Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:37:58 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Gregory Sutter <gsutter@zer0.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: processor question Message-ID: <3CA2C856.7CAB35DA@mindspring.com> References: <OE100msHHbbgCzQ50pF00005549@hotmail.com> <3CA248F6.3ACA39B@mindspring.com> <20020328040250.GB507@klapaucius.zer0.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gregory Sutter wrote: > On 2002-03-27 14:34 -0800, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> wrote: > > I always love to see the "Energy Star" logo come up on boot on > > my machines. It means that it took three times as much energy > > to manufacture them as they would have additioanlly used during > > their entire operational life, had they not been "Energy Star" > > -ified. I guess some people just like to pay extra for their > > electricity so that they can pay for it up front. > > Terry, > > Could you explain why Energy Star certified machines take thrice > as much energy to manufacture? I've never heard about that. > Thanks. To make more efficient hardware, you have to use different industrial processes. Among other things, it takes a comparatively much larger amount of water, and the purification process is much more elaborate. Ignoring the amount of additional pollution caused by the need for higher tolerances in processing, and the additional components for things like monitors so they can go into a "hibernate" mode, which takes more energy than if the thing were actually turned off, since the electronics have to monitor for signal suggenly appearing... The point in fact is that it takes more energy to produce an "Energy Star Compliant" piece of hardware than a non-compliant piece of hardware. Now factor in that the operational lifetime of a computer is on the order of two years... then if it takes more energy to make something compliant than it does to make a non-compliant version, AND the difference in energy consumption over the operation lifetime between the two is *less* than the additional amount of energy... it doesn't take a genius to do the math. Computers and home electronics are about a factor of 5 and 3, respectively, and it's taken a lot of work to get to those multipliers... before, they were even worse; the first "Energy Star Ally" products would have to have operational lifetimes on the order of 2 or 3 centuries. It's only *very recently* that we've been able to break even on things like clothes dryers, and the rate of improvement has been slowing exponentially. When you talk about things like refridgerators, washing machines, and other appliances with much longer operational lifetimes, then the energy costs start to put it into the black again. The funny thing is that this whole thing is to try to reduce the overall pollution, but the overall pollution doesn't really go down: it's just visible at the manufacturing time, rather than at consumption time. So it's a net PR win. It's like paper vs. plastic bags in the supermarket: paper in fact does not biodegrade significantly in landiflls, because the microbes necessary to biodegrade double-walled plant cell based material are aerobic, and require air to function (this is why your top soil is only the top few feet, rather than going down a kilometer in some places, as you would expect if all processes could occur equally at any depth). On the other hand, the plastic used in the plastic bags you get at the grocery can be (and are) actively recycled into the plasciscine park and bus benches you see around. Plastic also degrades degrades significantly in sunlight (ever left a black garbage bag of leaves out in the sun for too long a period?)... but of course, so would wood-pulp based paper bags, if some idiot didn't bury them far enough down that normal processes couldn't operate on them. Another incredibly amusing "anti pollution" measure is oxygenated fuels. Any engine manufactured since 1981 has an oxygen sensor, so while oxygenated fuels work on behicles before 1981, they make vehicles after that kick out significantly more ozone, and drop their fuel mileage dsignifcantly, causing then to require more fuel. If you don't believe me, ask the University of Colorado. It's amazing what lemmings people are, isn't it? 8-). -- Terry "Johnny Horizon" Lambert To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CA2C856.7CAB35DA>