California To Adopt First US Energy-Saving Rules For Computers (reuters.com) 171
California regulators were poised on Wednesday to adopt the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors -- devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state. From a report on Reuters: The state Energy Commission said that when fully implemented, the plan will save consumers $373 million a year and conserve as much electricity annually as it takes to power all San Francisco's homes. Final approval of the standards, expected at a meeting in Sacramento of the five-member commission, caps a nearly two-year planning process that had input from environmentalists, industry, scientists and consumer groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group that helped devise the standards, has said the new standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion in power generation by 700,000 tons a year. The California standards set a benchmark for a machine's overall energy use and leave manufacturers the flexibility to choose which efficiency measures to use to meet it -- an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
Java? (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean California will ban the use of Java?
Ugh, joy... Real benefit, little, annoyance high. (Score:1)
I once worked for a company that had mandated GPOs which turned machines off at a certain time each day. If you were working past 7:00, expect to deal with the power cycle. Of course, coming in and waiting for the machine to come up was a time waster as well. Ironic thing is that the "IT" department that did this learned really quickly to not toss the DCs and SQL server boxes into the OU that this policy applied to.
Re: (Score:2)
I once worked for a company that had mandated GPOs which turned machines off at a certain time each day. If you were working past 7:00, expect to deal with the power cycle. Of course, coming in and waiting for the machine to come up was a time waster as well. Ironic thing is that the "IT" department that did this learned really quickly to not toss the DCs and SQL server boxes into the OU that this policy applied to.
I can see it now - stories popping up on /. about power companies in CA experiencing two period-tied brownouts in the morning hours because of all of the people turning computing devices on in their homes and workplaces. :)
Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
California regulators were poised on Wednesday to adopt the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors -- devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state.
Does these figures include or exclude the extra cooling needs due to the computers and monitors?
If your computer burns 200W, if you live in the South, you likely spend an additional 300+W on cooling to offset that heat production.
Re:Statistics (Score:4, Informative)
Typical California thinking. Not everyone is cooling their homes. For the past few months, the vast majority of my utility bill has been heating.
Electronics (that I already manage power settings on, thank-you-very-much) giving off heat is a side benefit to me at least half the year - maybe more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and they are heating your house less efficiently than a heat pump could. This is not a net zero problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Just seeing the word "heat pump" makes me shiver.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some very good low temperature heat pumps out there, and have been for several years now. Of course there's still cheap ones, too, which ice up in the cold and resort to heating coils only putting out 1/3rd as much heat.
Re: (Score:2)
The cheapest heat pumps are little $300 8000 BTU units you can install, yourself. Either through a wall like a window AC, with a small hole and duct like portable ACs, or mini-split systems where a handy homeowner can do everything but the final electrical and coolant line hook-ups.
The top-tier residential electric rate according to California Edison is $0.29/KWH.
If we reduce your 150W PC by 100W, and run it 24/7,
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how long it will take to repay the wasted time of that worthless comment.
But incredibly the scope of installation of a heatpump extends beyond a single 150w PSU.
Re: (Score:2)
You could get 3-4 times as much heat out of that same amount of electricity, if put into a low-temperature air-source heat pump. Much more heat out of a geothermal heat pump. Similiar savings if you spent the money on natural gas instead of electricity for your heating needs.
An
Re: (Score:2)
Typical California thinking. Not everyone is cooling their homes. For the past few months, the vast majority of my utility bill has been heating.
Electronics (that I already manage power settings on, thank-you-very-much) giving off heat is a side benefit to me at least half the year - maybe more.
That rather depends on how you heat your home and how you source your electricity. If you use gas heating and electricity generated from fossil fuels, your computer is only half as efficient at heating your home as your gas heater is (due to the 50% conversion loss in a typical power plant). If you use electric heating, all of your heating has an efficiency of 50%. Buy a heat pump and reduce your heating bill by a factor of 4.
Re: (Score:2)
And similarly, if you live in Minnesota, every watt your computer burns goes to heating your house (and particularly you, who are probably sitting right in front of the computer when it's active). So it's not wasted at all (though it's less efficient than a heat pump if you have one).
Re: (Score:2)
My old X6 doubled as a space heater in wintertime. No so with my new i7.
Also doesn't help that the new system is water cooled too... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
California regulators were poised on Wednesday to adopt the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors -- devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state.
Does these figures include or exclude the extra cooling needs due to the computers and monitors?
If your computer burns 200W, if you live in the South, you likely spend an additional 300+W on cooling to offset that heat production.
When you are domiciled in a place with low cost electricity, and winter is a snow season, any wasted energy from a monitor or TV is not wasted heat, but heat that displaces the electric element in the forced air furnace or the hot water tanks holding circulating water to radiators to heat a home or business.
When energy consumption matters is in summer, when the equipment heat has to be pumped out of the building. But in summer, we can open windows, and that heat just blows out the window.
It is a similar ar
Re: (Score:2)
When you are domiciled in a place with low cost electricity, and winter is a snow season, any wasted energy from a monitor or TV is not wasted heat, but heat that displaces the electric element in the forced air furnace or the hot water tanks holding circulating water to radiators to heat a home or business.
Thus my qualifier "if you live in the South".
Re: (Score:2)
8 to 1? Really? Typical values of COP are actually 2-4 to 1 [powerknot.com].
Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I somehow absolutely missed it, but looking at both the summary and TFA, I cannot figure out just WHAT the hell these new "standards" even are.
And really, with manufacturers shoving tablets that "act as laptops" which are meant to be desktop replacements and can be charged over USB cable, is evenergy efficiency of new computers even a concern at all anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I somehow absolutely missed it, but looking at both the summary and TFA, I cannot figure out just WHAT the hell these new "standards" even are.
And really, with manufacturers shoving tablets that "act as laptops" which are meant to be desktop replacements and can be charged over USB cable, is evenergy efficiency of new computers even a concern at all anymore?
This is all I read in it:
The California standards set a benchmark for a machine's overall energy use and leave manufacturers the flexibility to choose which efficiency measures to use to meet it - an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
So, similar to the EPA's fuel additive mandate for a compound that is unavailable to anyone [institutef...search.org], claiming a mandate "fosters innovation" is actually newspeak for "They're going to have to invent something that doesn't exist right now." The feasibility and cost of which is not even considered.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to have to invent something that doesn't exist right now.
Except there's no invention needed. As it stands currently there are incredibly efficient devices and designs in the world. You just don't get them when you pay to the lowest offering from China. All this will do is remove the ultra cheap crap off the shelfs and / or require a token effort by manufacturers.
e.g. for the coffee lovers, There's a Rancillio Silvia E now sold only in Europe which features identical hardware to the model across the pond with just a bit of insulating foam on the boiler and a timer
Alternately .... (Score:5, Funny)
as much electricity annually as it takes to power all San Francisco's homes
So what you're saying is that we could avoid all of this if we just cut off all SF homes from the grid? Has anyone considered this option as an alternative? I never liked those people anyway. And they seem to be exactly the kind of people who are against the free market and are likely behind this. It would serve them right to have them do without electricity.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Increased efficiency != decreased consumption (Score:2)
The most famous example of this was 19th century locomotives. As engines became more efficient, it made the use of locomotives more economical and spurred an increase in the use of locomotives, leading to ever-higher consumption of coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to people running server farms.
100 years ago when we needed an entire room with it's own power plant to add two numbers, not everyone had computers. Now the computer in your toaster is more powerful than that computer from 100 years ago. The cost to own and operate something is directly related to how many people can own and operate it and how often it will get used.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so sorry but I have to...
Part of the law will be banning of gaming between the hours of 8a-7p local time.
Again... so sorry. It was just.. there. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. You're not going to pay the same for stuttering shitty low power hardware. You just won't be able to buy the cheap crap nasty high power stuff anymore.
Case in point, PSUs. There are energy ratings on them already. Funny enough the better quality supplies have the better energy ratings. So there's one step towards efficiency, ban $50 PSUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My Vizio TV is only energy-star compliant at the dimmest brightness level. That's like saying this water heater is only energy-star compliant when the hot water is at 80 degrees F.
Head-desk (Score:3)
FTFA:
The California standards set a benchmark for a machine's overall energy use and leave manufacturers the flexibility to choose which efficiency measures to use to meet it - an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
Really. I mean, really? So basically I (pretend I'm a manufacturer) can build a computer that has a slow processor that throttles constantly, a SSD drive for long-term storage that will cost more but not grant much benefit given the throttling of resources, a machine that enters hibernation-mode sleep after 30 seconds of non-use, a GPU that can have an entire video uploaded to it and plays it on its own with no other system resource usage beyond basic interface, or a new type of display that has near-zero loss (dreaming now).
I'm just saying.. that's what it sounds like. There's no "innovation" to be had in computers anymore; at least not ones that will screw with the power factor more and more, basically using more fossil fuel to use less fossil fuel?
Speaking of which, there's an idea.. How about a direct non-switching power supply that doesn't screw with the AC line harmonics and stores, in capacitors, what it will need for fast surges of use?
Alternate idea: turn ANY devices or lighting/etc off when you're not using it. Apparently that's not possible for some reason, so we have to start nibbling at things that eat smaller amounts of power rather than the largest consumers of electricity - HVAC and other AC motor-driven devices...? This is a bit fishy. There has to be another reason behind the pushing of law to accomplish something, unless it's basically a way to force consumers to do what saves power already instead of giving them the option not to do it if they don't feel like it.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a direct non-switching power supply that doesn't screw with the AC line harmonics and stores, in capacitors, what it will need for fast surges of use?
Or just spend more than $50 and get a powersupply that is more than 90% efficient, has an almost perfect power factor, and doesn't include harmonic filters sourced from a electronics graveyard?
Seriously there's no need for a radical change in the PSU unless you run a datacentre in which case there's efficiencies to be had through scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that. I said, "Why start nibbling at things that eat smaller amounts of power?"
I should have added, "Because one thing isn't working doesn't mean that you can't just throw in the towel and admit defeat, you have to go and attack something else to feel like there was a win and the "project" was accomplished. Self-aggrandizement isn't "savings."
Re: (Score:3)
" There is no universe where a linear power supply with enough capacity to power a computer is going to be light, cheap, or efficient enough to be useful in consumer computer systems going in to 2020."
Spoken like a true moron with only one definition of computing.
Bear this in mind - everything you're doing now was shit you were already doing in the 90s (assuming you were even alive, then.)
If the idiots behind the scenes now days would learn how to code to the bare metal, we could be kicking ass on a 2w PIII
Re: (Score:2)
Son, at 2W you need nothing more than a voltage drop and resistor to control the incoming power. Linear power supply not even fucking required. Everything else should already be baked into the chip or on the logic board. 10:1 step-down transformer (tiny one) and a couple of resistors and capacitors and inductors - bam I have a stable cheap and usable 12V power supply. 90+% efficiency at the sheer tiny size of the circuit since I only need to pull ~200mA.
Come back when you design power circuitry and supplies
Re: (Score:2)
Right, let's fix this with more taxes. Because poor people with barely enough money to pay the rent can just save up to buy a new refrigerator... or else they pay the higher tax... after which they don't have enough money to save anything for a new refrigerator.
There is already an inherent incentive to save energy, the cost of the energy itself. Adding a tax does little to nothing to encourage more energy savings. We (as a society, nation, species, etc.) have been trying to save energy for decades now.
More info (Score:2)
TFS & TFA are light on details, but here gives a little more info:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/p... [nrdc.org]
The new proposed standards require that desktop computers reduce power draw by half when idle (with no user activity), and establishes more modest power reductions for notebooks/laptops, which already are much more efficient when operating on battery mode, but that is not always the case when they are plugged in.
Re: (Score:1)
The new proposed standards require that desktop computers reduce power draw by half when idle
Sounds easy to meet by doubling active power usage. My company will be the innovate one to add an egg fryer next to the cup holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disable any power saving for computer running on mains supply, my computers run a real OS and always are working. I don't even want my display dimmed after x minutes of inactivity, sometimes engineering tasks requires concentration on information for long periods of time.
Idiot Californians, always with symbolism over substance.
mac pro will need to be cut down even more (Score:2)
mac pro will need to be cut down even more to fit into the new power rules or they class it as a server to have it listed as an 24/7 full power system.
I thought San Francisco (Score:1)
...was already powered by Smug?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]!
2% (Score:2)
San Francisco is 2% of the states population. So to power them they would need to decrease power used by computers from 3% to 1% over the entire state. Meaning a 67% decrease. How inefficient are computers that that is doable? Considering that computers now means tablets, which have a huge reason to be as energy efficient as possible, I do not see this being all that doable.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, most laptops/mobile devices already have a focus on power efficiency. But maybe there is some chargers that could easily be made more efficient.
I'm not expert here, but generally moderate regulation fosters innovation that wouldn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
There is probably a lot of low hanging power efficiency gains to be had at a fairly low cost... But without regulation fostering competition companies aren't going to pay a low cost of major gains..
Presumably, most laptops/mobile devices already have a focus on power efficiency. But maybe there is some chargers that could easily be made more efficient.
I'm not expert here, but generally moderate regulation fosters innovation that wouldn't happen.
The only low handing power efficiency gains to be had at this point involve power management which invariably is poorly performing, buggy, or outright broken.
Efficiency in power conversion has been increased over time because it allows for a higher power density. Efficiency in high performance logic like processors and GPUs has been increased over time because power density has limited performance for years now so it is the only way to increase performance. That is why desktop and server processors have s
Light on details (Score:2)
No I dont want my desktop to go to sleep ever. I certainly dont want a server doing that. No actual specifics to be found in anything this is just a fluff piece.
money (Score:1)
Wrong Target... (Score:4, Interesting)
At least my computer and monitor, out of the box, go to sleep after a while.
Please, , let them turn their attention to Cable and Satellite TV boxes that when turned "off" with the remote still pull 20+ watts. Let them turn their attention to items like the Roku 3, which didn't even have the concept of "off" (and which kept a moving logo on the screen permanently to keep your TV from turning off). Let them turn their attention to all the IOT thingies, for whom implementing low-power states is an even lower priority than providing basic security.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. What they should have done is sit down and look at homes throughout the state, monitor their power usage, come up with a breakdown of the heaviest hitters, then have a plan of attack for those.
I'd bet it's things like HVAC, fridges, and then a bunch of phantom power gear as these are things that run often. Then intermittent stuff like washers, dryers, dishwashers, and ovens.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not let my computers sleep since I would lose my network connections. Drives sleep is annoying too. I do let monitors and others sleep though.
Welcome back CRT (Score:2)
The irony (Score:2)
The Fine Print (Score:3)
It should be noted the regulation is going to effectively ban open source operating systems in California.
The regulation requires a certification that includes testing of the OS's power management capabilities, which means only OS's with a big enough corporate backer to get them through the certification process are going to be legal.
Bogus energy debate debunked by ISS photos (Score:2)
So long as the place (eg, California) shimmers brightly at night...
These energy saver 'micro-aggressions' against high technology devices and those who use them are transparently revealed for what they are,
1. Marketing of 'new' tech to replace embarrassingly reliable old tech
2. Under guise of carbon regulation, getting Government to enforce mandate same
3. Tiny little carbon-saver lollipops for guilty faux environmentalists to suck on
4. Promoting power up/down cycles to reduce lifespan from thermal variation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how much money that would actually save. I put a watt-miser on our 5-8 year old monitors at work and they don't even register, which means they're under 500ma.
Re: (Score:2)
...and I forgot to mention 500ma was measured when they were in their standby state.
Re: (Score:2)
~500mA at 120V is 60 Watts
Not for an AC current, it isn't. Also, it's likely a rather reactive load.
If it's got an energy star sticker on it, a monitor in standby should be using less than 2 watts, often far less.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not for an AC current, it isn't"
Basic math failure, and physics makes no distinction between which direction the energy flows - amperage is amperage, period. Any Kill-A-Watt plugged into the nearest receptacle with your chosen device attached will do more than enough to prove it.
Back to school with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Direction of amperage does indeed matter, but to see whether it matters you need to know the voltage at the exact time of the amperage. Here we are working with RMS values so we could just multiply V and I (though this is a short-hand that can backfire under certain circumstances.) But we can only do this for purely resistive loads where V an I are proportional. What's important is that unless you correct for the power factor, amperage and power draw are not well connected, and neither is Voltage and pow
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a VW?
Re: (Score:1)
And this is supposedly a tech website but gets garbage like this modded insightful?
No office monitor uses 500ma (sic!) anymore even when on at full brightness. 500 milliampere is half an ampere, at 120V this means 60 watts. An energy meter generally measures watts, but if it would measure amperes, one that can only measure stuff above 500mA would be just the same kind of garbage as this post above: useless for general use.
In the EU, devices have had regulations for max standby power usage for some years now
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are more likely referring to the maximum load for all 3 of these. 90 W CPU's are labeled as such because that means they might reach as high as 90 W under a full load. However, many of these may not even be able to reach 75 W or 80 W when under a full load. And when you aren't encoding video or gaming, the load may be half that or way less.
I'm not a gamer, but I believe it is the same story for the GPU as well. Those high numbers are only reached while being taxed. They won't be anywhere near that
Re: (Score:2)
" 90 W CPU's are labeled as such because that means they might reach as high as 90 W under a full load."
Wrong, you forget the rule of 80. Reality is they're rated to dissipate higher, and yet tend to fail at a similar percentage at lower temps.
Re: (Score:1)
Half a watt when "off". Whenever you turn a PC off, it's not off, the ATX standard specifies a 5Vsb (sb=standby) powerline for your PC.
Old Baby AT hat a real 120 or 230V powerswitch at the front of the case, meaning you routed a cable with 230V through your case. ATX did away with it since it's sorta dangerous for inexperienced people, making all the nasty voltages contained in the small, shielded power supply case. But now you need a standby circuit to actually turn on your PC, then there are things like W
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, my home office UPS has a watt-meter on it. I can tell you exactly how much power my home office machines are gobbling up at any one time (loaded or not).
Re: (Score:2)
"No office monitor uses 500ma (sic!) anymore even when on at full brightness"
Uhh, yea, just a couple years ago I worked for an LCD repair company.
You're so off on your amperage estimate that you're obviously clueless.
Question: How many amps runs across a typical 95W chip?
Prohint: Likely one order of magnitude higher than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, if you can only measure 500mA and above, I could seriously doubt it's accuracy or usefulness for anything but high energy appliances (the washer, dryer, fridge, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes sorry, I admit my mistake. It was a watt-miser, which shows watts, not amps.
The one I have won't show a measurement under one watt, and a monitor in standby would have been 500mW. Whoops. That's what I get for typing without thinking things through.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
You're trolling, but I have something to contribute.
"You have the right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to use them." ~ © 32016 CaptainDork
RTFS where it says nothing about banning computers in California.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they'll do what was a major flop in Ohio - Emissions Testing, but in this case power use testing. You have to register with the state every piece of computer or computer-related equipment you have, and have to take it once/year to a station somewhere within 20 miles of you to be tested to ensure it meets the legislatively-set guidelines of efficiency. If not, you need to take it to a repair shop where they will correct the problem(s) (read: get you a new machine) and then you have to go back to ha
Re: (Score:2)
Vehicle emission testing is common throughout the US, if you think having clean air is too much of a hassle please keep all those smoking vehicles in Ohio where they belong so your kids can grow up with deficiencies from the exposure to the hazardous emissions.
Better yet, bring back leaded fuel and really show those government thugs that clean air is nothing to worry about and lead poisoning is something to be proud of!
Re: (Score:2)
Vehicle emission testing is common throughout the US, if you think having clean air is too much of a hassle please keep all those smoking vehicles in Ohio where they belong so your kids can grow up with deficiencies from the exposure to the hazardous emissions.
Better yet, bring back leaded fuel and really show those government thugs that clean air is nothing to worry about and lead poisoning is something to be proud of!
You're presumptuously dragging a comparison into a belief statement on my part. You only read the first and last lines. That's why I type things like that - to filter out comments of people who aren't paying attention. Since you were just blabbering and not being an ass, I'm telling you ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comparison was to the "failure" of vehicle emission testing as a government over-reach. You deserve to be ridiculed for such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
You still didn't read all of it. The "emissions test" only served as a tax on the people who can least afford to repair their vehicles, while doing nothing to stop pollution. Think about it this way: anyone with the money to do so will be getting their vehicle repaired as soon as the "service engine soon" light comes on. That light is only off when all systems, including pollution control systems, are functioning normally. If the cost to repair exceeds the value of the vehicle, the well-off person just buys
Re: (Score:2)
Those emissions tests are worthless. They don't actually get high polluting clunkers off the road. They're just another way that enterprising Republicans can make a buck while clueless hippies think something is actually being accomplished.
Re: (Score:1)
The 'clueless hippies' that I knew while in college drove cars like one guy I knew who had a Delta 88. This was in the late 80's and it was a 70's pig car. It even had the 8-Track player. He would boat up to the north woods in it to commune with nature.
Re: (Score:2)
"P.P.S. This is coming from someone living in a house with solar panels w/ microinverters who has saved 84.1 kWh out of 1600 kWh used over three months"
I'm in the middle of the fucking SoCal desert and I don't even hit 1/3 of that monthly. To boot, if your panels and inverters suck that much, your fucking fault for falling for marketing instead of doing the math yourself. You're on this site, so you've got ZERO reason to have not done the math, here.
Re: (Score:1)
Or you could not guess and just read the article. Your guess is wrong. I'm not going to do the work for you. Will the GP will move over desktops costing 14$ more? I won't guess, but his claims don't mean much until he backs up 2 seconds of posting with concrete action.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read the article. It said a) nothing about what the standards actually require, b) nothing about how they will be enforced, c) gives estimates for cost increased/saved from the people responsible for the regulations (so, not likely to be unbiased), and d) actually, now that I look at it, tells me nothing at all besides said estimates (which like most government predictions are almost certainly worth considerably less than the paper they're written on). There's no listing of the standards, no link to t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing ...
Why?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So now not only do I have to leave the state to keep guns I've legally purchased, I have to leave to keep my fucking computer as well?
What sort of a computer do you own? An Itanium? An Alphastation from the 90s? Or an Alienware running the greatest games?
This legislation is meaningless given that computers consume just 3% of home electric bills and since the bulk of them are laptops, they are made as low power as possible to make the batteries last.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. CA has a solution looking for a problem.
Sure, under CA inflated electricity rates you'll save $40 for an additional $14 in hardware. But in other states you'll save $10 but pay $14. Oh, and lets add the additional design, supply chain changes, etc etc for another $10. So it will cost $24 to save $10. Typical SoCal logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. CA has a solution looking for a problem.
Sure, under CA inflated electricity rates you'll save $40 for an additional $14 in hardware. But in other states you'll save $10 but pay $14. Oh, and lets add the additional design, supply chain changes, etc etc for another $10. So it will cost $24 to save $10. Typical SoCal logic.
Almost there. You have to think like a government regulator, though.
The Feds or each State will simply pass a law that raises electricity rates so that everyone saves hundreds or even thousands! You'll be literally *begging* for more energy-efficient PCs! (Because you don't want to freeze come winter!)
Easy-peasy!
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
So now not only do I have to leave the state to keep guns I've legally purchased, I have to leave to keep my fucking computer as well?
I use VMWare for energy efficiency. Sure, that box and the storage NAS use a ton of power. But when you divide by the 15 "computers" it is running, it's super-efficient!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This shit will end under Trump. We should have a return to a more traditional, freedom loving old-school American lifestyle where the government isn't all up your ass about every little thing.
Assuming you have a major account at Goldman-Sachs or similar wealth. For you little guys, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I want my computer to have a diesel generator"
This is already a given if you run nVidia GPU + AMD CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
I left because the cost of living is high, salaries aren't high enough to compensate, you get hammered by both state and feds if you aren't a total bum, and insurance rates were insane.
There's no hope you will ever get out of the rat race.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that like how coal fired electricity plants don't have to meet new emission standards? You know like how they keep them running long past when they would have normally been replaced because no one can afford the fees, taxes, etc. that a more efficient but new plant could have achieved?
It's laws like this that keep us from having nice things.
Why is it that the global warming alarmists keep coming up with more regulations? I think I know the answer, because making new laws is easy but making more efficie
Re: (Score:2)
And then sell a power supply as an easy add on component separately. Every computer wil be sold as a zero energy usage device, problem solved!
Too soon. That comes after three failures over a five year period of mandating and adjusting the allowable limits, throwing people into mass-hysteria. :)
Re: (Score:2)
secession
noun
the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.
"the republics want secession from the union"
succession
noun
1.
a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.
"she had been secretary to a succession of board directors"
synonyms: sequence, series, progression, chain, cycle, round, string, train, line, run, flow, stream
"a succession of exciting events"
2.
the action or process of inheriting a
Re: (Score:1)
Reminds me of the current EPA standards mandating ethanol in gasoline. Tears up small engines, forcing people to re-buy stuff like that. Great for profit, great for the corn lobby, nothing beneficial for the consumer whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the current EPA standards mandating ethanol in gasoline.
Also the earlier standards that (at least in California) mandated MTBE. That rotted out the rubber gas lines in older cars, leading to engine fires. (It also contaminated a lot of ground water - it is very persistent, costly to clean out, and microgram quantities give water a bad taste. This is why it was eventually banned.)
But the engine fires got a lot of older, more polluting, cars off the road (leaving mostly low-income people carl