I learned some interesting things about cable TV and home energy consumption, with the help of my handy kill-a-watt monitor. I tested each of my components for how much power they consume in standby mode. For the most part, there was no cause for alarm. However, one exception stands out, and it’s a big one. For my first nomination into the Energy PIG Hall of Shame, along with ideas on how to cut the fat, read on.
Most components don’t drink much juice when they’re on standby mode. Good energy consumption consumer electronics citizens include my Samsung HD LCD TV at 1 watt, our PS2 Playstation at 1 watt, our Samsung DVD player – a little worse at 2 watts, and a “vintage” Toshiba VCR weighing in at a more rotund 6 watts. My simple solution for the VCR is to unplug it. Not a problem, since it’s rarely used.
Moving right along, my first BIG PIG award goes to Motorola for their Cable TV Digital Video Recorder – Model DCT 3416 to be exact – that manages to consume 28 watts when it’s on or off. That’s right, you read correctly, The Motorola DCT 3416 Digital Cable Set Top Box actually consumes 28 watts when it’s “off”. Here’s a picture of this rather innocent looking culprit. At 8,760 hours per year, this works out to a nasty 245 kilowatt hours (KwH). In our locale, electricity costs 20.7 cents per hour (transmission plus generation – we’re NStar customers in metro Boston). This works out to around $50.75 per year. Ironically, this is more than we pay RCN to rent the DVR.

Motorola's DVR - a true energy pig
Now as a family, we only watch about 15 hours of television per week. This works out to roughly 10 percent of the time. Hidden electricity waste amounts to $45.70 per year. The simple solution is to unplug the DVR when it’s not in use. Unfortunately, we have a variety of scheduled programs, cast erratically across the week at a variety of times and days. My kids will be none too happy if the latest episode of Monk is missing. Likewise, I don’t want to miss The Office, my favorite management leadership training program. The plot thickens.
I could use a mechanical timer, but the basic one I have is limited to standard, on-off dial. Setting it to turn on at 7 p.m. and off at 11 p.m. might work for weekdays, but it doesn’t work during weekends, when the boys start their day with Sports Center.
Before you accuse me of being a fanatic, indulge me as I look at the macro economic and climate implications of this smart consumer electronics/dumb electricity consumer device….
First, we need to populate our model by gathering some facts and making a few assumptions. Then we can make some estimates for aggregate electricity waste and needless greenhouse gas emissions.
Fact questions: How many people in the US have cable television? How many have HDTV?
Assumption questions: How many have Motorola set-top DVR boxes? What’s the average idle time for these units? What percentage of the population leaves them “off” (not unplugged) out of ignorance about their energy use?
Estimates: How much power is being wasted? And finally, how many power plants does this represent and what’s the carbon footprint of this seemingly inocuous little 28 watt electricity gremlin?
For all you trivia buffs, according to Nielsen, as of November, 2008, 23.3% of US households owned HDTV. As of 2000, the US Census Bureau estimated 105 million households in the US. Let’s assume that the Motorola DCT line and all Motorola DVR units prior to this model have the same power consumption problem. Let’s also assume for a moment (for illustrative purposes) that the Motorola DCT Electricity Gremlin line has a 10% market share. Here are some estimates based on our facts and assumptions:
105 million (households) x 23.3% (HDTV penetration) = 24,465,000 HDTV households. Based on our 10% “dumb” Motorola device assumption, that’s around 2.4 million Motorola DVRs in service. Let’s also assume for a moment, that the average amount of time those DVR’s are used is 20%, and that they’re idle 80% of the time. Let’s also assume that 90% of the people with these units turn them “off,” but don’t unplug them. More quick math:
2.4 million (households) x 8,760 hours (in a year) x 80% (idle time) x 28 watts (phantom consumption) = 471,000 KwH or 471 MwH.
At 20.7 cents per KwH, that works out to around $97 million.
But how much CO2 is this? According to a post in Triple Pundit:
Electricity production from all sources in the US average 3 pounds of NOx [nitrous di-oxides] per MWh, 6 pounds of SOx [sulfur di-oxides, which together with NOx form acid rain] per MWh, and 1,515 pounds of CO2 per MWh (delivered). For coal the emissions factor is around 2,000 lbs per MWh.
Or in our case; 1,515 pounds CO2 x 471 MwH works out to 713,565 pounds of CO2.
Clearly, we need standards, regulation and full disclosure here. These devices should be recalled and replaced with devices with the intelligence to stop using power unless they are in record mode, or “on” for viewing. End of story. There needs to be a certification process as well.
This ball lands squarely in the government court. There is a need for regulation. We need to cut the fat. It shouldn’t be optional, it should be a requirement.
Sorry Motorola, you blew it. Wake up.
Stay tuned for more Kill-a-Watt Chronicles
9 Jul
Gigaton Throwdown Podium: Gold – Building Efficiency, Silver – Biofuels, Bronze – Construction Materials
Posted by Chet Geschickter in biofuels, commentary. Tagged: biofuels, climate change, efficiency, funding, geothermal, GHG, solar, wiind. Leave a Comment
A new report issued by the non-profit Gigaton Throwdown provides a sector by sector look at renewable energy and its potential impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. The big hairy audacious goal is to identify what it would take for each of the key sectors of cleantech to achieve a 1 gigaton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Gigaton Throwdown Report - A Comprehensive Cleantech Study
So what’s a gigaton? Just like it sounds, 1 billion tons – of CO2.
To attain gigaton scale, a single technology must reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent
greenhouse gases (CO2e) by at least 1 billion metric tons — a gigaton — by 2020. For an electricity
generation technology, this is equivalent to an installed capacity of 205 gigawatts (GW) of carbon-free
energy (at 100% capacity) in 2020.
I found the comparative levels of investment in different cleantech technologies needed to achieve the 1 gigaton target very illuminating. Instead of ROI, we could call it ROCI (return on carbon investment). Here is the rank-ordered scorecard for the different sectors. Sectors requiring the least investment deliver the biggest bang (or reduction in carbon emissions) for the buck, so they rank highest:
1. Building Efficiency: $61 billion. This makes a lot of sense. Buildings represent the single largest consumers of energy (around 40%). Most buildings are energy sieves, they account for the vast majority of electricity use, and a significant portion of electricity production is from nasty coal-fired plants.
2. Biofuels: $383 billion. The fact that biofuels ranks second comes as a bit of a surprise to me – albeit a pleasant one given that I am now a principal in a biofuels consulting group called Biomass Advisors. Biofuels have been under a bit of attack lately, both in terms of economics and with the whole indirect land use charge (ILUC) controversy. Fortunately, the recent climate bill compromise has deferred any application of ILUC penalties on biofuels for the next five years. The report uses 150 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol as a benchmark for a gigaton of CO2. The report also points out that, in the case of switchgrass, if electricity cogeneration is included the amount needed to achieve a 1 billion ton reduction in CO2 drops to 76 billion gallons of fuel.
3. Construction Materials: $445 billion. The report estimates worldwide emissions from construction material manufacture at 4 to 4.5 gigatons per year. It cites an example of halving CO2 emissions from concrete by substituting low carbon concrete for half the worldwide production of portland cement. Other practices touted in the report include:
Bio-composites happen to be closely related to the biofuels process. Producing polymers and other materials from biomass is simply another form of carbon manipulation to create more complex carbon chains instead of, or as an adjunct to, biofuels or biogas.
From here, the numbers get a little dicey.
4. Geothermal: $919 billion. The report calls for Enhanced Geothermal (EGS) systems: “in which heat is extracted from the earth by injecting fluid into an artificially created, hydraulically fractured reservoir that attempts to replicate natural hydrothermal conditions.” The report estimates that “An increase of approximately 238 gigawatts (GW) of geothermal electricity capacity over today’s installed base of 10 GW would reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton per year.” It goes on to estimate the cost per Kw installed at $3,900. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal can generate steady power output; making it a viable future source for base load.
5. Nuclear: $1.27 trillion. According to the report, it will take “Approximately 250 new GW-scale nuclear plants would be required by 2020 – a 67% increase in the current nuclear base – to reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton annually.” Note that, unlike geothermal or biofuels, there is little in the way of speculation on emerging renewable energy technologies in the nuclear scenario. Nuclear plants are proven – as long as you’re okay with large-scale creation of radioactive waste – plus, they also generate valuable “base load” or power that is always available, whereas wind and solar depend on climate conditions so they are variable.
6. Wind: $1.38 trillion. Hmm. Sounds like a lot of money. However, the report goes on to make assumptions about improvements in the technology that could bring the figure closer to a cool $827 billion. It goes on to point out that wind could reach the gigaton reduction mark by 2020 handily, even if recent growth rates of 28% per year in installed capacity slow to 14% per year over the next decade.
7. Solar Photovoltaics: $2.1 trillion. The ROCI from solar panels is more than a little abysmal – according to the report. However, unlike it’s concentrating solar brethern below, solar PV is already reaching a critical mass and, with the amount of subsidies in place around the world, poised to grow further. Current installed capacity is estimated at 14 gigawatts.
8. Concentrating Solar Power: $2.24 trillion. The numbers and the assumptions are getting a little (strike that – a lot) more speculative on this one; as worldwide installed capacity would need to go from 502 megawatts today to 492 gigawatts – almost a 1,000 fold increase – over the next decade. I don’t see $2.24 trillion being poured into deserts with no water to generate solar thermal electricity anytime soon. Will more capacity come online with this hot new technology (pun intended)? Sure, but the gigaton bogey seems like a bridge too far.
Here are my simple takeaways in layman’s terms:
First, we need to fix the leaky energy sieves we call buildings – the sooner the better. This, more than anything else – is the quickest way to turn down the planetary stove we’ve created with this sloppy little socio economic thing we call industrialization. Second, as far as renewable energy goes, either the report is way off, or the collective “wisdom of crowds” is quite ignorant. I say this because the level of investment and interest in renewable energy technologies is, approximately, upside down. It appears that the most money is going into the renewable technologies with the worst payback in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. At face value, this report indicates that we are better off investing in biofuel technology and capacity than we are with almost any other renewable energy source.
Gotta go. Gotta biofuels consultancy to help start up.
cg