Energy Efficiency (Can you help to settle a family Mac debate?)

[Xairbusdriver]

QUOTE

Of course, said utilities could be scheduled to run during the time when the computer is being used by someone (or at the end of the day when using SuperDuper!), or even done manually, negating the need to leave the computer running 24/7.

Yes, and if that was the only reason for having it on, then you should turn it off to save energy. There's never been any question, discussion/suggestion/differing opinion in that regard. Except the nebulous idea that one power cycle a day will cause harm to the silicon components. I seriously doubt that would really be a factor.

As I have stated before (but apparently not clearly enough) if you can find something useful for your machine to do while you aren't using it, then weigh the value of that against the energy used. Even in the highest rate areas of the country, most of us can afford that extra cost.

It's just part of an overall judgment call as to what you do with the energy you use. If you're doing nothing more than playing games with the computer and actually can do something more productive, then I suggest you are wasting energy. Period. Whether that be 24/7 or 10 minutes a year.

The original question was concerned with the difference between using "sleep" or turning the machine off if non-use would be 20 minutes or more and how that might affect reliability. Coincidentally, the question of running 24/7 was also raised. I think a case for higher rates of breakdownscan be made for frequent heating/cooling cycles during a 12 hour time period. Much less critical or detrimental with single cycle events each day, IMHO. But the only reason for running 24/7 is when the machine is doing something useful. That can be almost anything, since "useful" is a subjective term. Just because you might be running a server doesn't mean I would consider that "useful" if that was for pornographic materials. I'm sure every one of us would have a slightly different list of what uses would be "useful." If you can justify that use to yourself, proceed with the knowledge that others may not agree and there may come a time that some will even prosecute you.

[Gregg]

The question of whether repeated "power cycles" do more harm to the CPU or monitor that constant power would be difficult to test. Just trying two side by side wouldn't be enough to account for other differences. I wonder if anyone has ever done such a test using a statistically significant number of computers??

[Xairbusdriver]

I thought that was part of the 'research' you were doing by staying on OS 9!

[Gregg]

At this rate, that will take a .. l o n g .. time!

[Mayo]

QUOTE

Yes, and if that was the only reason for having it on, then you should turn it off to save energy.

One of your posts gave me the impression that the reason your Mac is running in the middle of the night  is to run automatic operations such as SuperDuper!, Onyx, etc.

[Xairbusdriver]

Sorry for sending that impression. it was probably a transmission error! Eiye do'nt meak misteatkz lyke them>

[jcarter]

Hi Chris,
Thats exactly what I was going to suggest, plugging the Macs into your Kill-a-Watt, and reading what they took over a period of time.
Ive got my printer plugged into my Kill-a-Watt now, and finding it uses very very little power while on idle.  Always forget to look at it when its actually printing.

Ive got one in the kitchen too, so toasting some English Muffins can use a lot more power than your computer is fine by me.  I do sleep my Macs at night too.   Try different appliances, its fun.
Jane

[Mayo]

The point isn't how much (or little) each individual appliance uses... it is the cumulative amount of energy consumed by all of us, mainly for the sake of personal convenience.

They also serve who only stand and wait (Ars Technica article)

Estimates Of Global Standby Use  It is estimated that 5% of the total U.S. power use is "standby," which translates to approximately $4 billion dollars per year. What surprised me is that some European countries use a higher percentage of standby power than the U.S.. These estimates are for residential power users only.

[Gregg]

QUOTE(Mayo @ Dec 8 2007, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point isn't how much (or little) each individual appliance uses... it is the cumulative amount of energy consumed by all of us, mainly for the sake of personal convenience.

Excellent point. It's like all the people in arid climates (or not so arid) with their little patches of green grass. Oh, well um, I paint my yard, yeah. :slink:

[Mayo]

I was talking to my wife about how some European countries have a higer percentage of standy power usage than the U.S..  She thinks that since they tend to use less energy, the percentage of standby power would be higher relative to the U.S..

[Xairbusdriver]

I think your wife may be hitting the nail on the head (always better than hitting you in the same place. I think it can be said that Europeans generally have smaller houses and certainly cars (and a great many don't even have one car, much less the 2.195...(whatever) we seem to have). Those smaller 'confines' may also create a smaller need for energy. But the new gadgets that come out now many times have the 'standby/instant-on' power mode built in. So, as they increase market penetration, they account for more and more power usage.

We all make decisions that sometimes have far reaching consequences but little, if any, immediate, personal effect on us or our neighbors. At least we like to think there is none...That delay makes it easier for us to justify our energy usage, of course. Currently, I choose to believe that my running that protein folding simulation 24/7/365 will provide more benefit than my use (waste?) of the energy consumed. That remains to be seen, of course. However, it wasn't difficult to decide to stop using the SETI software many years ago, even if it ran only while the computer was on, anyway! Others may feel differently, especially, if they came from different planets!