Oprah, plug in your toaster. Most appliances don’t use energy when turned off.

2008 January 30

By Andy Kaiser 
Article ID: 122

On April 20, 2007, Oprah had her Earth Day episode, “Going Green 101: Resources for your family”.

This was a show about energy savings and environmental friendliness. It included tips like using washable cloth napkins rather than throwing away paper napkins, and using compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs) rather than incandescents. These are good tips that certainly make sense in the long run for anyone concerned about saving electricity and improving the environment.

However, several minutes were spent on the show talking about something I’d classify as misinformation, or to be more blunt, just plain wrong. This of course happens all the time with any media organization. No one can be expected to be 100% accurate, and when the media gets it wrong, consumers have an obligation to speak out. The alternative leads to shoddy journalism: we get reporting with no fact-checking, or unchecked sensationalist reporting. Making claims for the environment or consumer protection becomes even worse if the facts aren’t even right, since misinformation will only spread.

This article answers the following questions:

Do household appliances use 40% of our electricity costs, even when turned off?

Will changing to incandescent lights save $50 on an electric bill?

How much electricity do household appliances use?

How much money does my appliance cost to operate?

The first two questions were specific issues raised during the show, and are cultural assumptions people spread without any fact checking. The last two questions are often asked when you learn the answers to the first two.

In order to begin answering these questions, I needed two things:

First, I needed to know how much electricity costs. Looking at my latest energy bill was the answer: I’m billed just over nine cents per kilowatt hour. For simplicity, I’ve rounded this up to ten cents per kilowatt hour. It costs me about $0.10 for every 1000 watts running for one hour.

Second, I needed a way to measure the wattage that a particular device uses. My tool of choice was the Kill-O-Watt P4460 Electricity Usage Monitor. This is a small box that you plug into a wall socket. Then you plug a device into the Kill-O-Watt. Then the Kill-O-Watt will tell you, among other things, how many watts are being consumed, and how much money that device costs to power.

With this information, we’re set to address the first question:

Do household appliances use 40% of our electricity costs, even when turned off?

Here’s dialog from the show:

Simran Sethi (an environmental expert):  …what we often have is we’re drawing a lot of energy when we have products plugged in, appliances plugged in but not actually have them on.

Oprah:  We all know that, right? That when the toasters plugged and the coffeemaker’s plugged in, it’s drawing energy even if you’re not using it.

Simran Sethi:  About forty percent of the power even though we’re not using it. So we’re spending all this money to power things that are on in the off position.

Oprah: We did not know that. Isn’t this a big lesson? Okay. This is great. Yeah, I’ve started doing that, unplugging the toaster, because it’s drawing about forty. I didn’t know it was forty percent.

Simran Sethi: We call it vampire standby power.

Oprah: And the TV and all the things that are plugged in are drawing energy.

Simran Sethi:  Exactly.

The case has been stated pretty clearly: Not only are appliances costing us 40% of our electric bill, but many devices use a considerable amount of energy even when turned off. Based on the context of the discussion, they’re talking about small appliances like TVs and toasters, not refrigerators or ovens.

So let’s test. Armed with the Kill-O-Watt, I went around my house and measured the wattage consumption for most of my small appliances, including the ones mentioned above. Click the below links to download in full detail, or read on for the summary.

Power consumption results (PDF)
Power consumption results (JPG)

The result: Small appliances do NOT cost us anywhere near 40% of our electric bill when turned off. The energy cost isn’t even a significant portion of our electric bill. Here’s a screen shot taken from the above documents, showing the wattage when on, off, and associated costs for various appliances:

Power consumption results summary - how much do your home appliances cost?

I also threw in a few devices like a boom box, lights, humidifier, fan, cordless drill and phone chargers, and other electronics I use often.

Notice the numbers in the column labeled “Cost per day when turned off”. This is the daily amount it costs me to leave those devices plugged in and turned off. My total electric cost is $0.15 per day, or $4.50 per month.

The energy bill I used to make this analysis totaled about $75. Forty percent of my bill would be $30. So, to answer the question “Do household appliances still use 40% of our electricity when turned off?” The answer is “No. Not even close.” Most appliances when turned off use zero electricity. And the “vampire standby power” mentioned above is barely noticeable. The moral: Do not worry about power consumption from your small appliances.

Will changing to incandescent lights save $50 on an electric bill?

Here’s the appropriate dialog from the Oprah show. She had this exchange with an audience member when the topic came to compact fluorescent light bulbs, and how they’re an energy savings over incandescent bulbs:

Oprah: You’re nodding, ’cause did you do it? And you noticed the savings in a month?

Audience member: Yes. I love it.

Oprah: How much? Really?

Audience member: Yes, over $50 a month for me here.

Oprah: Over $50 a month on the bill?

Audience member: Yeah, during the wintertime, yes. Yes.

Audience member: But I live in California so that’s a big deal.

Oprah: Okay.

Fifty dollars on an electric bill? That’s a pretty big deal even if you’re not in California!

I’m going to use myself as an example. My family burns lights pretty often. I’d say we do so more than most, due to the configuration of our kitchen: As you can see by the wattage analysis documents above, we have a lot of incandescent lighting (due to many recessed lights in our kitchen). There’s a total of twelve lights burning 725 watts when turned on. If we were to leave those lights on for a full day, it would cost $1.74 per day.

Being very generous with our estimate, let’s say those lights are left on for twelve hours per day, costing $0.87 per day, or $26.10 per month.

Let’s say we converted all those lights to energy-friendly CFL lights. Based on other lights in my house, I’ve used a 30-watt CFL to replace a 150-watt incandescent bulb. Setting up the ratio (725 x 30 / 150), I would need 145 watts of CFL bulbs to replace my 725 watts of incandescents.

145 watts would cost me $0.35 per day, or $10.50 per month.

If I converted twelve incandescent lights to CFL lights, I’d spend $10.50 per month in electric costs versus $26.10. That’s $15.60 a month in savings. Not so bad, but there are a couple of secondary questions:

How much would twelve 30-watt CFL lights cost? Estimate $8 each, or $96 total.

Have I saved the quoted $50 per month on my electric bill? No. I’ve saved $15.60 per month at a cost of $96. The investment will start paying for itself in about 7 months, assuming you replace 12 bulbs that you run 12 hours per day.

How much electricity do household appliances use?

Not as much as you think. Or, put another way, even those high-wattage devices (in my case the toaster oven, microwave, kitchen lights and humidifier) only use electricity when turned on. And when they’re turned on, the cost to me is still just pennies per hour. Even when I use my most electrically expensive device – the toaster oven – the electric cost is just $0.27 per hour.

How much money does my appliance cost to operate?

In order to find this answer, you need to know the following:

1) What does your electric company charge you per kilowatt hour? This information will be on your latest electric bill. The easiest way is to take your total bill amount and divide by the number of kilowatt hours you were billed for. Then divide that number by 1000. In my case, this was just over $0.09 per KWH.

2) How many watts does your device use when plugged in? Often this is printed on the device itself. If it’s not, you can use a wattage measuring device like the Kill-O-Watt.

Once you have this information, take your device wattage, multiply it by 24, divide by 1000, and multiply by the KWH charge from your electric company.

If you’d rather not do the math by hand, then use this energy cost calculator to determine your wattage cost.

Conclusion

I’m picking on Oprah because of her reach and the amount of people in her worldwide audience. If anyone’s heard about this issue of appliances sucking up energy when turned off, it’s a good chance they’ve heard Oprah referenced with it, or learned it from her “Green 101” show. I actually like Oprah a lot. She does a lot of good for people who need help, and the world is much better off with her in it. But there have been cases where she doesn’t think critically or skeptically about certain issues, or doesn’t have time or opportunity to critically analyze claims in a live show. This is one of those times.

So what CAN we do to save electricity?

1) In my experience, with the equipment in my house, unplugging a toaster isn’t any help. Focus instead on the big things: Heating and cooling. These are the heavy power users (whether electric or gas), and are costing you the most money.

2) On a smaller scale, light bulb conversion from incandescent to CFL is a good thing. It’s not as impressive as claimed on the Oprah show (as least not for this self-proclaimed above-average electric user), but does make an eventual difference. If you’re willing to pay a chunk of money up front, you will see a savings. (Just make sure you settle on a good CFL bulb before you purchase twenty more!)

Saving electricity is good. We shouldn’t be wasteful. I don’t have a problem with that. My issue is when people make incorrect claims to support a point. In a worst case, they’re lying with “the end justifies the means” reasoning. In a best case, they’re telling people to do something that’s either not necessary or a waste of time, effort and money. At the very least, it’s bad journalism.

As a great musician once sang, “everything you know is wrong”. That’s not completely true, but it’s a good start: if you make a claim, be able to back it up.



Other articles related to this topic:

29 Comments leave one →
2008 February 1
Erasmus permalink

If you count what amount is saved per day, just on switching off your appliances on standby in the whole of the US, it adds up to $7 500 000. At 10 cents per KWH it adds up to 750 000KWH saved per day. If you look at it in this way rather than on the small scale you are doing in this article it is actually worth switching off these appliances!

Then the changing of light bulbs, it does initially cost a hell of a lot of money, but these bulbs often come with a ten year guarantee and if you look at the saving over a ten year period, it adds up nicely; $1872 to be precise. Then if you do this calculation on a bigger scale again it adds up to $93 600 000 000 saved over the ten year period. 9 360 000 000KWH, in my book, is a lot of coal burning saved!

2008 April 2
Edgar permalink

I did exactly the same thing as you right after hearing about Oprah’s claim and made my own data chart with twenty of my appliances. Good job.

However, the 40% could be true if we’re calculating:
(total power usage of all appliances while plugged in and turned off) / (total power usage).

Of course, this isn’t what Oprah said and she is incredibly wrong in her claim.

2008 April 3

Thanks, Edgar.

Yes, Oprah’s show specifically claimed small appliances are the cause for this “vampire power”.

While I’m not even sure the 40% would be achieved by big appliances, that was not the focus of my experiment.

2008 April 20

Evidence are always preferable to beliefs… Something Oprah needs to focus on more…

2008 April 27
Deuce permalink

I assume your microwave has a clock on it. If so, how is it possible that it draws zero watts when turned off (i.e. not cooking)?
How long was each device plugged into the Kill-O-Watt?
I find it hard to believe that your whole entertainment center including your TV draws only 85watts. TVs (even LCDs) draw around 125-300watts alone not including cable box, amp, sound surround, DVD. Would you considering revising or explaining the details of your assumingly average entertainment center. Thx.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html

An important outcome of these types of discussions is to get people thinking about issues that they never considered before. Especially with environmental issues that may take changing peoples living habits to have a positive effect. But why oh why do they have to talk bungus like unplugging the toaster (etc) will save tons of electricity? Maybe it makes more sense to talk about why the industry doesn’t lower the consumption on standby items like TVs, cable boxes, DVDs which are the worst offenders generally. Or why so many office buildings leave all the lights on over night. Lets educate smartly with facts not with TV talk show half truths.

Reference study.
http://standby.lbl.gov/data.html

2008 April 29

Hi Deuce,

Andy Kaiser here, the author of this article.

If so, how is it possible that it draws zero watts when turned off (i.e. not cooking)?

Because the power requirements were below the ability of the Kill-O-Watt to measure. Being in a low milliwatt range, this means the cost we’re measuring is fractions of a penny per day. I thought that was close enough to zero cost to just record it as zero.

How long was each device plugged into the Kill-O-Watt?

No more than a couple minutes for most of the devices. The Kill-O-Watt has the cool feature where, if you leave a device plugged into it for a length of time, it’ll tell you how much money that device is costing you. Or, you just use the Kill-O-Watt to get the wattage used, and do the math yourself. Same results, but faster. That’s what I did.

I find it hard to believe that your whole entertainment center including your TV draws only 85watts.

So did I. It’s good that you caught this - I’m surprised no one else did. I remember thinking that it would be a lot higher - certainly in the several hundred watt range. But it wasn’t. And I even tried to bump up the wattage: I cranked the volume. I played DVDs. Turned on the Nintendo …And I got 85 watts. My box fan uses more wattage when turned on “high”. Weird, but true.

If you still find it hard to believe, that’s okay: I designed this test so you don’t have to believe me - you can perform the same measurements yourself and get very similar results. That’s one goal of a good scientific test, right? Make it repeatable and testable by unrelated parties. I believe I’ve done that.

Lets educate smartly with facts not with TV talk show half truths.

I’m with you there.

2008 May 2
Steven permalink

Hi Andy,

We now know that even though we turn off the appliances, they are still drawing some electricity if plug in.

Does this still apply if the switch on the wall socket is turned off as well?

2008 May 2

they are still drawing some electricity if plug in.

Yes, this is true, in most cases. But as the detail above shows, the amount of power draw in most all cases is very, very small.

Does this still apply if the switch on the wall socket is turned off as well?

It depends on what that wall switch does. If that wall switch cuts all power to a wall outlet, then anything plugged into that outlet when the switch is off will draw no current and add nothing to your electric bill.

2008 May 10

Your “great musician” was merely echoing the wisdom of four of America’s greatest philosophers.

2008 May 21
Samwise permalink

Mate, think about the environment. It’s not all about the money. I would like to see you leaving your TV on when all the finite energy sources have depleted. Plus you need to consider the larger scale of things, if everybody becomes energy efficient and turns off all unused appliances vast savings in use of electricity can be made which can equate to vast carbon dioxide reductions.SAving 9,360,000,000 kWh as quoted by Erasmus can make savings of 4,895,280 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Now that is a lot, so don’t mock, get off your high horse and turn some of your electrical equipment off.

2008 July 1
Amber permalink

I understand that the amount of “vampire power” is indeed very very small, as you put it, but that’s just ONE household…now multiply that by hundreds of millions of households in the USA alone, not including other countries. We are still sucking a lot of power for things we aren’t even using all the time. Regardless of how much money one person saves or doesn’t save, the total amount of wasted enery for the nation and the total POLLUTION because of that wasted energy is unacceptable in my book.

2008 July 1
Amber permalink

ps and I agree 100% with Samwise. “I would like to see you leaving you TV on when all the finite energy sources have depleted.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

2008 July 8
Diana permalink

Talk about skepticism… It is virtually impossible to dispute manufacturer power usage info. on the flat-screen TV specifications listed in the above-referenced CNET reviews or, for that matter, in the user manual for various home theater components. A home entertainment center that uses less wattage than a light bulb just doesn’t seem right unless said home entertainment center consists of a boom-box style receiver paired to a small TV without satellite or cable box, no powered sub, and without separate VCR, Digital Recorder, Tape Deck or Record Player (some people still have all of the above) . If your home theater consists of two or three components (besides the TV), it *might* use very little power. If there are more than two or three components, however, I would suspect a faulty Kill-O-Watt power consumption reading. (Maybe it’s defective?)

In order for your readers to draw any applicability to their own situation, it would help to specify what you mean by home theater. For example, are you talking about one of those home theater packages that come with the tiny satellite speakers or are you referring to 4 tower-style speakers for a pro-logic system, or are you talking about a self-assembled 5.1 or 7.1 system (not to be confused with the all-in-one packages with the mini speakers)? You see, “Home theater” can mean a lot of things to a lot of people — from a $199 JVC or Sony to a genuine high current amp built by Harman/Kardon, McIntosh or similar. Moreover, some people may own a separate VCR, DVD player and CD changer, whereas another person might have an all-in-one VCR/DVD/CD/Recorder. That’s one digital LCD vs. three or four separate ones. Others have the DVD player built into the TV set. The variations are so innumerable that it is hard to define “average” in this instance. So why not specify exactly how many devices your home theater consists of?

2008 July 9

Hi Diana,

So why not specify exactly how many devices your home theater consists of?

I did: see the links above my chart - the JPG and PDF files have a little more detail. (I tried, but couldn’t make this information easily fit on a web page without horizontal scrolling, so made the extended info available as a separate link.) My system consists of a TV (a CRT), 2 DVD Players, and a Nintendo N64. No other components (no satellite/cable box or powered speakers/sub, for example). When I measured the wattage, the TV was on and one DVD player was playing. The other DVD player was on, but not playing. The N64 was turned on.

My idea of “home theater” is pretty minimal. :)

I would suspect a faulty Kill-O-Watt power consumption reading. (Maybe it’s defective?)

Perhaps, but based on the results from everything else I tested, I would argue this is not the case.

2008 October 24
Rex permalink

You are dead wrong on the toaster - mine is pulling .24 amps sitting their 24*7 *365 days a year. In Illinois the bottom line 1000 watt per hour charge is 12.5.

This equates to 183,341 watts - kilowatts are 183.341 times - annual lost money is $22.92. If 100,000,000 toaster are doing this over the year that equates to 2,292,000,000 dollars per year.

Over two years that enough to buy 100% of the common stock of General Motors and have over a billion left over.

2008 October 24

Hi Rex,

You are dead wrong on the toaster

No, I’m dead wrong on *your* toaster. If it’s possible to find this information, what kind (or model) of toaster do you have?

My measurements were of course on my equipment. I’d be very interested to see what devices actually have “vampire power”.

Andy

2009 January 8
jeeves permalink

I’m just wondering… where did you get a microwave that consumes no power when not being used? Don’t most modern microwaves have a clock display that requires power to function? Also, how does a clock radio consume no power? The same would apply for this as well. Another thing… unless your coffee maker is some cheap $1.99 walmart piece of crap, its probably going to have an automatic brew setting which would require a clock on board to know when to start the brewing and said clock would in fact use power when the coffee maker itself is not in use. As for the cell chargers and baby monitors… how do those consume no power even when being used? That is plain wrong. Baby monitors and cell phones require the power to be converted to DC for them to function and charge respectively. This conversion does in fact use electricity and its more than you would imagine for no more than what its doing. Did you stop to think for a minute that your handy little gadget can’t pick up the DC current being used by those devices? Your little story has all kinds of holes in it, and you think you have the right to criticize someone else for not having their facts straight?

2009 January 8

Hi jeeves,

I’ve already addressed the answers to all your points in an earlier comment - go here for detail.

As for the specific points you raised:

- my coffeemaker has no automatic brew setting. Just an on/off switch.
- from your comment, “This conversion does in fact use electricity and its more than you would imagine for no more than what its doing“… That’s what I originally thought too, but it’s not. The power requirements for those devices are very close to zero.
- from your comment, “Did you stop to think for a minute that your handy little gadget can’t pick up the DC current being used by those devices?” … The devices you mention have an AC plug, and the DC conversion happens later. I measured from the point of the plug to get the true AC draw (and electric cost per watt).

Your little story has all kinds of holes in it, and you think you have the right to criticize someone else for not having their facts straight?

Please let me know your thoughts on what I said, and where you think the remaining holes are.

Thanks,

Andy

2009 February 4
Chantelle permalink

Great article! When I saw the Oprah episode I was very skeptical about the viewers claim that her electricity bill plummeted when she unplugged her appliances. Thanks for doing the leg work I thought it was too good to be true.

2009 February 26
Renee permalink

I personally was very interested in your article! It was very well done & you were just trying to prove a point. People need to get off their high horses & quit making a huge deal out of an EXPERIMENT! Oprah was wrong to say what she did, & that’s that! The producer’s should have caught it before it went to air but they didn’t! Get over it & take the experiment as an experiment! If you don’t like Andy’s answers then do your own experiment & get over yourself. I hate when people think they know everything & they are rude to other’s thoughts! Anyways! Thank you for doing this experiment & for showing us your houses reality. I’m sure it’s the same for some & different for others, but it seems for the most part pretty accurate! so thanks again!!

2009 February 26

Thanks for the support, Renee.

And I also thought about criticism before I even ran the test itself - I designed the experiment so that it can be replicated by anyone! Any criticism is fine, but if someone really doubts anything that I said, they can run the same experiment themselves to validate my results.

Andy

2009 March 1
Mark permalink

Andy,

I think you are a very bright man. You just prove what I often suspect, that people are talking out of their asses, being gullible and not using the scientific method of testing, testing , testing to verify claims. I was researching the “phantom energy” concept because my landlord includes free electric in my rent and he asked me to unplug all my electronics at night. I wanted to run my own tests and figured I needed to get some meter that measures electrical draw from idv electronics. Then I came upon your site and wah lah just what I needed to see, someone with a brain. Thanks. The only hole I can find is that is if that inexpensive meter you used ($41 on Amazon) is not accurate. Is there a way to calibrate it with something considered reference to verify its accuracy? Or did you just see if it matched watt usage listed on appliances.
Maybe it is less accurate in the lower ranges.

2009 March 1

Thanks for the kind words, Mark.

>Is there a way to calibrate it with something considered reference to verify its accuracy? Or did you just see if it matched watt usage listed on appliances.

Yes, this is exactly what I did. I was able to verify it on enough devices (I forget the detail, perhaps 10), that I was confident it was calibrated well enough to give accurate readings for this test. It’s accurate enough that I discovered that some devices are very stable in their power draw (like light bulbs and laptop computers), while others have more of a fluctuating wattage draw (like toasters and space heaters). However, the behavior of the Kill-A-Watt was consistent enough that I didn’t question the calibration.

Andy

2009 April 17
Alexandre permalink

. You are just awesome Andy. I read the whole article and all the comments, and I really like the way you think and explain the facts to everyone. You are a rare breed; a great scientific mind. I hope you are a teacher or a researcher or something along those lines.

. For all of those who criticise all his hard work right off the bat: I am a very sceptic and paranoid person myself, and I trust rarely anything before I test it. But I do trust in work well done, and responses to arguments. If a person like Andy goes through all this work and all this time to come up with an article that includes a table and everything (and probably not paid to write it), he’s probably not talking out of his hat. I agree that anyone could make mistakes, but he even takes the time and effort to write all you can do with the “Kill A Watt” to verify it yourself. And if you’re not happy, try it with another device of your choice; I’m pretty sure you’ll have the same result.

. On a last note, this really makes me want to buy a device too and test a lot of stuff in my house. I must say that the most interesting part is the fact that a microwave’s clock LEDs or stuff like that takes so minimal power. I was once arguing with my father over the fact that how much a device’s orange low power mode LED would take up in power. It’s probably extremely minimal if it’s only the LED that takes up power.

Thanks for the article!

2009 April 18

Alexandre,

Thank you very much! Nice to know my effort is appreciated.

I hope you are a teacher or a researcher or something along those lines.

Nope, sorry: I’m just a guy.

(and probably not paid to write it)

Correct. DBSkeptic operates at a loss, and while I pay all the other writers, I don’t pay myself any money when I write articles. This is why I hope fans will support the site. This will help ensure the site will stay alive and articles like this will continue to be written.

And if you’re not happy, try it with another device of your choice; I’m pretty sure you’ll have the same result.

You got it. Tests like these, claims like I made, claims that Oprah’s guest made - these are all worthless unless you have evidence and repeatable proof for others to analyze. Hopefully my efforts here have met those requirements.

Andy

2009 April 22
Victoria Schwartz permalink

Very interesting article; I had heard the myths about unplugging your blender, toaster, etc. Even though I know very little about how things work, it didn’t make sense to me that they would draw electricity just because they were plugged in. Where would the electricity go? You’ve put my mind at rest.
One note about saving money that was somewhat outside the scope of your article. I live in Atlanta, where we have “air-conditioning weather” at least 6 months out of the year. When I replaced our incandescents with CFL bulbs, the decision was largely based on how much cooler CFLs are than incandescents. We also changed to LED monitors for our computers primarily because in the summer our home office (with 2 computers) was unbearably hot. The LED screens and CFL bulbs keep our home cooler and cut our air-conditioning costs. This is in addition to the direct savings you mention in the article.

2009 July 2
Wednesday3577 permalink

Do I understand that the use of a lamp or a simple toaster (no lights or timer) left plugged-in is zero use of power?
Reducing energy usage may not lead to $avings for us. The utility companies may charge us more to make up the difference when we cut down on our power usage, as DWP did in CA when we cut our water usage lower than expected last drought.

The equation I don’t understand, rarely addressed, is Global Swarming. How can families having 4, 6, 8, 10… children expect to reduce the use of resources and on a national scale the large immigration to the US. In California we are being told to reduce our use of power and water, near me large condo complexes are being built… because “all the people who are coming here need homes”. Having them unplug their toasters does not seem to me sufficient to balance our population growth. Typical of the media to focus on the wrong side of the problem. Sound bites.

2009 July 2

Wednesday3577,

>Do I understand that the use of a lamp or a simple toaster (no lights or timer)
> left plugged-in is zero use of power?

In my experience, yes.

>Reducing energy usage may not lead to $avings for us.
> The utility companies may charge us more to make up the
>difference when we cut down on our power usage,

This may of course be true, but was not the point of the original article. The original article was about the existence (or not) of “vampire power”, and how much it truly costs the consumer.

>How can families having 4, 6, 8, 10… children expect
> to reduce the use of resources and on a national scale the large immigration to the US.

Interesting point! If a country is getting massive immigration (or growing in any number of other ways), what does that do to an over-taxed power grid?

I think one of the answers is personal responsibility - cut down on your power use. The other part of that, though, requires cooperation with companies and lawmakers with the ability to influence the industry itself. Focusing on individual performance is not enough. We need more power. If that means to build more power plants, then we do that. If that means to eradicate “dirtier” technologies in favor of more efficient, “cleaner” technology, we do that too.

It’s a complex problem, compounded by the point that a fix will never be fast. Changing an industry - even a willing one - takes a long time.

Andy

2009 July 3
dbacon permalink

Andy,

Thank you for your efforts to raise the technical competence of the public. This is a big problem, technical considerations are replaced by heresay and misinformation.

One of my favorite experts, a metallurgist working for GM, wore a button on his shirt that said “Show me your data”. That cuts through the unsupported ideas that get promoted in the masses.

Think of an equal sign, with savings on one side, cost on the other.
Unplugging saves a few dollars, replacing worn out receptacle costs more, this fails to save!

Multiplying the pennies you save, while ignoring the costs you incur does not make it more economical. That’s why the equal sign is there.

I have seen people make it all the way through our educational system and still not realize we are governed by basic principles. If this is not your strong point, stay out of science, become an actor, or a politician, or a news reporter… (Wait a minute…is that our problem?)

Justifying hopeful actions in the name of a bigger cause, such as “saving the environment” seems wonderful. You may even get a Nobel Peace Prize for your efforts to save the environment by eliminating carbon dioxide. But what about when we realize the Earth is cooling, not warming? Oops, we needed that carbon, can we get it back?

Luckily the impact is small so we can get rich from addressing fear with our unscientific actions, hopefully we don’t trash the world too much. What I am concerned about is when we get better at these scams, what if we actually affected something?

So hang in there Andy, we need all the technical minds we can get, even though scamming is a more attractive profession. If I were in charge, I would appoint “Technical Czars” to major activities, along with continuous improvement of the “Czars” knowledge of his activity.

Keep up the good work, we haven’t lost yet! Mother Nature is on our side.

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published. If your comment contains more than two links, the comment will be held until an admin manually approves it.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS