workstation is switched off at night and engages power management during idle periods in the day.(1)

Frequent on-off cycles vs. health of the computer hardware: Studies on computer equipment sold after 1998 indicate that there is no appreciable 'wear and tear' from shutting computers off once or twice daily. Most experts state that if a computer is to be left unused for four or more hours, it can be shut down without affecting its lifespan.

The information EZConserve has reviewed indicates that the risk of reducing a computer's useful life by turning it off at night is not the issue that it once was. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory staff note that: [T]he belief that frequent shutdowns are harmful persists from the days when hard disks did not automatically park their heads when shut off; frequent on-off cycling could damage such hard disks. Conventional wisdom, however, has not kept pace with the rapid technological change in the computer industry. Modern hard disks are not significantly affected by frequent shut-downs. Shutting down computers at night and on weekends saves significant energy without affecting the performance, and may increase (rather than decrease) the operating lifetime of the equipment.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) states that: It is important to inform users that turning computers off will have no significant effect on their useful lifetimes. This old rule is a remnant of the days when larger hard disks were degraded by the mechanical stress of spinning up and down rapidly. However, today's generation of disks are manufactured to operate normally with 15,000-20,000 on-off cycles in its lifetime; this translates to three on-off cycles every day for over 15 years. Thus, even several on-off cycles per business day will not decrease the useful lifetime of a computer.

Rochester Institute of Technology reported that: Contrary to myths of many years past, the lifetime of computers and monitors are not shortened when they are turned off at the end of each day. In fact, almost all new computer and monitor power supplies have surge suppression built in. Turning off your machine at night will lengthen the life of mechanical components such as disk drives and fans.
I also found scores of pages of apparent misinformation and personal opinions on the dangers of shutting down computers so this is a wider problem than I thought.

You can save more power by switching off all the energy vampires around the house. Those are things in standby mode like computer monitors, TVs, microwaves, VCRs, etc. If you can turn it on with a remote, or if it has an LED display or indicator light it is probably using a couple of watts. Doesn't sound like much but a couple here and a few there, times 24 hrs times 365 days starts to add up.
Cheers,
Neil.
Topic Locked  

by Paul Skoczylas on Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:08 pm
User avatar
Paul Skoczylas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13875
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Location: Anjou, France
Member #:00284
Another reason to turn your computer off when not in use: The less time it's on, the less attractive it is to hackers. I know most of us have decent firewalls which should stop 99.9%+ of hack attempts, but I doubt that any firewall will stop 100% of attacks.

My brother-in-law's computer didn't have a firewall (bad idea), and he left it on all the time (another bad idea). When it started to meltdown (improper attachment of heatsink), we copied all his data files off it prior to rebuilding it. In that process we found mountains of porn that he hadn't downloaded. :shock: (At least it wasn't kiddy porn. At least not that we noticed--we only opened a couple files...)

Anyway, after I got his rebuilt machine up and running, I put the free version of the Zone Alarm software on there for him. The amount of invasion attempts that were rebuffed (according to Zone Alarm) within the first hour was huge! His computer was obviously popular with someone...

-Paul
[url=http://www3.telus.net/avrsvr/]Paul's Website[/url] [url=http://paulsnaturephotos.blogspot.com/]Paul's Blog[/url]
[b]NSN 0284[/b]
Topic Locked  

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:31 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I do not keep them running 24x7 and feel that its an incredible waste of energy. Yes there is a slightly higher probability of catastrophic failure due to the switching on and off process but this also brings on the bathtub curve wear-out factor earlier so over the long run, most life test and infant mortality testing on electronic components shows that its a wash. Meanwhile we burn energy while getting nothing in return - extremely inefficient.

By the way, the risk of damage to your computer due to electrical surges, sags, lightning, etc that your computer faces while on 24x7 is a far greater risk than turning it on and off over the life of the components. how many of you monitor your surge detectors and replace them after a power outage or a spike? Most of the cheap power strip surge protectors are degraded or in some cases incapacitated from a surge protection standpoint after absorbing just one or two spikes.

The average desktop computer uses 2.6MWH of electricity in one year of continuous operation. In the US, that equates to a little over $200 per year - that's just the computer. If you have a 20" CRT, double that amount (assuming you leave it on and don't have it automatically shut down). The external hard drives add a few dollars and if you leave a laser printer on, you can triple the amount.
Topic Locked  

by Jim Zipp on Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:22 am
User avatar
Jim Zipp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4976
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: CT
Member #:00150
Are you guys considering "Standby" on or off?
Jim Zipp
http://www.jimzippphotography.com
Topic Locked  

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:26 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Jim, with regard to hard drives and their failure rates, which is what actually started this thread, standby=off.
Topic Locked  

by Greg Downing on Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:53 am
User avatar
Greg Downing
Publisher
Posts: 19318
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Maryland
Member #:00001
My computer and laser printer is on 24/7 most days, but everything goes into power saving mode when I'm not using it. I admit this is still probably somewhat wasteful and it would be better for me to start shutting it down at night...

Good point Neil!
Greg Downing
Publisher, NatureScapes.Net
[url=http://www.gdphotography.com/]Visit my website for images, workshops and newsletters![/url]
Topic Locked  

by PF on Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:39 pm
PF
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3131
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Location: Switzerland
I really don't understand that one could leave something on when it's not in use...

With a PC, maybe what retains people is the fact that the power on is not instantly?

Another problem with modern electronic devices is that there is no more "hard" switch so I think it's a good idea to have a way to really disconnect them when not in use.
PF
[url=http://www.p-f.ch]www.p-f.ch[/url]
Topic Locked  

by John Fortner on Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:12 pm
John Fortner
Forum Contributor
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
I think most home users leave on their home computers due to the length of time that it takes to go through the startup process and actually start using the computer. With the advent of the always-on internet people want to turn on the monitor and check their e-mail instantly.
John Fortner
Topic Locked  

by Neil Fitzgerald on Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:35 am
User avatar
Neil Fitzgerald
Regional Moderator
Posts: 9238
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: New Zealand
Member #:00240
I agree that the startup time is probably the main reason computers are on so much more than they need to be. We are all so used to things starting at the flick of a switch. Cameras start so fast it is hard to time them! I don't know a lot about computers but I would have thought it would be possible to have them get to a usable state very quickly and let non-essential applications startup discretely in the background. Maybe one day.
Topic Locked  

by Paul Skoczylas on Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:08 am
User avatar
Paul Skoczylas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13875
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Location: Anjou, France
Member #:00284
I remember timing my 486-100 once. It could go from full power off to an open Word document in 25 seconds.

Ain't progress great!

-Paul
[url=http://www3.telus.net/avrsvr/]Paul's Website[/url] [url=http://paulsnaturephotos.blogspot.com/]Paul's Blog[/url]
[b]NSN 0284[/b]
Topic Locked  

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:38 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Paul Skoczylas wrote:I remember timing my 486-100 once. It could go from full power off to an open Word document in 25 seconds.
If I turn off my wireless network, that's on par with what it takes my P4 3.4GHz running XP. With the network on its more like a minute. There is a lot you can do to speed up boot. Most PCs load at least 10 to 15 programs you don't need into resident memory.
Topic Locked  

by Paul Skoczylas on Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:19 pm
User avatar
Paul Skoczylas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13875
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Location: Anjou, France
Member #:00284
I know the single biggest advantage of XP or W2K is its faster booting...

My P4 3 GHz with W2K isn't on a network at all (the internal network capability is turned off in the BIOS and there's no other card in there) and it takes well over a minute to boot. This computer (somewhere around 700 MHz, also W2K, but on the internet) is NOT noticeably slower, though I haven't actually timed either.

If you (or anyone else) could provide some pointers on how to speed things up, I'd be eternally grateful!

Are there BIOS settings? How can I get rid of unnecessary programs--or determine which ones are unneccessary? I'm no computer moron, but there are some areas I can certainly improve in!

Thanks,

-Paul
[url=http://www3.telus.net/avrsvr/]Paul's Website[/url] [url=http://paulsnaturephotos.blogspot.com/]Paul's Blog[/url]
[b]NSN 0284[/b]
Topic Locked  

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:52 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Oh yeah, I used to wait about 10 minutes on a networked Win 2K client.
Topic Locked  

by S_Leeper on Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:21 pm
S_Leeper
Forum Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 5 Oct 2004
Location: North Jersey
I too was surprised that people leave on 24/7. I know at work we need to logoff but leave on (mostly for network distributed downloads done late at night), but even there it goes to very low wattage standby shortly thereafter.

I was also interested in your comment on the expense of leaving on 24/7. There are a few lights around the house that my wife insists on leaving on (& she pays the electric bill). Once I show her that the cost is also around $200/year I hope she'll turn them off nightly.
Topic Locked  

by Paul Skoczylas on Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:03 pm
User avatar
Paul Skoczylas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13875
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Location: Anjou, France
Member #:00284
S_Leeper wrote:I was also interested in your comment on the expense of leaving on 24/7. There are a few lights around the house that my wife insists on leaving on (& she pays the electric bill). Once I show her that the cost is also around $200/year I hope she'll turn them off nightly.
Pretty simple. For every 100W (a typical lightbulb), you use 876 kWh per year. Depending on where you live, electricity is probably $0.05 to $0.15 per kWh. So that 100W bulb is costing you between $40 and $130 per year, depending on your local rates. Leave a few on, and it can add up!

We have those LED night lights in our house. The package says they're supposed to use $0.05 of electricity per year!

-Paul
[url=http://www3.telus.net/avrsvr/]Paul's Website[/url] [url=http://paulsnaturephotos.blogspot.com/]Paul's Blog[/url]
[b]NSN 0284[/b]
Topic Locked  

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:27 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I've changed all of my bulbs from the standard incandescent bulbs to equivalent lumens flourescent bulbs. It uses about 1/4 of the energy for equivalen light output. the only real downside is the warm-up effect - there is about a second delay in them coming on and they take a minute to come to full brightness.
Topic Locked  

by jray on Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:39 pm
jray
Forum Contributor
Posts: 79
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Location: Northern California
I used to keep one computer on at all times to allow network storage for other computes around the house and my laptop. I now use a Kuro Box (http://www.kurobox.com) with 250GB drive to save energy. I also have a LinkSys NSLU2 but it does not stay on 24/7 like the Kuro Box.

I switched to compact fluorescent bulbs a few years back. The newer ones are instant on (well almost) so it works out well, although I have yet to see most of them last seven years as they claim. I did have one Osram 19W light that lasted nine years (why I now use compact fluorescents everywhere). Just keep them away from non-fluorescent dimmers (DC=SCR=bad=cheap -v- AC=Triac=good=expensive):D BTW, one of the largest suppliers of compact fluorescents (Lights America) advertises that it only produces 2700 degree Kelvin bulbs. IMO, this is like a pet store advertising all it's puppies come with rabies.

If you've tried compact fluorescents and have disliked the overly warm-reddish light, then they were probably 2700 degree warm white bulbs. The 4100 degree bulbs (sometimes labeled cool white) are far better IMO. They also offer 'daylight' compact fluorescents in 5000-6500 kelvin, but these are special purpose bulbs IMO (yes, some photography). I do use the 13W 6500 Kelvin lights outdoors. They produce so much apparent light (human sensitivity range) that two of my neighbors bought the same fixtures when the saw the light. Between the three fixtures (39W), there is considerably more light and contrast to 'my eye' than the 120W high pressure sodium street light the city has provided.

The only thing I wonder about is waste. When we throw away a normal tungsten light bulb we discard about 1oz of metal and glass, but a compact fluorescent has a PCB, plastic, copper, chemicals (dielectric), and overall far more mass, some of which takes a long time to rot/rust/go away. Just something to think about.
I desperately need a new car, but I bought a lens instead...
[color=#FF0000][size=85](God, I hate forum profiles on the right side! I feel like I'm watching a tennis match :( )[/size][/color]
John - [email]naturescapes@d30.info[/email]
Topic Locked  

by Marc Oliver on Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:51 pm
Marc Oliver
Forum Contributor
Posts: 751
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
E.J. Peiker wrote:I've changed all of my bulbs from the standard incandescent bulbs to equivalent lumens flourescent bulbs. It uses about 1/4 of the energy for equivalen light output. the only real downside is the warm-up effect - there is about a second delay in them coming on and they take a minute to come to full brightness.
Just a heads-up - these new bulbs contain mercury and must be recycled. Because of the warm-up effect, I haven't replaced the regular bulbs in all areas (like security lights with a motion detector), but in general I find them great. Another bonus is not having to replace bulbs in awkward locations as often because the flourescents last so much longer.

cheers, Oliver
Topic Locked  

by jray on Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:19 am
jray
Forum Contributor
Posts: 79
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Location: Northern California
Good point. I still have all of my dead CFBs (~5) since there is not enough to take anywhere yet.

For the U.S., go to http://www.earth911.org, put in your zip code, click on the Household Waste link (left link), and then Fluorescent Light Bulb Disposal, for info on how to recycle these bulbs in your area.

I used to take my dead batteries (all types) to Battery Bill in Sacramento, but I now have a local source. Look for a local Walgreen's. They have been active in accepting dead batteries for recycling, but I'm not sure what types are accepted.
I desperately need a new car, but I bought a lens instead...
[color=#FF0000][size=85](God, I hate forum profiles on the right side! I feel like I'm watching a tennis match :( )[/size][/color]
John - [email]naturescapes@d30.info[/email]
Topic Locked  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
19 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group