1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Consumers ignoring 'green' products

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Lizard, 26 Feb 2010.

  1. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC New Member

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    @infi

    most manufacturers do not publish the idle power consumption of their cards, but from what i understand they all run relatively low. i think it would take a considerable amount of time (years more than likely) to recoup the costs of the lower power cards. if i am wrong on that i would love to know about it, as i too am interested on the impact to my bottom line.

    @fodder

    the medieval warm period lasted for hundreds of years, and yes it was part of the natural variation. what we have now is also part of the natural variation (a warming since the little ice age), as evidenced by the 15 years of cooling that we have had (which, incidentally, matches the 15 years of reduced solar activity the we also experienced). your argument still hinges on a positive feedback loop, which i have shown does not hold water. taht 1 to 2% max retained radiation can easily be drowned out in the noise of natural solar variation, which has shown fluctuations of 10 to 15% across all spectrums.

    your claim of a "finely balance system" also hold little wight, since science cannot even identify all the variable in play, let alone say for sure what future trends hold. what we do know it is is a very chaotic, non-linear system that has a number of know negative feedback loops that have prevented thermal runaway in the past, that co2 levels are not "at their highest levels ever", and a ther may be a few theorize positive feedback loops that don't hold water on closer inspection.

    couple that with all the know benefits co2 has on the biosphere, and the argument for co2 being a "dangerous pollutant" look silly.

    grats for having the guts to stand up for what you believe, but please attack my argument rather than reiterating a point that i have show to be invalid.
     
  2. talladega

    talladega I'm Squidward

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    5,258
    Likes Received:
    495
    when you have a business (or a school) with 1000+ computers those few watts you save here and there make a HUGE difference.
     
  3. woodshop

    woodshop UnSeenly

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2003
    Posts:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    8
    I was more then happy to buy a low power AMD quad core for my home server/encoder.. Being on 24/7 and less power is a good thing.
     
  4. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC New Member

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    i don't doubt that. energy consumption is a big consideration when i make a recommendation on what servers to buy. but that is a little different, because you *are* talking about a huge farm of equipment. $20 more in energy consumption per year is hardly noticeable when you only have one machine, but it adds up to thousand or hundreds of thousands when you have a huge farm.
     
  5. [USRF]Obiwan

    [USRF]Obiwan New Member

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2003
    Posts:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    5
    And what exactly is a green gadget? Is it to save on the energy-bills or is the production process more green? To me the whole green thing is a new way to get more money from consumers worldwide, duo to the 'green' products and all sort of 'green' taxes made up by the government. And more so since more evidence is coming out on the global environment hoax.

    I just do not care anymore. If one or two large volcano's erupt for a couple of weeks, the co2 saved by two years of green cars is put in the air in a few days. People who think they can control nature or the earth are fools. All that green means is just another word for greed.
     
  6. memeroot

    memeroot aged and experianced

    Joined:
    31 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    19
    @LucusLoC

    "but please attack my argument rather than reiterating a point that i have show to be invalid."

    please alow me... well the tinternet and some scienists

    " co2 is good for the environment"

    not for all environments

    Dissolving CO2 in seawater increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH....it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH will have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms. These span the food chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and molluscs.

    pitty the molluscs!!!

    http://pangea.stanford.edu/research...Science_Anthropogenic Carbon and ocean pH.pdf

    " then there is the whole assumption that "environmental friendliness" means 0 impact on "natural things.""

    please provide a reference to the idiot who said that - google only provides one reference ;-)

    " in actuality, part of the natural environment. "

    sorry but the use of the extra word natural defeats you here - I for one live in the built environment.


    *anything* we do is natural

    (just keep telling yourself that ;-) however you seem blissfully to be moving around using words in a way that doesn't tally with common parlance - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural

    " even if it means the end of all life on earth. "

    at some point this this is inevitably part of the natural flow (sun expanding) but lets not hurry it up... and if we were to prevent it... that would be un-natural.

    " no one said nature was nice."

    probably because they dont think nature has free will, unlike people - who can be nice.

    "the medieval warm period lasted for hundreds of years"

    occurred from about AD 800–1300 so yeah....

    but current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame

    so meah

    evidence
    "Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century"

    http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003d.pdf
    http://ambio.allenpress.com/archive/0044-7447/29/1/pdf/i0044-7447-29-1-51.pdf

    brrr bit chilly this warm period....

    now regarding your personal definition of environmentally friendly:

    I think it's relatively ok... though lacking in detail....
    1 - make sure that they are large enough for migratory species, that limmited incursion (say a road) does not destabalise the ecosystem (say leading to drying and fire) etc... then fine heck its what were meant to do (but dont - see logging, palm oil plantations etc...)
    2 - great... and so long as no one throws out the nice batteries, monitors etc... then there wont be a problem... just like with fridges and cfc's and ozone holes... oh...
    3 - your quite right, bio degradable plastic bags are not something to worry about, thank goodness we use them, and nappies... we should be more like Napels these big rubbish dumps are a waste of time.
    4 no - men come first (she was lying)

    now onto the absorption spectrum of gasses.. well a nice explanation.. cant fault it upto... well I'll quote

    "The anthropogenic additions of CO2 - in fact we will be practically doubling it by the mid of the century - will have a very measurable effect to the ability of Earth to radiate out of this 'window' precisely because the natural CO2 concentration is so low (compared to water) and the absorption is not yet saturated in these frequency bands so that any additional CO2 we bring to release is directly contributing to the darkening around the CO2 window in the absorption spectrum."

    and reference
    http://www.bwebcentral.com/articleswap/viewarticle.php?uID=466

    and to join your blind model

    "To come back to the example of the house: Imagine that you have 6 windows through which you can see out. 4 are covered by a stack of black blankets (water vapour). Now somebody darkens one of the last two open windows with a thin sheet of dark fabric. How would that affect your house? "

    so yep I'm more worried regarding Co2 than I am an increase in water vapour as those windows are covered already.

    "couple this with the fact that we did not run into runaway global warming when we left the last ice age"

    ??? nor did we have 6 billion people on the planet.... regardless the fact that feedback loops led the earth to become a snowball and destroy allmost all forms of life bigger than a couple of cells, then to a period greening, then back to snow, green, snow etc...

    I'll skip your over-confidence in Augie Auer and your bizarre thoughts that science does not take place on computers (ah fortran - happy days)

    and point out that your "special theory" is being researched by Sami Solanki,Peter Laut,Svensmark, Lassen, Sallie Baliunas, Peter Thejll, Peter Stott etc....... and I'm sure they appreciated your input.
     
  7. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,250
    Likes Received:
    88
    Yep, Osram, full spectrum quick start light. They're good. But expensive.

    Big question, what's worse, using a few KWh or throwing away polluted electronics instead of siliconoxide (glass)?

    My bedroom light is on about 5 minutes a day. That's 30 Hours a year.

    60W candescant bulb @ 30 hours = 1,8 Kilowatthours a year (let's say 2)
    Bulb cost: 50 Eurocent.
    Usage: 2 KWh= 40 Eurocent

    Osram quality cf-lamp: 8 euro's
    (actually it's more, but hey, humor me for the sake of arguement.)
    Usage 10W @ 30 Hours = 0.3KWh
    Usage about 6 eurocent

    Lets say I use 1 quality Lamp for 5 years, and 2 incandecent (if you believe in lower lifetime)

    CFL: 5 (year) * 6ct + 8euros = 8.30 euro's
    Incandescant 5 (year) * 40ct + 2* 50ct = 3 euro's

    SO ater 5 years, i throw away two pieces of glass instead of one piece of contaminated electronics, saved 5 euro's but "wasted" 8,5 Kwh.

    Don't get me wrong, I've replaced the lamps that burn for over an hour each day, but the "ecofriendlyness" of having to replace EVERY single lamp is...wel, not true.
     
    Last edited: 1 Mar 2010
  8. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!
    Get used to it.
    Incandescent lamps will disappear from the market over the next years.
     
  9. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC New Member

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    @memeroot

    i address the oceanic acidification in the other thread, but the recap is that a few more hundred parts per million in dissolved co2 is not going to change oceanic ph buy a noticeable factor, and certainly not by enough to cause any harm what so ever to ocean life. considering that ocean ph fluctuates constantly throughout the year by as much a .2 ph, the .001 increase caused but the additional co2 is irrelevant.

    your assertion that the medieval warm period was cooler than the last century that is based on very dubious claims, especially since we have data that show that it was actually significantly warmer for at least all of Europe and North America. take a look at the archeology of northern viking settlements, as well as the reported types of crops for Great Britain. it is estimate that most of Great Brittan had an almost Mediterranean climate, significantly warmer than anything it has experienced in the recent past.

    the problem with both of your linked to reports is that the data sets they are reporting on are not internally consistent. for example, the tree ring data being used is not compared to modern tree ring data, but rather to modern as-recorded temperature data. that is a statistical no no. proper methodology is to "normalize" modern temperature data with modern tree ring data, and then use the modern tree ring data to compare back to ancient tree ring data. as we can see from the data coming out of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit this was not done. instead the modern real temperature data was directly tacked on to the end of the older and less reliable tree ring data, with no attempt to translate the data from modern tree ring data at all. how that managed to pass a peer review board is yet to be determined, but judging from the many resignations we are seeing at both the EA CRU and the IPCC at the moment i guess that there was a lot of funny business going on with the "research" being done. but i am not one who says scandals should stand in for the actual argument.

    getting back to the point, properly normalized data shows that, at least for the northern hemisphere, the medieval warm period was anywhere from 1 to 3 degrees warmer than our current times, depending on which temperature proxy you use. and before you trot out Michael Mann's infamous (and discredited) hockey stick graph, i would look into some of the controversy surrounding it and why it is given zero credit in scientific circles, despite some peoples instance that it is legit.

    if you look further into the ice core's (somewhat controversial) data, you would see that the one thing that seems to be agreed upon is that there were many times in the far distant past that co2 levels were significantly higher than they were today, and that co2 levels seem to lag behind the temperature trends. not that consensus would be the yardstick of science mind you, but in the absences of a challenging theory we can use it as a working premise.

    AGW theory does not currently enjoy a "scientific consensus," and even if it did that would not make it correct. what would make it correct is if all the predictions that the theory comes up with happen to be show in the real world data. which brings me to my next point: COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE! science happens in the real world, with real measured data. computer models are useful for trying to understand real world data, and showing us where we might look next, but they are not real science. if your computer models do not agree with the real world data, you throw out the model, not the data. current climate computer models are notorious for not coming anywhere near real world data. we simply do not know enough about the systems involved to model them with any accuracy at all.

    which of course brings us back the the co2 blocking ir light issue, and a direct reply to your analogy. if you take a look at the absorption spectrum of our atmosphere you will see that the two windows (co2) you proport to be open are in fact already covered with a thick blanket because the atmosphere is *already at near saturation levels* for the frequencies that co2 absorbs, with a significant amount of that absorption coming from water vapor. painting a covered window black is not going to significantly impact the light passing capabilities of said window. dumping more co2 into the atmosphere is not going to change its absorption spectrum, therefore it cannot impact global climate in the ways proposed by AGW theory.

    and finally, as to the definition of "natural" it is all really a matter of schematics. assuming that we came from nature then what we do is "natural." after all, beavers build things too, and what they build is considered natural. just because we have bigger brains and build on a different level does not have to mean that what we do is not natural. in short, i do not agree with your premise that human ingenuity is "unnatural." we simply do what is natural with what nature gave us.
     
    Malvolio likes this.
  10. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,250
    Likes Received:
    88
    Oh I know I won't be able to avoid it, but it's not eco friendly and shouldn't be called that. :D
     
  11. infi

    infi Member

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    take bit-techs review of the 5750 for example.
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/11/06/sapphire-ati-radeon-hd-5750-1gb-review/7

    the 5750 uses about 29W less in idle than the 4850 in that test with about equal performance.

    my computer is running roughly 12 hours a day, that's ~127kWh a year or with an energy price of 0,20eur/kWh ~25 euros and you can get a 5750 over a 4850 for less than that.

    between the 5770 and the 4870 it's an even bigger stretch. the 5770 according to bit-tech uses 60W less in idle than a 4870 card.

    with my computer usage thats ~263kWh or just over 50 euros a year.

    nowadays the price difference between the new and old generation is not nearly as big as what I would pay for one year of idle consumption for one of those cards.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page