Hey Ernie, Who do you suppose is going to force the less than forthcoming manufacturers to disclose their vampire loads? I'm betting it'll take one of those 'arrogant paternalistic bureaucracies' you just told to shut up.

Air conditioning season is the time of year when low-power devices pay off the best. Every adult human produces 100 W idle (on average), more when exercising. So what you can do immediately to reduce power consumption is to avoid indoor exercise in the summer.

Now you must digest the excellent comments and write a more comprehensive editorial! Don't forget the electric hot water heater. If I turn mine off overnight and whenever I leave the house, I think it reduces my elec. bill about $10 per month. My power cost is $0.10 per KW-hr. The AC powered alarm clock is almost intolerable. With a tiny battery, the clock should be able to keep time during a one-week power failure, and save the pesky business of having to reset it every time the power blips. It is a clearcut case of the clock manufacturers not bothering to offer an up-to-date product. As for the TV, I think I'll run the line cord over the top and plug it in when I want to use it. It must use 10 to 15 watts on standby.

Long before the advent of always-on electronic gadgets, there were still a lot of small loads always drawing a few watts. Count all the electric clocks, timers, & transformers. Don't forget the timer on the water softener and the clock on the kitchen range. Include the low voltage doorbell and furnace transformers. You can easily add up 50 watts or more in an average home.

Standby energy losses have proliferated with the widespread use of power supplies that are always in the partially-on state. As noted in that editorial, many power supplies continue to use electrical energy even when no load is applied. While the US requirement is focused on requiring 1W maximum, the European Code of Conduct will require- voluntarily, although with mandatory reporting of manufacturers’ actual figures- less than 0.3W in 2005. The challenge is to find solutions to this growing global waste of energy. Standby losses are also reaching critical performance limitations in solid state devices. Leakages from many millions of transistors per chip contribute substantially to current consumption. The problem only continues to worsen as gates shrink below 100 nm and become leakier through mechanisms like tunneling. The impact to the end customer of portable products is reduced battery life, while the cumulative energy loss can be significant on a global scale. Solutions to date have included the use of sleep transistors or other design approaches to minimize off-state current drain. Multiple power supplies within a chip are also being used (see “Seven-Supplies-On-A-Chip Energize XScale Processor-Based Products, by Don Tuite, Electronic Design, Sept. 9, 2004, p. 26).

Control chips for analog power supplies are readily available, as are switch-mode supplies that are more efficient under no-load conditions. A wide variety of silicon solutions to tailor on-chip voltages and sleep states continue to be developed by chip makers. All these approaches add complexity, and therefore cost. What if there were a less costly and complex approach to limiting standby leakages?

It does not appear to be widely recognized that standby energy losses could be reduced by application of threshold switches. Operation would be basically as follows. A voltage-controlled threshold switch remains in a state of high resistance until reaching a specific value of applied voltage, above which it becomes highly conducting. Some investigators have called this behavior bistability, which refers to two operating regions. Another related type of behavior is negative differential resistance, where in contrast to a linear, Ohmic device, resistance may actually decrease under increased applied voltage. These devices typically have only two terminals, which readily enables them to function as smart switches requiring no additional control lines. The door that is yet unopened is to correctly optimize the materials to achieve a suitable operating curve for each application.

Where do you go to buy such a switch? None seems to be available on the market today. But, many types of materials may be used in the fabrication of voltage controlled threshold switches, including the chalcogenides. This group of the periodic table includes the elements including selenium and tellurium. The memory switching effect of chalcogenides- known widely an optically active material for CD-ROM’s and photocopiers- has recently been commercialized in phase-change memory devices. In addition, many other types of non-crystalline materials, known as amorphous glasses, have been reported in the literature over the past 40 years. Some of the more promising materials include amorphous silicon compounds as well as III-V semiconductors like GaP or GaInP. Much of the research into the amorphous materials reached a peak several decades ago (reference Sir Neville Mott’s 1977 Nobel Lecture in Physics, “Electrons in Glass”). More recently the bistable or negative resistance characteristics have been found in a number of organic semiconductors. These materials are of great interest due to hopes that they can be inexpensively printed rather than requiring high vacuum or high temperature conditions like traditional wafer fabrication. These new materials have been found to behave with characteristics that may make them promising threshold switches. A material can thus be chosen to match the particular device or system in need of leakage control.

In another variation, threshold switches may be used in current controlled mode rather than as voltage controlled. The characteristic current-voltage operating curves are referred to as N-shaped and S-shaped, respectively. A thyristor is a familiar example of a current-controlled switch having a third terminal. Both AC and DC operation of threshold switches have been reported to be possible. Although an extensive literature exists on threshold switch technology, these structures have not been applied to solving practical leakage problems. One reason is that researchers have mostly focused on highly crystalline materials rather than the amorphous structures that have threshold switching properties. Another reason seems to be that the non-Ohmic behavior that is the unique property of a threshold switch has not been widely recognized as useful. Non-linear behavior is not, after all, what is traditionally taught about classical resistor materials. The development of threshold switches to reduce leakage represents a new application that could address some of the energy wasted by today’s power supply designs as well as today’s silicon and tomorrow’s III-V and organic IC materials. A more complete description of the development of threshold switch technology, with over 40 references to the literature, may be found in the recent article “Pulling the Plug on Current Drain: Advances in material selection for reducing standby leakage.” IEEE Circuits & Devices Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 6, November/December, 2004, pp. 12-16.

Provide Simple Switches that are capable of turning on and off individual devices.

Also have 2 master MCBs in home one that will connect ALL devices that need to be kept live like refrigerators & lamp in the porch and other one that can disconnect all devices like television, microwave,....when one locks home and is on way out.

Very intriguing topic. Great!

Standby power in a clock radio, or microwave oven, etc.is insignificant compared to using inefficient appliances in normal use. A typical home probably has on average several hundred watts of incandescent lighting wasting 2/3 of the power used compared to fluorescents. The hundreds of millions of computors using 65 to 70 percent efficient power supplies are wasting 25 to 75 watts all the time they are operating compared to using a 90 percent efficient supply, that would only cost a couple of dollars more to make. These two alone dwarf any savings gained by reducing standby power and would be much more cost effective.

Dear Mark,

I just finished reading your article and got to the paragraph just before your closing, which states "It's estimated that the average consumer is spending between $10.00 and $12.00 a month on standby power." I thought to myself, that's a lot of money, and an appreciable portion of my electrical utility bill. I should run those numbers backwards and see just which electronics appliances in my home might be wasting my $10.00 to $12.00 each month.

The following is my attempt to backtrack the electrical energy consumption that would be eating up $10.00 to $12.00 a month in a home:<br>

============================================================<br>

What does PG&E charge me for electricity? $00.12589 per kilo Watt hour.

How much am I spending on standby power per month? $11.00.

How many kilo watt hours am I using per month? $11.00 / $00.12589 = 87.38 KWH.

How many watts is that? 87.38 * 1000 = 87,380 watts per month.

How many watts is that a year? 87,380 * 12 = 1,048,534 watts per year.

How many Watts is that a day? 1,048,534 / 365.25 = 2,870 watts per day.

How many watts is that an hour? 2,870 / 24 = 119.6 watts per hour.<BR><br> ============================================================ <br>

Very interesting. 119 watts each and every hour of the day. That's a lot of power. Who are the culprits?

Let's see, I have a TV that draws power even when I've turned the switch off. How much power does it consume. Well, the back panel says it uses 126 watts. I'd guess that in standby, it draws less than 10% of it's running power. Now where are the other 107 watts being consumed? What/where do you think they are?

<b>Author replies:</b> Hi Charles, Thanks for taking the time to crunch the numbers and offer your feedback. I think you'll find this chart interesting. You'll see that you were very close on the TV estimate, and this shows you where the rest of it goes...

http://standby.lbl.gov/Data/SummaryChart.html

Mark David

Right on for bringing up the standby power issue. And yes, we do need appliances brought down to as low a standby power level as possible. But we absolutely do not need more of some arrogant paternalistic bureaucracy telling us all is okay. Shut up and go away. We need full and open disclosure on every appliance just what power it draws. This is especially a problem when living in an off-grid house. The manufacturers don't say (or don't know) what is going on; and it is about impossible to get a salesman to even admit he does not know! I look to the day when all appliances come with a label that includes "The vampire load of this appliance is a continuous 12345 microwatts!"

Dear Mark,

In the past, I have felt a certain amount of annoyance when reading articles about the enormous waste of electricity for PCs that are left on continuously. Recently that has been extended to articles about "always on" in general.

My problem is not with the laudable goal of reducing the power consumption of the gadgets we use in the modern world. Improving the efficiency of the systems we design is a worthy goal in all cases.

My annoyance comes from the probably inaccurate numbers that are used to drive the governmental intrusion into the design process.

Why do I suspect the accuracy of the numbers? Well, let's take your editorial here as an example. You stated you were preparing to leave for a Thanksgiving road trip. I do not know which part of the world you live in, but for the sake of furthering my argument, I will assume that your residence is in a part of the U.S. where homes must be heated in late October. I will further assume for the sake of my argument that you have all electric heat in your home. Given those assumptions, how much energy would you have saved by going around the house and unplugging all the devices drawing "standby" power while you were out of town? None. Zero. Zip.

Why is that so? Simply because every one of those LEDs that was "wasting power" while you were away was each helping in its own tiny way to keep your home above the minimum temperature that you had selected on your thermostat's vacation setting. If the arrays of tiny winky-blinkys fell behind in the task, or were simply not contributing because they were unplugged, then not to worry, because the four killowatt resistance heater in your furnace probably never noticed their absence.

Perhaps I am overstating your case. Perhaps you live in a part of the country where home heating is done with natural gas. In that case, you would have saved the difference in energy cost between 20 watts of electricity and 20 watts of natural gas. I could be even more in error if you live where supplemental heat is not required even at the start of the Christmas season.

And should you live in a part of the world where air conditioning is required this time of year, then my error factor is multiplied by the inefficiencies of the A/C systems.

I worked from guesses to draw the conclusion that you would have saved nothing by disabling the numerous gadgets in your home. I suspect that the International Energy Agency is also working from guesses about how many devices are in use, under what conditions they are used, and what true impact they have on net power consumption. Add to that my observation that governmental agencies always overstate their arguments by an order of magnitude or more, and you begin to see the genesis of my feeling of annoyance.

I would guess that the recent trend to try to "mobilize" every possible electronic widget while maximizing battery life has done more to foster low-power designs than the government ever accomplished with the Energy Star program.

Efficient designs are always good, governmental propaganda rarely is. In spite of my personal prickliness about this subject, I thought your editorial was a great lead-in to useful information about the PowerSystems World show.

Just another view for your consideration.

Best regards, Alan

<b>RAP replies:</b> *** Hello, Alan, and Friends, see at ***

Alan Tibbetts wrote:

<i>Dear Mark, In the past, I have felt a certain amount of annoyance when reading articles about the enormous waste of electricity for PCs that are left on continuously.</i>

*** In the old days, TV sets wasted 80 watts - mostly in vacuum tubes...

*** To this day, many TV's have "always-on" circuits that waste a couple watts, just to monitor the "Remote Control." My LED clocks also waste two or three watts. I'll pay for it. About $3 per year, each.

<i>Recently, that has been extended to articles about "always on" in general. My problem is not with the laudable goal of reducing the power consumption of the gadgets we use in the modern world. Improving the efficiency of the systems we design is a worthy goal in all cases. </i>

*** I disagree: NOT if it costs more to make that energy-efficient device, than the cost of the energy it saves in 2 or 3 years.

<i>My annoyance comes from the probably inaccurate numbers that are used to drive the governmental intrusion into the design process. Why do I suspect the accuracy of the numbers? Well, lets take this editorial as an example. You stated you were preparing to leave for a Thanksgiving road trip. I do not know which part of the world you live in, but for the sake of furthering my argument, I will assume that your residence is in a part of the U.S. where homes must be heated in late October. I will further assume for the sake of my argument that you have all electric heat in your home. </i>

**** Most people do not, thank heavens! I'm planning to convert from electric heat to gas in a few months.

<i>Given those assumptions, how much energy would you have saved by going around the house and unplugging all the devices drawing "standby" power while you were out of town? None. Zero. Zip.</i> **** Check.

<i>Why is that so? Simply because every one of those LEDs that was "wasting power" while you were away was each helping in its own tiny way to keep your home above the minimum temperature that you had selected on your thermostat's vacation setting. If the arrays of tiny winky-blinkys fell behind in the task, or were simply not contributing because they were unplugged, then not to worry, because the four killowatt resistance heater in your furnace probably never noticed their absence.</i> **** Check. - Well - barely...

<i>Perhaps I am overstating your case. Perhaps you live in a part of the country where home heating is done with natural gas. In that case, you would have saved the difference in energy cost between 20 watts of electricity and 20 watts of natural gas.</i>

*** I don't know what that ratio is... Maybe 2:1? - 3:1? / rap

<i>I could be even more in error if you live where supplemental heat is not required even at the start of the Christmas season. And should you live in a part of the world where air conditioning is required this time of year, then my error factor is multiplied by the inefficiencies of the A/C systems.</i> *** TRUE.

<i>I worked from guesses to draw the conclusion that you would have saved nothing</i> *** Or - ALMOST nothing.... maybe a dime a month per 10 watts? (Difference). <i>by disabling the numerous gadgets in your home. I suspect that the International Energy Agency is also working from guesses about how many devices are in use, under what conditions they are used, and what true impact they have on net power consumption. Add to that my observation that governmental agencies always overstate their arguments by an order of magnitude or more, and you begin to see the genesis of my feeling of annoyance.</i> *** Check.

<i>I would guess that the recent trend to try to "mobilize" every possible electronic widget while maximizing battery life has done more to foster low power designs than the government ever accomplished with the Energy Star program. </i>

*** But to make a "MOBILE" circuit has other costs, in its design, and then we HOPE to save $ on energy to pay back for the initial investment. Do we make any actual savings? We shall see...

*** Personally, I still use a vacuum-tube Audio Power Amplifier (Harmon-Kardon Stereo Festival 5000) - it helps keep my house warm, 11 months of the year. I turn it off from Sept 2 to 30 - i.e. OUR SUMMER!

<i>Efficient designs are always good,</i> *** USUALLY....

<i>governmental propaganda rarely is.</i> *** Check...

<i>In spite of my personal prickliness about this subject, I thought your editorial was a great lead-in to useful information about the PowerSystems World show. Just another view for your consideration.

Best regards, Alan</i>

I was very interested in this editorial. A similar situation exists in outdoor lights with photocontrols, also almost unknown as an energy gobbler. How much energy does a fixture draw when the photocontrol has it turned OFF durring the day? Answer: 1.5-2 watts during the day (peak energy cost time)with conventional or "Homecenter" grade controls. Or 0.4 watts with utility grade photocontrols. Not insignificant when you consider the number of outdoor Roadway, security, wall-pack and parking lot lights in the USA.

<b>Author replies:</b> Thanks for your comments, Jeff. Very interesting about the photocontrols.

One watt yuck. Most of the things that are always on don't need anywhere near 1 W if desgned for low power. I ditched my 4-W bed-side alarm clock for a battery operated one. The battery operated one is still running after 5 years on the same batteries and it does not have to be reset after a power failure. I get very tired resetting the clock on the microwave everytime the power fails. Who needs a clock on a microwave? The stupid thing blinks at you if you don't reset it so you can't just ignore resetting the clock.