Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

November 19, 2008 -

My wife already thinks that I waste too much time on video games. Wait until she finds out that I'm wasting energy, too.

A new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council maintains that game consoles can significantly add to consumers' electric bills. In fact, across the United States, consoles consume as much juice in a year as the combined total of residential electricity users in San Diego.

The solution? One piece of the puzzle is not to leave your system on when you're done playing. NRDC Senior Scientist Noah Horowitz commented:

If you leave your Xbox 360 or Sony Play Station 3 on all the time, you can cut your electric bill by as much as $100 a year simply by turning it off when you are finished playing. With so many struggling in today’s economy – it’s important to realize there are simple steps gamers can take to lower their energy costs. And if manufacturers make future systems more energy efficient, they’ll be doing the right thing for consumers’ pockets, for our clean energy future, and for the environment.

Among the big three, the PlayStation 3 is the energy hog of the bunch, consuming 150 watts per hour in active mode. The Xbox 360 isn't far behind, at 119. The Nintendo Wii, on the other hand, is the console of choice for the conservation-minded, drawing just 16 watts in active mode.

The NRDC claims that a combination of more efficient console hardware and educating gamers to use power-saving features currently built into the 360 and later PS3 models would save consumers a billion dollars a year and cut down on the type of pollution that leads to global warming.

Other goodies from the must-read report:

  • watching a movie on your PS3 consumers 5 times the power of using a stand-alone Blu-Ray player
  • average annual energy cost for a launch model (2006) PS3 user is $160
  • the 2007 PS3 is more efficient: annual cost is $134
  • For launch (2006) Xbox 360 users, it's $143; drops to $103 for 2007 models (GP: less RROD as well!!)
  • it costs $10 per year to operate a Wii
  • the game industry and game media should encourage console owners to use auto power-down features built into the 360 and PS3
  • the next hardware generation should be more efficient and have auto-power down
  • an auto-save feature should preserve game progress when the system auto-powers down
  • controllers should have a "sleep" button

Grab the full report here.


Comments

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Read 3a-c from your own post.  When discussing human race, these are the definitions used.  You're using symbolic or less used definitions of your words to try and prove your point.  From your original statements no one would have drawn the same conclusion as you without having to make large leaps in logic.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 The definition is not a sum of its parts, but an itemized list basd on situational use. You going to fix the English language or accept the fact that hatred of any visible subdivision of humanity is racist?

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"of any visible subdivision of humanity"

Ah, and there's the kicker.  So it's a visible subdivision that marks race then?  Then tell me, how can, upon looking at a person, tell if he's Russian?  Don't know about you, but I'd simply thing "damn, that guy's white" and not "damn, that guy is Russian."  You're contradicting yourself here.  You first said that Russian was a race, and now you're saying that it's a visible subdivision of humanity that classifies as a race.  Well...there's no visible subdivision between russians or Poles or Nords, or any other "white" people, so you're contradicting yourself here. 

In this post of yours, you're arguing the same thing I am, so welcome to the club.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Seriously, just stop. You got nothing, nothing at all. Its painful to see you thrash around like this looking for a lifeline.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.

Russian isn't a race, anymore than french is a race.  You keep on proving your ignorance though.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Damn it all, I have to hold your hand for this to.

 

rac⋅ism

Racism[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
 

–noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

 

  And now the ender:

race

Race (2)[reys] Show IPA Pronunciation
 

–noun
1.a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2.a population so related.
3.Anthropology.
a.any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b.an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c.a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4.a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5.any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6.the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7.Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8.a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9.any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10.the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.

 To bring it all together, your hatred of the Russian people, who are in and of themselves a people united by a common history, language or cultural trait (see Race, item 5.), is therefore racist based on the aforementioned definition of racism (see Racism, item 1.).

Sources:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"Now, for comparison, lets compare this to Coal power emissions.  These emissions include tons of carbon and nitrous waste into the air every year.  Because it's not a "nuclear" power plant, there is no steps to prevent radiation contamination to the neighboring environments.  However, coal contains within it trace amounts of radioactive materials.  These do not burn in the combustion cycle and are collected into the ash.  This ash is then spread about to the neighboring areas.  This article explains it in more detail than I wish to do so here:"

 McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

 An exert from your article, which I found in a 30 second skim through on the first page. 1.9 mRem due to fly ash vs. 360 mRem due to background radiation. No need for further discussion.

 

"But the base readout is...Coal ash is 100 times more radioactive then spent fuel rods.  With no measures really put in place to stop this (and any measure that is put in place won't do well to get rid of the radioactive materials as they're non combustable at the temperatures experienced in a coal plant), it makes it so that the background radiation 10 miles away from a coal plant is higher than the background radiation right up against the outer wall of the reactor."

 I should hope that the outside of the reactor has low rads, lol, or there would be some real trouble on the horizon. See about for the rebuttal to the coal ash arguement.

"To say that it is cleaner, you have to compare it to other forms of energy.  I already did that with coal.  Natural gas you burn carbon with oxygen, thus creating CO, CO2, and H2O, so even that's not clean.  So called renewable sources of energy also have their faults.  Mining for minerals found in Solar Cells and batteries kill the earth around the mines forever from nickel contamination (lunar landing and based equipment was tested near nickel mines, as the landscape resembled what they felt was on the moon, and they later realized that it was damn near identical)."

 This is probably one of the few statements I don't disagree with, all energy sources have their problems. There are however degrees of urgency, and the topic at hand (nuclear energy) is fairly high on this scale. Comparitively, fossil fuel plants are beneath it in terms of overall impact.

"So yes, nuclear power is cleaner."

 334 generations cleaner, I suspect.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

CLEANER:

"10,000 to 1,000,000 years?  Hyperbole much?  With current operating nuclear power plants, spent rods require 10,000 years to become fully safe to the public.  This is to say, after 10,000 years, it will lose all of its radiation.  However, what everyone fails to mention is that radiation falls off exponentially.  Try this:  get a graphing calculator or program and plot "1/x" and see where it starts looking like zero.  The answer is pretty damn soon.  The same is true for nuclear waste (though to be honest, it's not exactly of the function of "1/x").  After 40 years, nuclear waste has lost 99.9% of its highest radiation levels, which are found right after they're taken out of the reactor.  By this point, it's safe to work around for moderate amounts of time with no protection.  They can then bring this waste to Yucca Mountain, a site with no underground water to really speak of that's out in the middle of fucking nowhere, where it can sit around for 100 years to the point where you can sleep with the stuff and be ok.  Modern reactors, the ones that you so strenuously are against, would use up more of this radiation, thus making this decay time decrease severely.  What would take current US reactor waste 10,000 years to die out, would take 300 from modernized plans.  Add this to the fact that Yucca Mtn can hold all of the US's nuclear waste for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come, and you have a singular place with minimal amounts of radiation rather than the smog cloud that's always above me here in LA."

 No, those are actually the numbers I snagged out of Wikipedia; not the best source, I know I know, but I don't an engineering handbook that outlines radioactive lifespans.

 On the topic of half-lives and so forth, I shall give you a second number, generated from the minimum safelife (my term, because I don't know what you would call this 10,000 year time span to be honest.). 334 generations, at a generation span of 30 years (i.e. takes one human 30 years to grow, mate and produce a second human subset), is how long it will take for today's waste to be considered safe. 334 GENERATIONS my good sir, and thats if we stop now; we aren't stopping though, you want to produce more, so what you are causing is an significant environmental issue. To speak plainly, we will continue to produce waste ontop of waste (seeing as its not going to go anywhere for 334 GENERATIONS).

 In the specific scenario that I've outline (no increase in waste production, either from technology to better process it coupled with more plants, what have you) you can expect a doubling of waste on a year to year basis. If someone would be so kind as to give me a tonne per year production of waste (as I can't seem to find one) we can multiply it by 10,000 years to see what we are in for.

 Moreover, I must dismiss your argument about half-lives, because you are ignoring the sheer definition of this 10,000 year minimum. This is how long until the waste is SAFE, not how long until its inert. Considering its decay is irrelevant, seeing as its just as deadly to humans at 2 years in the ground as it is 2,000 years in the ground.

 To conclude my rebuttal, I will remind you that there are technologies NOW that can handle the relatively safe-by-comparison emissions from plants, where as your waste needs to spend 334 GENERATIONS in a lead sheathed canister buried under a mountain to be considered safe. Its simply nonsensical to consider offgases that we ourselves emit organically are more dangerous to our survival.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Again, you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.  In the case of nuclear waste, it is considered "safe" by government officials when it is inert, which would take that 10,000 years.  As I have stated already, it's safe by scientific standards to be around after 40 years, and those first 40 years it spends in a very safe place no people go.  After 40 years, it loses 99.9% of its radiation.  After another 40, it loses an additional 99.9%.  it keeps doing this and doing it until its levels matches that of background radiation.

Decay is everything when it comes to nuclear waste.  The decay is what causes the nuclear radiation which we consider to be so dangerous.  The longer it lives, the less it decays.  So, spent rods after 2 years is extremely different than 2000.  The differences in radiation amounts would be equivalent to comparing an ocean to a puddle.

To say that the waste would double each year is simply nonsensical.  Waste does not increase on an exponential scale.  We do not produce 2^n waste, where n is the number of years.  If anything, it'd be slightly off linear, where the waste would grow at a rate of 2*n.  Now, I know you're going to say that that's not a significant difference.  You'd prove yourself wrong yet again.  After 10 years, the difference would be 1024 compared to 20.  Put this in tons, pounds, or whatever.  The illogical case would be the number that gives 1024, the doubling every year.  

Think of this.  The energy density from U235 (that's fission, or nuclear power) is around 88,250,000 MJ/kg.  Coal is 24 MJ/kg.  The best I could find for natural gas is around 80 MJ/m^3.  Since natural gas is mostly composed of methane, let's assume that it's all methane (it'll give you better numbers for your "natural gas" idea).  the density of methane gas is 0.717 kg/m^3. So, this gives around 110 MJ/kg energy density for natural gas, at best.  Now, doing the math...it'd take 802,272.72 kilograms of natural gas, or 3,677,083.3 kg of coal, to give out the same amount of power as 1kg of U235 isotope.  Unlike your previous calculations, these numbers are factual.  Let's assume that half of the natural gas or the coal is converted into CO2 or CO (not true, the values would actually be higher stoichiometrically, but I'll give you a bit of a break by not throwing out as big of a number as I could), then you get 401,000 kg of CO and CO2 from natural gas alone compared to 1kg of spent Uranium, which is safe by scientific standards after 40 years, and inert after 10,000.

We may expel CO and CO2 naturally, but we don't expel that much.  You're arguments are running thin.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 "Again, you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.  In the case of nuclear waste, it is considered "safe" by government officials when it is inert, which would take that 10,000 years.  As I have stated already, it's safe by scientific standards to be around after 40 years, and those first 40 years it spends in a very safe place no people go.  After 40 years, it loses 99.9% of its radiation.  After another 40, it loses an additional 99.9%.  it keeps doing this and doing it until its levels matches that of background radiation."

 I suggest you realign yourself with what exactly this 10,000 year shelf life is. Its 10,000 years before the waste is suitable to be in proximity to humans, not inert. If you want to argue otherwise, take up with the source from Wiki.

"Decay is everything when it comes to nuclear waste.  The decay is what causes the nuclear radiation which we consider to be so dangerous.  The longer it lives, the less it decays.  So, spent rods after 2 years is extremely different than 2000.  The differences in radiation amounts would be equivalent to comparing an ocean to a puddle."

 See above for "not safe until 10,000 years have past" rebuttal. You can repeat the same thing in 20 different ways, so long as the premise is wrong, they shall wrong in kind.

"To say that the waste would double each year is simply nonsensical.  Waste does not increase on an exponential scale.  We do not produce 2^n waste, where n is the number of years.  If anything, it'd be slightly off linear, where the waste would grow at a rate of 2*n.  Now, I know you're going to say that that's not a significant difference.  You'd prove yourself wrong yet again.  After 10 years, the difference would be 1024 compared to 20.  Put this in tons, pounds, or whatever.  The illogical case would be the number that gives 1024, the doubling every year."

 Yeah, because its nonsensical for things to double each year, but 2*(n years) makes perfect sense.

"Think of this.  The energy density from U235 (that's fission, or nuclear power) is around 88,250,000 MJ/kg.  Coal is 24 MJ/kg.  The best I could find for natural gas is around 80 MJ/m^3.  Since natural gas is mostly composed of methane, let's assume that it's all methane (it'll give you better numbers for your "natural gas" idea)." 

  You don't need to assume composition when sources offer properties for mixtures. The assumption is fine for applications where you lack better information, mind you.

 As well, I have 39 MJ/m^3 from my source, which I will use in the following response.

 "The density of methane gas is 0.717 kg/m^3. So, this gives around 110 MJ/kg energy density for natural gas, at best.  Now, doing the math...it'd take 802,272.72 kilograms of natural gas, or 3,677,083.3 kg of coal, to give out the same amount of power as 1kg of U235 isotope.  Unlike your previous calculations, these numbers are factual.  Let's assume that half of the natural gas or the coal is converted into CO2 or CO (not true, the values would actually be higher stoichiometrically, but I'll give you a bit of a break by not throwing out as big of a number as I could), then you get 401,000 kg of CO and CO2 from natural gas alone compared to 1kg of spent Uranium, which is safe by scientific standards after 40 years, and inert after 10,000."

 This is how I know you have no background in Engineering cost estimation, you are spouting off bulk loads instead of costs. Allow me to show you how professionals work these things out.

 Natural Gas: $7 / GJ

 Coal: $5.12 / GJ (2007 cost estimate)

 U235: $0.00725 / GJ

 Now, here is where you get all giddy because unenriched, raw Uranium appears to be the logical choice for fuel source. This does not account for processing (enrichment, smelting and machining, etc.). Now, lets consider other costs; I have found the following information:

  • Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.
  • Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.
  • According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
  • Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

 

www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm

 Considering only one aspect of power production is dangerous, and you have fallen head first into that trap. Enjoy.

"We may expel CO and CO2 naturally, but we don't expel that much.  You're arguments are running thin."

 I've read that cows as a whole expel more than the equivalent of all the automobiles in the world. Considering there are as many if not more humans than cows, our emissions are more than likely similar. However, I don't have the article to provide you.

 You must however be related to JT in some fashion, as simply saying "no, you're wrong" doesn't constitute an intelligent reply. Its quite juvenile in all honesty.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

" You must however be related to JT in some fashion, as simply saying "no, you're wrong" doesn't constitute an intelligent reply. Its quite juvenile in all honesty."

I said I'd only make one post, but dear God I have to point this one out.  So far, the amount of information in your posts has equated to only this much.  Luckily for me, this post is actually giving me something to work off of rather than your previous statements.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Funny, I thought you were avoiding them because you had no basis to challenge them...

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Funny, I thought you were avoiding them because you had no basis to challenge them..

You will find out (and I hope really soon, here) that what you think and what reality is, are two very different things. That being said, this sort of peevish and immature method of argumentation only detracts from the overall value of the debate. As you've said in a number of your own posts, why don't you just take your uncreative and uninteresting personal insults along with your hurt ego, and just go back home until you've read more on the subject? That would be better for everybody. Thanks in advance.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Damn, you're all over this thread aren't you. Maybe in your next post you can reply to the topic or the information presented instead of insulting the participants in a rather sad attempt to wrestle momentum from them.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

I have only one basis, and it's science.  It's actually a pretty good one in this argument.  Plus despite your rantings I have yet to see you actually refute any of my points.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 If you can't bring anything to bear to the holes I'm produced in your arguements, save me the trouble of puting you in your place and go back to being quiet, sir. Nothing you have produced thus far has shown conventional methods of producing energy to be subpar to nuclear power production. Each time you attempt to make an issue, I broaden the scope to where it should be and your position comes up short.

 So unless you wish to argue me eye to eye on the engineering of this thing, save your personal insults and damaged pride and quiet yourself.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

If you can't bring anything to bear to the holes I'm produced in your arguements, save me the trouble of puting you in your place and go back to being quiet, sir.

Call me crazy, but your version of "putting someone in their place over the Internet" seems to really be just you arbitrarily declaring victory in just about all of your poorly constructed and poorly informed points.

Nothing you have produced thus far has shown conventional methods of producing energy to be subpar to nuclear power production.

In your mind, yes. We know this. It's clear. But if you actually read his post, you'll see that he does just that. In every single issue that you have brought up and touted as "scientific" has been shown to be painfully lacking in understanding. "Professionals" don't get their sources just from Wikipedia...

So unless you wish to argue me eye to eye on the engineering of this thing, save your personal insults and damaged pride and quiet yourself.

This is the classic "YOU AREN'T MAN ENOUGH TO ARGUE ME TO MY FACE" response. Usually, this is found whenever an Internet Superhero is faced with an insurmountable obstacle that blocks the validity of their argument(s). You see, I could spend all day calling you various and sundry names, making questionable references as to the sexual purity of your mother's actions, or go so far as to say that you would be unable to best me in a contest of physical strength, but I, like most everybody else here (hopefully), realize that these things have no bearing on things discussed over the Tubes. Now, that being said, I can completely kick your ass in real life. So unless you wish to argue me eye to eye about the strength of your kung fu, save your personal insults and damaged pride and quiet yourself.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 I honestly see no holes.  Your arguments are fairly lacking.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 ... then it should be full of holes. Oh shit, logical recursion.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

CHEAPER:

 I shall reply in steps, as I'm at work and not able to sit down for a good expanse of time to reply in one post.

"Natural gas may be cheap.  The problem with natural gas is it doesn't have a high power output.  You can get kilowatts of power, Megawatts if you're lucky and you have a big, snazzy plant.  This low power output is the reason why it's used in vehicles as a gas substitute, as it produces similar amounts of energy.  So, lets say you have a few of these Megawatt natural gas burning plants.  California's power consumption alone is over 250,000 GW-h per year.  The newest line of Natural gas powered turbine plants get a peak power of 590 MW.  The specs I was looking at didn't give any W-h values.  Even still, this is a sever lack of power generated here.  Compare this to coal and nuclear, which give off power that's orders of magnitudes higher, and you'll realize that to run just the state on california on only natural gas, you'd have to build hundreds of top of the line facilities.  How is this exactly cheaper? "

 24hr / day x 365 days/yr = 8,760 hr/year

 590 x 10^6 Watt x 8,760 hr/year = 5.1684x10^12 W-hr/year (5,168.4 GW-hr/year)

 You cite California's consumption of 250,000 GW-hr/year, with a cited generation of 5,168.4 GW-hr/year for a natural gas plant. Thats ~49 NGP (Natural Gas Plants, because I'm sick of typing it), and not exactly unreasonably by any standard. And for the record, the reason they don't cite W-hr's in specs is because they are that easy to calculate.

 Note: This scenario does not account for downtime for maintenance, so lets be generous and have 55 NGP's to ensure power production via generator downtime cycling.

"To throw some actual data in your face, France is fully powered on nuclear energy.  They have the lowest electric bills and the cleanest air out of any industrialized country."

 They also have filthy streets and whorish women; you speak of correlation not causation, good sir, so I thought I'd join in the fun.

 

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 to calculate from Watts to W-hr/year you don't just multiply by the number of hours in a year.  The values of watts is Joules/second, or (kg*m^2/s^2)/s, so you can't just arbitrarily multiply by the number of hours in a year.  To calculate the power rate, you need the actual quantifiable time the energy is released in.  Does it produce 590 MW per second?  per day?  per hour?  per 4 hours, 51 minutes and 23 seconds?  We don't know what the rate of power output is, so your claim is completely and utterly false and unjustified.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Yeah, you can just multiply straight across. The SI definition of Watt is irrelevant, its already been rated when its manufacturer spec'ed it. Unit manipulation is perhaps the EASIEST aspect of Engineering; its so linear and common sense is disgusting.

 The original poster cited a consumption in GW-hr/year, I took his spec'ed plant output and brought it inline with his consumption. The ONLY ground you have to question me on this is in regards to the plant running 24hrs/day, but I have compensated for this by stating that additional plants will be provided for maintainence cycles.

 If you honestly can't grasp what I just did, you really have no place in this discussion, to be frank.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Well...seeing how I am the poster you're comenting from, and seeing how Physics doesn't exactly work that way...

What you're doing is you're multiplying across by number of hours in a year.  That is wrong.  That's assuming that the current power rate is already in Watt-hours, which it's not.  All that number is is an Energy value, with no indication of the time span the energy is generated at.  Because you don't know the time span, you can't make a rate.  You're taking the energy and giving it an arbitrary time span, thus an arbitrary rate.  So, in conclusion, your numbers are wrong.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 \o/

 How to explain this to you so you will understand...

 The OP cited California's power consumption to be 250,000 (GigaWatt)(hour)(1/year). This is ENERGY consumed in a year. Perfectly reasonable both in terms of the common sense aspect AND the thermodynamics of the thing.

 Secondly, he cites that a natural gas-fueld (turbine?) generator produces 590 MegaWatts (thats MJ/s so you don't have to struggle with the units.). Now, I can multiply this thing by whatever the hell I want in terms of time; weeks/fortnight, seconds/milennia, seconds/second, etc. Why? Well my boy, this is very simple.

 UNIT ANALYSIS holds; [t]/[t] = 1. And if you don't know what this means, don't waste my time any further please. Go buy a Fluid Mechanics textbook and teach yourself unit analysis.

 So anythings, 590 MW generator running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year produces 5,168 GW-hours per year; OR 5,168 GigaJoules of energy per year. HOWEVER, because a generator running non-stop for a year is a dangerous thing, downtime is required. Thus my subtle safety factor bringing the count from 49 generators to 55 generators.

 And because I know you think you right, which you aren't, here is some reading to help fix this problem you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

How to explain this to you so you will understand...

I've asked myself this many times when responding to your posts. However, I myself have no disillusions about your ability to understand my words. I think you can. I just know that because my words say that you're wrong, you're not going to accept them. So instead, you should ask yourself not "how will you understand" but "how do I make everybody else understand". Now this is something Thomas already has gotten.

Now, I can multiply this thing by whatever the hell I want in terms of time

Yeah, I can too. In fact, I can add anything I want, subtract anything I want, divide by anything I want, or really perform any mathematical function I want. The problem with this, which is exactly the problem that Thomas is trying to explain to you, is that you won't get anything useful by doing this. But you probably did have a lot of fun multiplying, though. I always do.

UNIT ANALYSIS holds; [t]/[t] = 1. And if you don't know what this means, don't waste my time any further please. Go buy a Fluid Mechanics textbook and teach yourself unit analysis.

Am I the only one who's disturbed by the fact that you recommended he get a "Fluid Mechanics textbook" (in physics we always capitalize concepts) to understand bloody DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS?

And because I know you think you right, which you aren't

I used to say this to my parents when I was about six. I stopped doing it when I was seven. Perhaps your parents weren't as smart as mine?

here is some reading to help fix this problem you have

Another Wikipedia reference . . . Is all the science you know based around what anyone could put in a textbox on this one particular site? Oh yes, and I'm not discrediting Wikipedia's value in explaining scientific concepts to the layman, rather, I'm descrediting your apparent claim that "because it's on Wikipedia it must be true!" Have you ever heard of the Colbert Report episode where he made a certain species of elephant unendangered? It would have a large amount of relevance to what you consider to be your ultimate source of information.

Oh yes, and since when was disagreeing with you a problem? SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, PERHAPS? Hypocrisy Fairy strikes again.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 "I've asked myself this many times when responding to your posts. However, I myself have no disillusions about your ability to understand my words. I think you can. I just know that because my words say that you're wrong, you're not going to accept them. So instead, you should ask yourself not "how will you understand" but "how do I make everybody else understand". Now this is something Thomas already has gotten."

 "I know you are but what am I?" ring a bell? Seriously, you get tired of trying to get in position above me that you resigned to something this sad? Lol, I was really expecting better when I started reading.

"Yeah, I can too. In fact, I can add anything I want, subtract anything I want, divide by anything I want, or really perform any mathematical function I want. The problem with this, which is exactly the problem that Thomas is trying to explain to you, is that you won't get anything useful by doing this. But you probably did have a lot of fun multiplying, though. I always do."

 No, seriously, time / time is unity. Don't believe me? Ask your friendly neighbourhood physicist. Dimensionality is great fun. Its simply impossible for me to explain to you a concept outside of your understanding potential. Come back to me in a few years (if you're younger than me) or read a goddamn book (if you're older).

 "Am I the only one who's disturbed by the fact that you recommended he get a "Fluid Mechanics textbook" (in physics we always capitalize concepts) to understand bloody DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS?"

 You can be as disturbed as you want, dimensional analysis is most useful in Engineering when used for dimensionless constants like Re and Ma numbers. I've never needed dimension analysis for the other topics in question (besides maybe conversions, which is high school level at its worst). Feel free to step in any time and recommend a more useful field for it.

 "I used to say this to my parents when I was about six. I stopped doing it when I was seven. Perhaps your parents weren't as smart as mine?"

 Needless to say, I hope your parents hit you alot for saying stuff like this to them. You should know your place.

 "Another Wikipedia reference . . . Is all the science you know based around what anyone could put in a textbox on this one particular site? Oh yes, and I'm not discrediting Wikipedia's value in explaining scientific concepts to the layman, rather, I'm descrediting your apparent claim that "because it's on Wikipedia it must be true!" Have you ever heard of the Colbert Report episode where he made a certain species of elephant unendangered? It would have a large amount of relevance to what you consider to be your ultimate source of information."

 From what I read, it looked to be correct. As stated before, my reference texts aren't with me at work, and even if they were, the chance that this kid would have them in his home collection are pretty much nil. No no, I'm sure its exactly nil, seeing as I'VE EXPLAIN D.A. TO HIM 3 TIMES NOW TO NO AVAIL. Ugh...

 I'm half tempted now to take out the textbooks, but I'm ultimately discouraged by the fact that whatever I say here will simply go over your entrenched, hostile little head. Or you'll just all and out call me a liar, whichever tickles you I guess.

 

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Please, don't school me on units.  You're obviously not a pro at them yourself, seeing how you never convert from seconds to hours.  Had you converter to hours in your equation, basically multiply what you had by 3600, then you'd get a conclusion that a single plant would be able to power california.  This obviously isn't the case.  Your calculations go against actual fact, as a single plant can't produce nearly that much.  So, I state that you're wrong not from the unit conversions, but from the fact that the physics have proven themselves not to work that way through actual application.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"Please, don't school me on units.  You're obviously not a pro at them yourself, seeing how you never convert from seconds to hours." 

 Why would I consider the seconds component of Watts when my desired final unit is in Watts? I've brought the two units in line, as I've said twice now.

 "Had you converter to hours in your equation, basically multiply what you had by 3600, then you'd get a conclusion that a single plant would be able to power california." 

 Sweet jesus...

 590 MW x 24 hr/day x 365 day/year x 10^6 (W/MW) gives us 5.1684 x 10^12 W-hr/year

 (MW)(hr/day)(day/year)(W/MW) --- The bold cancel out, giving the above units.

 BUT WAIT, WE WANT GW. (GW/(10^9 W)

 5168.4 GW-hr/year

 You apparently want me to multiply by (60 s/min)(60 min/hr) for some reason, giving us GJ/year, which is some bastard child of power. It tells us nothing. I'll say it again because this is admittedly difficult for people to grasp. YOU DO NOT CONSUME POWER... do I need to say it again? please no...

 "This obviously isn't the case." 

 I know its not, because you did it incorrectly.

 "Your calculations go against actual fact, as a single plant can't produce nearly that much." 

 ... you multiplied by 3600 guy, not me. So they are technically your numbers now. Enjoy.

 "So, I state that you're wrong not from the unit conversions, but from the fact that the physics have proven themselves not to work that way through actual application."

 I have to say you're so off center I can't help but laugh a little as I sit here, please never take University level thermo or engineering, I don't want to drive across a bridge you helped design when you can't even manipulate your units properly. :)

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Hey remember those rolling blackouts?  Apparently those assumed 55 aren't doing such a good job.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 55 is an exageration, engineers outside of this little what-if scenario has budgets to consider.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

This is quite possibly one of the best written responses I've read.  I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

It probably will.  People who are so pigheadedly and arrogantly against nuclear energy because of their lack of understanding of it are almost as bad as PETA.  You can't change their mind, but they'll hold us all back.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 You continue with petty insults but have yet to state what your education is Austin. Are you another armchair warrior or do at least have some post-secondary to back up your statements?

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

You continue with petty insults but have yet to state what your education is Austin

Devorius, need I lecture you on the meaning of what people say about themselves on the Internets? I am fully qualified, in fact, as I have two doctorates in "the ramafications of cyber-inter-communication within post-modern societies" and a masters in bioethics and it's modern applications. Now that I've stated my education, what's yours? I'm sure it's not nearly as lofty as mine.

Are you another armchair warrior or do at least have some post-secondary to back up your statements?

All you've had so far is Wikipedia. That would make me orders of magnitude more educated then you. Oh yes, and I've completely and undeniably backed up my statements to a point where it would be absolutely ridiculous for you to even consider that they have holes in them. Absolutely ridiculous.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 "Devorius, need I lecture you on the meaning of what people say about themselves on the Internets? I am fully qualified, in fact, as I have two doctorates in "the ramafications of cyber-inter-communication within post-modern societies" and a masters in bioethics and it's modern applications. Now that I've stated my education, what's yours? I'm sure it's not nearly as lofty as mine."

 You could atleast have the decency to copy and paste my name, you've spelt it wrong in every single response I've visited. Its not hard, come on now, or as an alternative you can consider this window to be a first person interaction and forego names.

 You are all too right about people misrepresenting themselves on the internet, however if this kid was to tell me he was a Nobel-prize holding Chemist I'd be more than a little skeptical. My own claim to be a Mechanical Engineer can be scrutinized by anyone who wishes, but the fact remains that I am. Go to whatever lengths you with to verify this of course, it should be amusing to see your preconceived ideas of what we as a discipline know.

 "All you've had so far is Wikipedia. That would make me orders of magnitude more educated then you. Oh yes, and I've completely and undeniably backed up my statements to a point where it would be absolutely ridiculous for you to even consider that they have holes in them. Absolutely ridiculous."

 Christ, this is the 3rd (4th?) reply you've ignored perfectly good arguement material to play the Wiki card. Is that seriously all you have in your bag of tricks? See previous responses for the same comment I've repeated several times over, thanks.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

The Chernobyl disaster isn't exactly indicative of how unsafe nuclear reactors are. To understand why you need to dig in to what happened as opposed to just saying, omg nuclear power plant blows up! A very informative document can be found here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

It is very safe when done right and the reasoning behind 'cleaner' is because the waste is wholly captured and stored and well managed as opposed to shooting the emissions into the atmosphere and then telling everyone to shut off the damn games.

------------------------------------

I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

------------------------------------ I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Sealing everything in lead sheathed barrels and firing it into a whole in the ground is simply not a solution to emissions. The entire reason we are using fossil-fuel based power generation is because its the most efficient, CHEAPEST source of heat and energy. When (not if) we run out of said fuels, we will fast track replacement technology; but for right now, we have hit the perverbal saddlepoint and are resting comfortably.

 The only advances in power generation technology we have seen in recent memory have been for exhaust scrubbing and efficiency increases (like 2-5% increases, for millions of dollars per project and implementation). Hell, the automobile engine has not fundementally changed in 100 years, simply because it does what its designed to do.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

"It is very safe when done right and the reasoning behind 'cleaner' is because the waste is wholly captured and stored and well managed"

The operative phrase being "when done right". I don't know about the US nuclear industry, but in Germany, hardly a third world country, it turns out they've been doing it wrong (the wikipedia entry doesn't even attempt neutrality. However, it is factually correct as far as I can tell). And not only have they been doing it wrong, they've been hiding that fact from the public for 20 years. Twenty years. You'll pardon me if this sort of thing doesn't generate confidence in the industry as a whole.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Well damn, if the Germans can't do it right, I am certain that the US has done atleast as bad if not worse.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

This sounds suspiciously racist, according to your personally supported definition.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Possibly, but I doubt people would complain about praising the Germans for their amazing Engineering skills.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Actually, they are safer.  Chernobyl?  Really?  You're going to compare modern nuclear reactors to an old shoddily bulit and poorly staffed Russian reactor?  Please.  There has never been a major problem with a nuclear reactor in America.  And before you come at me with that ridiculous three mile island bullshit, I'd like to point out that the radiaton given off by it was about 8 millirems, equal to what you get in a Chest X-ray.  Hardly toxic.

It is, also, far cleaner than gas or coal plants.  And we already have a place to store that nuclear waste; its  called YUCCA MOUNTAIN.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 "Actually, they are safer.  Chernobyl?  Really?  You're going to compare modern nuclear reactors to an old shoddily bulit and poorly staffed Russian reactor?  Please."

 Technology had nothing to do with it, nor does the fact that it happened in Russia. It was human error, something that no technology can ever completely do away with. If ANYTHING, the technological advances have made things more dangerous; the reactors run hotter and take longer to start back up from a neutral state, meaning that when facing a "OMFG, HIT THE PANIC BUTTON!" moment, they will likely hesitate for cost sakes.

 "There has never been a major problem with a nuclear reactor in America.  And before you come at me with that ridiculous three mile island bullshit, I'd like to point out that the radiaton given off by it was about 8 millirems, equal to what you get in a Chest X-ray.  Hardly toxic."

 A chest x-ray 24 hours a day, every day, for the rest of your life is not something I want to experience, thanks. And I like how you prove that there has never been a major problem on US soil by pointing out the whole "Free chest x-ray" island. I had some lulz.

"It is, also, far cleaner than gas or coal plants.  And we already have a place to store that nuclear waste; its  called YUCCA MOUNTAIN."

 Ahahahahahahaha, cleaner? You sir win the internet for funny, truly. How you can compare radiation and potential water pollution to carbon species and minute levels of nitrous and sulpur species is beyond me. Heavy water = baby killer. As you HIDING YOUR NUCLEAR WASTE UNDER A MOUNTAIN (where aquafers tend to snake) is pure genius. Maybe all that fat you see in Americas are really massive tumours.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

You should look at the link the guy below posted.

But honestly, nothing you've said here has been right yet.

Seriously.  Are you drunk or something?

Also, it was a chest x-ray's worth for a short time, not 24 hours a day for the rest of your life.  Real life is not Fallout.

 

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 I have never read up on Three Mile Island, I was making fun of the manner in which you argue rather than the details therein. Perhaps if you want to continue, you can have enough sense not to contradict your own claims only sentences apart.

 You have yet to demonstrate to me that combustion-based emissions are more of a threat to the world/environment than man-made radiation. Oh, and your arguement of "Hey, it happened over there so it doesn't count" doesn't cut it chief. Until you are prepared to actually refute my claims properly, rather than sitting there thumbing your nose and saying "nope, you're wrong. Oh, you're drunk, therefore I'm right", you really shouldn't be posting.

 

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

I was going to make you look like a jackass, but that guy below me beat me to it.  That's what I get for skipping out on some work to play Left 4 Dead. 

Still, to be fair, he insulted you far less and had slightly more scientific sources than I would've provided you with, and worded it much nicer.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

 Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about. You can run along now, I tried to teach you but you just wouldn't cooperate.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about.

Well I'm glad you were here to point that out, Devorius. We wouldn't have known without your help.

You can run along now, I tried to teach you but you just wouldn't cooperate.

You see, it is the sum total of these retarded, arrogant, ignorant, and callus statements that just make me want to take everything you say as completely false. Personally, Devorius, if you were trying to teach anyone anything, you must really really suck as a teacher. I should know. I've tought people professionally. I also know the qualities that it takes to allow a student to learn and those that make a good teacher. You have none of them.

As you've said many times, take your personal insults and damaged ego (oh yes, and hubris, you like that one) and run along now. Try, just try, to see if you can force yourself not to post until you've got something "scientific" to say instead of these little useless statements.

"Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire."

Load Universe into cannon. Aim at brain. Fire.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

What did you try to teach me?  That putting somethiing less radioactive than the sights on many assault rifles under ground encased in lead is 'stupid'?  Right.  Face it chief, you've got nothing to teach anyone.  Just becasue you FEEL that nuclear energy is bad doesn't mean it is.  Just like a non-government organization doing a bit of poorly performed research leads them to FEEL that gamers wastes the US 1 billion dollars a year in energy doesn't make it true.

Re: Report: Game Consoles Waste Energy

and just to keep facts straight, TMI incident doesn't continually release that radiation forever (as you seem to think) it only did so for a few days after the accident and the amount of radiation was actually below the standard backround radiation you receive everyday. Radiation isn't just nuclear in nature, its actually everywhere all the time.

------------------------------------

I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

------------------------------------ I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician