Sunday, September 20, 2009

While cars becoming more efficient, gadgets guzzle more and more electricity, with flat screen TV's the worst offenders

The biggest offender is the flat-screen television.

Worldwide, consumer electronics now represent 15 percent of household power demand, and that is expected to triple over the next two decades, according to the International Energy Agency, making it more difficult to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

To satisfy the demand from gadgets will require building the equivalent of 560 coal-fired power plants, or 230 nuclear plants, according to the agency.

Most energy experts see only one solution: mandatory efficiency rules specifying how much power devices may use.

SHOOT: I've written previously about the fact that I see the prospects of internet growth as bleak due to a potentially erratic electricity supply. I can hear the sniggers and scoffs in the background, but think about how much energy you spend on your own gadgets, and these days everyone has their gadgets. Think it doesn't have an impact?
clipped from www.nytimes.com

With two laptop-loving children and a Jack Russell terrier hemmed in by an electric fence, Peter Troast figured his household used a lot of power. Just how much power did not really hit him until the night the family turned off the overhead lights at their home in Maine and began hunting gadgets that glowed in the dark.

“It was amazing to see all these lights blinking,” Mr. Troast said.

As goes the Troast household, so goes the planet.

Electricity use from power-hungry gadgets is rising fast all over the world. The fancy new flat-panel televisions everyone has been buying in recent years have turned out to be bigger power hogs than some refrigerators.

More Gadgets, More Demand for Power

The proliferation of personal computers, iPods, cellphones, game consoles and all the rest amounts to the fastest-growing source of power demand in the world. Americans now have about 25 consumer electronic products in every household, compared with just three in 1980.

 blog it

No comments: