How the Xbox’s default “instant on” feature could harm the environment

NRDC: Default Series S/X option responsible for 3 million tons of CO2 by 2025.

Read the whole story

 

[mdrejhon]

I have a Kill-a-Watt here.

I am amazed how much the vampire power draw varies a lot.

I remember the days when the first model of PlayStation 3 used a piggish amount of power (100W+ IIRC) just doing simple things such as playing a DVD.

My most efficient unused cellphone charger shows a complete zero reading when no phone is connected. Big whoop, for convenience, I’m going to keep that wallwart plugged in, contrary to recommendations. Clearly, it’s intelligent enough to keep vampire draw below measurable levels when unused. Also, my LED TV consumes less than 1 watt in standby waiting for the remote to power it on; that’s fine with me for convenience.

But my stereo receiver pigs out on 28 watts when powered off by remote. So I flip the physical switch instead when it’s not in use for a while. That 24/7 does add up over a 5 year period!

My biggest win was replacing a pool pump (1500W fixed speed) with a variable speed model that can pump as fast at only 500W (I could use more, but the pump was far more powerful than expected that I reconfigured its Max RPM to a much lower speed). And it can run as low as 30 watts in its slow mode, if I wanted to recirculate mostly clean water.

The Kill-a-Watt paid for itself in just two months!

 

[Penguin Warlord]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

This is useful context, and yes, 78 kWh in a year is not going to be a significant chunk of household energy use. But when this energy use is for *idle use*, rather than active use -- and when the only benefit is a few seconds of startup/update downloading convenience -- then the tradeoff is still worth considering.

I mean, that's not true. The benefit is not just for the few seconds of startup, the primary reason for using instant on is so that your games and system update themselves in the background so that they're always ready to play.

Coming home after work to game with your friends, only to find a 4GB system update that's going to take 4 hours to download is a really shitty experience and what the Instant On mode aims to solve.

And that option would still be there, just as opt-in not opt-out.

Save a billion kWh with one OS update to change the default to OFF, and those with DSL can still cope just by going to settings to change it to ON.

I'm just saying let's be honest with what we're discussing, because we're not talking about sacrificing *just* a few seconds.

It's noble that everyone cares this much about 0.78% of a household's summer energy usage, but there's orders of magnitude bigger fish to fry. Like I said, turn your thermostat down a degree, you'll save orders of magnitude more and you'll notice the difference less.

Why not both?

I'm wearing a sweater right now.

I mean sure, ideally do both, but if you want to convince people that your environmental action is worthwhile, you should start by being honest about what the actual sacrifice is, don't just try to minimize it and hope they don't notice.

Also, like I said in a previous comment, if you're in a climate where your house is heated by natural gas during the winter, then you're increasing your carbon footprint by turning Instant On off, so make sure you change your Xbox settings bi-annually.

 

[MahmudNaqi]

Out of curiosity, why is the PS 5 so much more energy efficient? Presumably it also does background downloads too.

This is also where a carbon tax is helpful - if carbon emitting sources of electricity are expensive, folks will make the trade offs themselves between the extra convenience of an Xbox that turns on instantly and the extra cost they face every month (or make a PlayStation more attractive. I’m not sure there is a one size fit all, and if you pay a higher electric bill at the end of the month to facilitate a transition to a cleaner grid, fine? The bigger issue here is making sure there is a price on the pollution someone produces.

Also- a lot of public libraries carry kill-a-watt meters, which is super helpful and reduces the environmental costs associated with purchasing one.

 

[ybz90]

What are a significant fraction of gamers going to do as soon as they find out how to get around that? Change the setting back to the one NRDC is complaining about, and no amount of warning is going to make them care.

The point is that regardless of what % of owners change it back, that % is going to be less than 100% (which is the status quo, with the default mode using so much power all the time).

 

[azazel1024]

"Given those numbers, our hope is that most users would be willing to wait an extra 5 to 10 seconds for their console to restart if they knew the impact," Horowitz writes.

Yeah, that's fine, but it's not just about the extra 5 - 10 seconds. It's also about whatever maintenance the system has to do when it boots up. Game updates couldn't complete because the system was shut down.

It feels like we need a middle ground option here. A choice that allows the system to boot up periodically, check for updates and shut back down if there aren't any.

That is what window defaults to if it is in sleep mode. It pulls up at like 2am to check for updates and install them. Then back to sleep.

Or you can set things however you want with a bit of know how.

Doesn’t seem obscene for your Xbox to do that. Deep sleep and comes up during inactive hours to check for updates once or twice a day. Nothing out there, back to sleep.

 

[xyz123.domain]

I really don't mind. I love that my PS4 Pro is ready in a few seconds. My PC is always on as it renders, downloads, and makes avaliable my own files to all other devices that I own (cloudsync). I had to cool my media center, so those fans run constantly too as it was overheating in summer.I buy cars that get a little over 5mpg, commonly dipping below that. If you want to be eco friendly, go for it. Me? I want access and speed now.

 

[wunderbar]

I’m all for an “all of the above” approach to minimizing energy waste in general, and carbon emissions more particularly, but keep in mind that annual carbon output is measured in the gigatonnes. So this is somewhere below a rounding error in the carbon problem.

Sure, but the point is to raise awareness about a bunch of different things, beyond just the Xbox. Yes, this is one issue, but if everyone were to look at 3 or 4 things like that in their homes, it will make a difference. It may not make a difference in terms of how much you pay for electricity, but in terms of long term use ad emissions, it can make a difference.

 

[wunderbar]

So if my math is right, 9 watts for 24 hours for 30 days represents about 6.5 KW of electricity in a month to sit unused.

In my apartment I use around 200kwh of electricity per month in the winter, so that represents about 3.25% of my electricity use, even if I never turn it on.

Doesn't sound like a lot, but that's just one device. Do that with 2 more devices that draw 9 watts, and I'm talking about 10% of my monthly electricity use in a month. That won't make much of a difference financially, since the electricity rates where I live are around 5c/kwh, but in terms of actual electricity usage and emissions, it all adds up.

People may write stories like this off as "yeah but that's not really that much electricity" but it all adds up.

 

[dfg77]

Somewhat off topic.

I bought a dishwasher five ten years ago but realized too late I had no use for it at the time, so I left it disconnected thinking I would save power. When I recently plugged it in the programs didn’t work correctly, as if the memory had been partially lost. I’ve read flash needs to be plugged in or this could happen.

I had to recycle it since it was cheaper to buy a new one than to repair it. A hefty carbon footprint considering it was new when I bought it and I never used it.

Edit - SmileyBarry: Changed five years to ten years. Don't know if that makes any difference to what you wrote.

 

[Pagey123]

How could they draw that much power when streaming video? It's not doing software decode is it? They should have hardware decode for most common types of video codecs so power usage should be very low unless the system is doing other things at the same time.

Preface: this is total guess work on my part. I noticed some time ago (though I don't recall the source) a huge disparity in the power draw of a dedicated set top Blu-ray player (it was a Sony model) and using a gaming console (can't recall if XBox or PS) as a Blu-ray player. The dedicated Blu-ray player used like 8 watts during disc playback and the console was like 45 watts (or maybe even more). I assumed it was down to a couple of things: 1.) the ASIC in the dedicated BD player was heavily optimized for ONLY decoding the approved BD video codecs (AVC, VC-1, MPEG-2) while 2.) the console was running other things in the background in addition to only the necessary video codecs.

 

[Slowpoke]

Another way to spin this is that Microsoft's earlier update (~25W down to ~15W) already saved the world 4 billion kWh of electricity by 2025

 

[Zoolook]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

It all adds to the carbon debt though. Like someone $80k in the hole on credit cards and behind on their mortgage tells themselves... "it's just a starbucks, in the big scheme of things it makes no difference..."

... it's just a starbucks


... it's just a night out


... it's just a new freezer


... it's just a a 3rd mortgage

 

[julesverne]

Is that the best story we can come up with today?

This is one of those GIGANTIC NUMBER BAD stories that serves to defeat the entire point of environmental conservation, because it makes it sound like the best solutions are annoying, pointless, or even trivially simple...

Sure, there are many better and inexpensive things you could do to lower your carbon footprint by >$10 a year. Replace your weatherstripping, fix that leaky thing, replace that ancient appliance... But the big picture is the source of the energy.

I fully understand that running an Xbox on standby costs me ~$10 a year. I'm not going to go in to the "usefulness" of the heat - but it's also not worthless. Paying $10 a year to have my $60 game up-to-date during the 1-2 hours I actually get to play, on my $500+ console... Irrelevant beyond irrelevant to me.

Personally, the article struck me more like spotlighting poor product design. One firmware update and the standby draw was halved. In any case, the piece had zero to do with money wasted. The high constant standby draw is indicative of a design mentality that prioritizes an insignificant convenience bonus above carbon emissions optimization. In that sense it's a small example of the larger problem of designing products in a warming world.

At the end of the day the grid needs an overhaul with a total phase out of fossil fuels and transformation to 100% renewable. Something that several countries in the EU have already initiated. That then would obviate the unethical aspect of high power draw.

 

[Ten Wind]

4 billion kWh sounds like quite a bit at first glance, but when you do the arithmetic it's actually relatively small given the timeframe.

Using local numbers, the carbon cost of power generation is 77g/kWh. Multiplied by 4 billion yields 308 Gigagrams or 308 kilotons. Over four years (as the article states by 2025), this is a contribution of (it should be obvious) 77 kilotons per year. Which is a lot!

However! The US annual carbon output is somewhat above 5 billion kilotons per year. So these 77 kilotons represent 1.54*10^-6 % of the annual output.

It's definitely a point worth raising, because it's certainly illustrative of the difference small choices in manufacturing and design can have when scaled out over a population.

It is also worth keeping in mind the sheer scale of the problem we're facing. Simple fixes like leaving devices off standby will simply not have an impact on our future. We need immediate and drastic action and we should not lose sight of that.

 

[Slowpoke]

Re: Ten Wind

I agree with your overall point about the relatively small proportion. Question about the details though - I thought US emissions were closer to 7 billion tons (7 million kilotons) per year, which is 1000X smaller than your 5 billion kilotons. Unless I've made a calculation error?

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... -emissions

 

[aleph_nought]

So if my math is right, 9 watts for 24 hours for 30 days represents about 6.5 KW of electricity in a month to sit unused.

In my apartment I use around 200kwh of electricity per month in the winter, so that represents about 3.25% of my electricity use, even if I never turn it on.

Doesn't sound like a lot, but that's just one device. Do that with 2 more devices that draw 9 watts, and I'm talking about 10% of my monthly electricity use in a month. That won't make much of a difference financially, since the electricity rates where I live are around 5c/kwh, but in terms of actual electricity usage and emissions, it all adds up.

People may write stories like this off as "yeah but that's not really that much electricity" but it all adds up.

And that's just you. Multiply that by all the Xbox owners in the world and the numbers really add up. I'm surprised Xboxes use that much power even on standby when a typical desktop idles for less and uses almost no power when sleeping.

 

[Fred Duck]

The whole point of a console sleeping is so it can hopefully patch games before you want to play them. When I say patch, that can be many multiple gigs of data for a single title.

Ah, so modern gaming's mantra of "ship now, fix later (maybe)" is literally ruining the planet. Now I feel justified for hating it so.

 

[ATol]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

So, 78 kWh additional on top of the usual 10,000 kWh?

10,078 / 10,000 = an annual increase of 0.78%.

 

[odikweos]

This sort of analysis is why I think conservation as a primary means of dealing with climate change is foolish. Sure, we shouldn't go out of our way to waste power - but let's invest in tech so that electricity becomes green and cheap as dirt. Then pulling CO2 out of the air is a matter of building plants. Fusion's looking pretty legit these days - I look forward to a time when conserving power becomes a quaint thing people worried about back in the day.

 

[Tanj]

You appear not to have recalculated the conclusions to reflect the updated number of 9 to 10W in instant standby. With the assumption of 2/3 of 30M consoles in that mode, which is 20M consoles, that is 200MW.

A 200MW load is not equivalent to a 500MW power station.

Even with that correction, 200MW is not a good amount of waste. It is comparable to leaving on a modern 800 lumen LED light bulb all day, instead of only when you need it.

 

[MikeAlbers]

What about all the extra power it draws for menial tasks like watching Netflix?

Maybe read the last two paragraphs of the article?

How dare you! RTFA? You're lucky if some of us read the entire headline before making a comment.

 

[eideticex]

How could they draw that much power when streaming video? It's not doing software decode is it? They should have hardware decode for most common types of video codecs so power usage should be very low unless the system is doing other things at the same time.

It's fairly simple really. Video requires moving a lot of data very rapidly across the system. Wattage is the voltage and amperage multiplied together, you want HD video then you need enough current (amperage) to push it around the conductors. Doesn't matter if those conductors are in the CPU or a CODEC chip, same work has to be done either way; the decoder chip is just notable less intensive than the CPU. Still a considerable amount of pixels on your average gaming screen, especially with 4k.

 

[pseudoname]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

What's up with the strange units in the title of the article? Why is it referencing billions of kWH instead of MWH or GWH? It's a strange obfuscation.

 

[c741535]

I fully understand that running an Xbox on standby costs me ~$10 a year. I'm not going to go in to the "usefulness" of the heat - but it's also not worthless. Paying $10 a year to have my $60 game up-to-date during the 1-2 hours I actually get to play, on my $500+ console... Irrelevant beyond irrelevant to me.

Context is super important here and everyones milage will vary. I suspect most people want to save energy and, if they can, use energy from less impactful generation. Convenience does not have to be sacrificed, but effort is required.

We installed a 4.7kW solar system on our home 5 years ago. The detailed data we receive from our smart inverter allowed us to target inefficient devices (such as the freezer which we replaced with a better device and we know the ROI in terms of saved energy costs). Installing solar has allowed us to not only maximise our personal use of the power we generate (sending back to the grid generates about 25% income compared to savings of using it ourselves, so use it!) but also has allowed us to change our habits, change/tweak or turn off inefficient devices. Our old average daily usage was over 30kWh/day, it's now about 20kWh/day, usage includes using self-generated. Information is power! (terrible pun).

If you are 'hand wringing' over this story consider using this opportunity to assess what else you are doing to reduce your energy footprint. You will not convince anyone to save power by taking away or shaming their conveniences. You WILL convince them by showing the clear benefit of understanding their power usage and the mundane things that contribute to it being higher than it could be.

Save energy, save money, feel good and you don't have to miss out on convenience where you can justify it.

Edit to clarify - I'm not saying you need to install solar to gather the data you need on your energy usage, it's just how we've been easily able to do it as a big side-benefit. There are several other methods available to gather and analyse this data that will work in most circumstances and deliver benefit to almost everyone. I would urge everyone to gather this information however you can and take appropriate action. You will save money/energy and feel good about it.

 

[Digital Dud]

For comparison the Switch draws about 10 watts when it's active and playing a game.

 

[bbf]

Semi-related: I found out this week thanks to this video that my El Cheapo Vick's humidifier can draw 200W at full tilt, which was a giant surprise to me. I bought a whole-home model last week anyway, and it covers more area while using less power, and the energy savings will pay for itself in a couple months.

If you watch his connextras follow up video, he addresses the fact that if one is using resistive electric heating and only using the humidifier in the winter, using the el cheapo Vick's one is the most efficient since the heat generated by it is heat that doesn't have to be generated by electric heating.

If you use an electric heat pump, then the vick's heat based humidifier will definitely result in more power use though since heat pumps are so much more efficient than resistive electrical heating.

The calculation may change if you have gas heating since it tends to be cheaper than resistive electric heating in most places.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfFAiCMLJ14

 

[NoMorePosting]

So this story is now updated to show it was based on complete nonsense in the first place.

Not really surprising to anyone who actually owns an Xbox - they are well designed, with more power and smart home options than I'd have expected, now I'm using it as my T.V. smart controller (the old Xbox One that is). Even set to the power saving mode rather than instant on it manages to wake up when one of the controllers is activated - log in that user, and through a power detecting strip - power on all the other entertainment unit items, including a tv which would draw far more standby power than the Xbox does.

 

[dragosmp]

I'm one of those people that following a similar story 10+ years ago, bought a kill-a-watt and mapped my house.

Turns out my router was consuming about 24W. Having that router run 24/7/365@24W made it consume more than the fridge (136W@2h-a-day or running the compressor/365days). Since in EU every idle component must draw under 1W and all lights in the house are LED, the router was about 20% of my yearly electricity consumption.

It's dissapointing the job MS has done so far. The Xbox is a PC afterall, they can S3 "active" idle in single digit wattage.

 

[Chuckstar]

I’m all for an “all of the above” approach to minimizing energy waste in general, and carbon emissions more particularly, but keep in mind that annual carbon output is measured in the gigatonnes. So this is somewhere below a rounding error in the carbon problem.

Sure, but the point is to raise awareness about a bunch of different things, beyond just the Xbox. Yes, this is one issue, but if everyone were to look at 3 or 4 things like that in their homes, it will make a difference. It may not make a difference in terms of how much you pay for electricity, but in terms of long term use ad emissions, it can make a difference.

Yeah. 0.01% here, 0.01% there, and next thing you know, you’ve eliminated 0.02% of global carbon emissions.

Or in other words, why doesn’t the NRDC actually go find or talk about something that might actually make a difference? Because it gets more headlines to attack MSFT?

 

[Eraserhead]

I’m all for an “all of the above” approach to minimizing energy waste in general, and carbon emissions more particularly, but keep in mind that annual carbon output is measured in the gigatonnes. So this is somewhere below a rounding error in the carbon problem.

Sure, but the point is to raise awareness about a bunch of different things, beyond just the Xbox. Yes, this is one issue, but if everyone were to look at 3 or 4 things like that in their homes, it will make a difference. It may not make a difference in terms of how much you pay for electricity, but in terms of long term use ad emissions, it can make a difference.

Yeah. 0.01% here, 0.01% there, and next thing you know, you’ve eliminated 0.02% of global carbon emissions.

Or in other words, why doesn’t the NRDC actually go find or talk about something that might actually make a difference? Because it gets more headlines to attack MSFT?

OK switch off your air conditioning unless it’s above 90F. It’s unnecessary - passive cooling (I.e closing the curtains in the daytime and opening the windows at night can keep your house pretty close to the overall minimum temperature if it is well constructed.)

That’s why Americans use 10MWh of electricity a year vs 3MWh a year here.

 

[Zaitu]

Despite these corporations going on about global warming, the environment, the fact is that they don't care about it, that's all PR. The power drain from several devices in the home really do add up. And if individuals stop thinking only of themselves, and think of the street, the community, the state, the country, that's alot of wasted power.

Real power off switches for devices are very rare these days. I have all my gear on individually switched power boards which I switch off when the unit is not is use. Also, all the AC power points around the house each have their own switches, which is not common in the US (I believe), which further leads to power wastage.

 

[Legatum_of_Kain]

Not going to lie, Microsoft could make energy saving the default by telling the users that if they're unsure, to use the power saving option when the screen shows up, and this would save them money and the environment.

But hey, that would mean taking a side.

I rarely use the quick resume in the PS4 Pro for example, and I'm an impatient person.

 

[rvt]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

To put that 10MWH inperspective, except for a few countries in Europe the average EU household consumes around 4MWH per year.
https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publication ... lling.html

 

[johnsonwax]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

To put that 10MWH inperspective, except for a few countries in Europe the average EU household consumes around 4MWH per year.
https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publication ... lling.html

CA is about 6MWh. Our household is about 3.5MWh, though that'll go up a bit as we just replaced a gas water heater with an electric one.

In CA about half of power usage is appliances, and there's a lot of potential power savings there. Programmable thermostats are more common in CA, as are tiered cooling - we have ceiling fans, a whole house fan, and an AC, so the AC usually doesn't kick in until it hits 90. Something like ¼ of US households have a 2nd standalone freezer, which tend to be really energy wasteful. We have timers on quite a few lights/fans, some sensors, smart bulbs, etc. Laptops instead of desktops. It's adds up.

 

[balthazarr]

1W standby, even 10W - sounds like a dream.

We run a dialysis machine in the house.

Combined, the RO filter and dialysis machine itself draw 50-60W in full standby mode. The dialysis machine about 15-20W and the RO filter 35-40W.

60-freakin'-Watts!!!

Other than maintaining real-time clocks and trickle maintaining a (small) backup battery on the dialysis machine, I have no idea what could be consuming so much power - particularly on the RO unit.

Even worse, the RO unit starts up once every 12 hours (I think) and runs a flush sequence (lasts about 10-15mins), using about 250-300W when running and an unknown quantity of water.

Sure, one is keeping someone alive, and the other is just an entertainment machine - but 60W seems excessive and should be able to be reduced, surely (particularly for the RO)? [The machine is not old - it's a latest model]

Turning them off/unplugging them is not really an option, either - the flush is to maintain the water quality, and the backup battery is there in case there's a power failure during treatment and needs to be kept charged. I'm not sure what tech the battery uses, but it only supplies limited power for up to 30 mins (enough to basically safely shut down the machine and disconnect the patient - it doesn't supply enough power to actually run treatment, even for the 30 mins, as it doesn't heat the fluid), and I understand it takes hours to charge.

 

[Eraserhead]

1W standby, even 10W - sounds like a dream.

We run a dialysis machine in the house.

Combined, the RO filter and dialysis machine itself draw 50-60W in full standby mode. The dialysis machine about 15-20W and the RO filter 35-40W.

60-freakin'-Watts!!!

Other than maintaining real-time clocks and trickle maintaining a (small) backup battery on the dialysis machine, I have no idea what could be consuming so much power - particularly on the RO unit.

Even worse, the RO unit starts up once every 12 hours (I think) and runs a flush sequence (lasts about 10-15mins), using about 250-300W when running and an unknown quantity of water.

Sure, one is keeping someone alive, and the other is just an entertainment machine - but 60W seems excessive and should be able to be reduced, surely (particularly for the RO)? [The machine is not old - it's a latest model]

Turning them off/unplugging them is not really an option, either - the flush is to maintain the water quality, and the backup battery is there in case there's a power failure during treatment and needs to be kept charged. I'm not sure what tech the battery uses, but it only supplies limited power for up to 30 mins (enough to basically safely shut down the machine and disconnect the patient - it doesn't supply enough power to actually run treatment, even for the 30 mins, as it doesn't heat the fluid), and I understand it takes hours to charge.

That’s a pretty niche case though to be fair. Of course it’s fair enough to use that. But that’s not causing overall US electricity usage to be double Europe where I’m sure some people will have similar machines.

 

[balthazarr]

1W standby, even 10W - sounds like a dream.

We run a dialysis machine in the house.

Combined, the RO filter and dialysis machine itself draw 50-60W in full standby mode. The dialysis machine about 15-20W and the RO filter 35-40W.

60-freakin'-Watts!!!

Other than maintaining real-time clocks and trickle maintaining a (small) backup battery on the dialysis machine, I have no idea what could be consuming so much power - particularly on the RO unit.

Even worse, the RO unit starts up once every 12 hours (I think) and runs a flush sequence (lasts about 10-15mins), using about 250-300W when running and an unknown quantity of water.

Sure, one is keeping someone alive, and the other is just an entertainment machine - but 60W seems excessive and should be able to be reduced, surely (particularly for the RO)? [The machine is not old - it's a latest model]

Turning them off/unplugging them is not really an option, either - the flush is to maintain the water quality, and the backup battery is there in case there's a power failure during treatment and needs to be kept charged. I'm not sure what tech the battery uses, but it only supplies limited power for up to 30 mins (enough to basically safely shut down the machine and disconnect the patient - it doesn't supply enough power to actually run treatment, even for the 30 mins, as it doesn't heat the fluid), and I understand it takes hours to charge.

That’s a pretty niche case though to be fair.

True. But it's annoying - especially to the bill payer! Electricity is damned expensive in Aus - we pay at or near the top rate in the world - about AUD $0.40/kWh peak (weekdays 7am to 11pm) and $0.20kWh off-peak (all other times).

EDIT: It's about 1.5kWh/day - say AUD$0.50/day - just in wasted standby power.

 

[Eraserhead]

To put that 78 kWH into perspective, the average US household consumes a little over 10 MWH per year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

To put that 10MWH inperspective, except for a few countries in Europe the average EU household consumes around 4MWH per year.
https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publication ... lling.html

CA is about 6MWh. Our household is about 3.5MWh, though that'll go up a bit as we just replaced a gas water heater with an electric one.

In CA about half of power usage is appliances, and there's a lot of potential power savings there. Programmable thermostats are more common in CA, as are tiered cooling - we have ceiling fans, a whole house fan, and an AC, so the AC usually doesn't kick in until it hits 90. Something like ¼ of US households have a 2nd standalone freezer, which tend to be really energy wasteful. We have timers on quite a few lights/fans, some sensors, smart bulbs, etc. Laptops instead of desktops. It's adds up.

A second own brand tall freezer uses around 0.2MWh a year. It’s a lot but not that much.

 

[wk_]

Is this even legal? There are limits in EU how much power (hint: very little) a device can draw when turned off. I used to work in TV STB industry and there was a serious effort on each project to handle this.

STBs and similar devices have to have a piece od HW for handling this (typically part of the SoC). That is the only part of the device that is alive when it's turned off and its duty is to monitor the remote, power button and its own timer (for scheduled recording, scheduled SW updates just as MS spokesman suggested, etc). Then it wakes up the system and CPU ca sayn query it to see what was the wake-up reason and then it can decide how to proceed, with or without turning the screen on.

 

[omarsidd]

Seems like ultra-low standby power modes developed for mobile devices should be used for in cases like this also.

The 10W is an improvement from before, but still seems high for an idle device in 2021.

And yes, the European model of requiring power-saving be the default seems quite wise at the moment...