backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by shortylickens.. on Jul 5 at 1:52 PM

Choosing an Energy Star product will save you money through lower electricity consumption and cooling costs

The Energy Star program is one of the best known standards for helping consumers choose energy efficient products. It was first introduced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1992, but has been since been adopted by Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan and the European Union as well.

The current Energy Star 4.0 computer specifications came into effect on July 20, 2007, and was notable for its requirements for power supplies that met the standards of the 80 PLUS program.

The efficiency of a computer power supply is measured by the amount of energy it supplies divided by the amount of energy that is drawn. A 500 watt power supply that is only 50% efficient would actually draw 1000 watts of power in order to supply the wattage needed, with the rest of the energy being converted into waste heat. This waste heat must be removed through the use of fans from the computer into the ambient air. Often, this air is also cooled through air conditioning, drawing even more power. 
 
Alternatively, an 80% efficient 500 watt power supply would draw 625 watts, with only 125 watts of wasted heat. The majority of computer systems draw less than 500 watts at full load, even with the latest video cards from NVIDIA and ATI.

This massive reduction in power consumption and waste heat is the driving principle behind the 80 PLUS program. Power Supply Units (PSUs) are typically most efficient between half and three quarters load. They are much less efficient at low load, and somewhat less efficient at maximum load. To qualify for an 80 PLUS sticker, a power supply must achieve at least 80% efficiency at three specified loads (20%, 50% and 100%) of the maximum rated power of the PSU.

Before 80 PLUS certification was introduced, most PSUs had 50% to 70% efficiency ratings. Most PSUs now meet the minimum standards of the 80 PLUS program, and it has become the market standard.

New tiers were therefore brought into effect in 2008 to highlight more efficient PSUs. The 80 PLUS Bronze level requires 85% efficiency at half load, and 82% efficiency at 20% and 100%. Silver and Gold levels were also introduced with higher efficiencies. Cooler Master was the first company to introduce a PSU at retail with 80 Plus Silver Certification, while OCZ Technology introduced its new Z-Series power supplies with 80 PLUS Gold and Silver certification recently. There are currently 132 PSUs certified at the 80 PLUS Silver level, while 88 PSUs are available at the 80 PLUS Gold level. 

Fraction of Rated Load

20%

50%

100%

80 PLUS

80%

80%

80%

80 PLUS Bronze

82%

85%

82%

80 PLUS Silver

85%

88%

85%

80 PLUS Gold

87%

90%

87%

The latest statistics from the 80 PLUS program show that there are now 1,610 PSUs that at least meet the basic 80 PLUS requirements. Since so many efficient power supplies are available to the public, new Energy Star requirements were created last year to raise the bar. Those requirements are now coming into effect.

The new Energy Star 5.0 specifications for computer require 80 PLUS Bronze level certified power supplies. There are 708 PSUs that have been certified to meet the 80 PLUS Bronze level or higher.

All computer products (except for game consoles) manufactured on or after July 1, 2009 must meet the Version 5.0 requirements in order to qualify for Energy Star certification. This includes models originally qualified under Energy Star 4.0 specifications.

Servers are not covered under these specs. Instead, the EPA released Version 1.0 of the Computer Server specifications on May 15, 2009. It covers standalone servers with one to four processor sockets. A second tier to the specification covering servers with more than four processor sockets, as well as blade servers and fault-tolerant machines is expected in late 2010. Data centers using these servers consume massive amounts of power, and even a small percentage increase in efficiency can yield millions in savings.

The full Energy Star 5.0 specifications for computers are available here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Schrag4 on 7/1/2009 9:49:24 AM , Rating: 5
A power efficiency article that even mentions the EPA, and no opinion was inserted! This was a refreshing read. Very informative. Thanks Jansen!

Don't get me wrong, I love the controversy of some of the other articles. Debate is good. But it's also very refreshing to read 'News' that isn't 20% new facts and 80% rammed-down-your-throat opinion.




RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By kattanna on 7/1/2009 10:29:11 AM , Rating: 5
thats because it wasnt written by jason


By foolsgambit11 on 7/1/2009 7:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
or Michael.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Entropy42 on 7/1/2009 11:18:41 AM , Rating: 5
Theres a big difference between this type of program, and efficiency programs that a lot of people on Dailytech complain about. This is just a certification. Its not a government mandate or set of fines imposed if you don't meet the standard. Its just a way the government is helping inform consumers of which products are most efficient. Everyone still has the right to produce and buy inefficient power supplies if they want. But most manufacturers will see the market value (determined by consumers) of the energy star rating, and make the business decision to improve their products to meet that standard.


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 11:27:20 AM , Rating: 3
Beat me to it.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 11:26:29 AM , Rating: 5
I'll bite (even though I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh).

I don't have a problem with Energy Star ratings. Why? Because they're not required in order for a product to be sold. To some power efficiency isn't an issue for a computer. It really isn't to me. I care more about the performance. However, indirectly it is because an inefficient power supply also generates more heat which makes me more uncomfortable when using my computer.

What people like me do have a problem with is when the government says "You can't build this product because we, a team of politicians with no knowledge of how the product works or is made, say so". The Energy Star label doesn't do that. At least for now anyway.

Now the free market also says that a better product at the same or nearly the same price from one company will force other companies making similar products to make their products better, lower their price, or go out of business. Which is how it should work and so far has in the case of Energy Star products.

A case where governments have stepped to far is that of banning the incandescent light bulb.


By Parhel on 7/1/2009 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
If you build your own systems, you ought to be looking for efficient power supplies. Efficiency in a power supply tend to be a mark of higher quality in general. In my experience, they've run cooler, quieter and made the whole system more stable. And, the extra money paid will be offset on your electric bill.

It's been said a thousand times, but it's worth repeating: don't cheap out on your power supply.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 2:28:38 PM , Rating: 3
You are right. Certain regulations and requirements are not all bad. And for those kinds I generally do not mind. Standardized connections on cars for ECUs means you can get your codes pulled anywhere which benefits not only consumers but also dealerships and other repair businesses.

However crap like forcing a company to not use solder that has lead in it based off some absurd idea that microscopic amounts of lead you never touch can somehow kill you is what I do not approve of. And if you're worried about your kid swallowing it, don't give it to them or leave them alone with it.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By dark matter on 7/1/2009 6:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
The idea about the lead isn't about touching it. It is about what happens when products containing lead end up in the landfill and then leach all the toxic chemicals into the watertable. Lead in the water table is quite serious.


By CSMR on 7/2/2009 3:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
A tax on lead might be justified for that reason but a ban isn't.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Veerappan on 7/2/2009 10:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really have anything to back the following statement up, so it might be totally off:

Isn't the idea behind RoHS to keep the electronics that end up in landfills from contaminating the water tables near where they're disposed of?


By Veerappan on 7/2/2009 11:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
That'll teach me to hit refresh before posting...


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 2:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
I will agree the government has had some really stupid regulations. But this doesn't mean that the government should not regulate. Hopefully we will some day put in politicians who are not stupid or who are not bought and payed for. This is where I think stupid regulations come from. Under Bush the credit card companies were able to basically pass their own laws for the credit industry. So what did they do they passed laws that allowed them to "rape" their customers. Look what caused this recession we are in, we deregulated the credit lending industry and companies ended up being worse then borrowing money from the mafia. History has shown over and over again that CEO's need someone looking over their shoulder or they basically turn in to criminals. Remember the founding fathers ideas of checks and balances.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 2:35:22 PM , Rating: 3
Credit cards are not what caused this. And Democrat policies are what caused the huge spike in risky loans to those who could not afford them. Even today you don't see Democrats looking to end the practice of giving loans to minorities without the ability to pay it back. Sub-prime loans are still being issued.

Yeah remember those ideas of checks and balances....something Obama seeks to ignore entirely with his new czars, having party control of the house and senate, and looking to load another liberal judge onto the supreme court(luckily which just overturned a former ruling of hers that was blatantly racist against whites). However what does the system of checks and balances in the federal government have to do with CEOs? Absolutely nothing.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 3:11:23 PM , Rating: 3
Funny you should mention that, I think there was a lawsuit against Wells Fargo for discriminating against certain minority groups, aka blacks and hispanics, when approving loans and types of loans. Funny because they are one of the few banks that came through this whole thing perfectly healthy.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
Gee go figure. A bank didn't want to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back. Those people happened to be black or hispanic.

Of course the liberal mindset is focus on the race to demonize the decision.


By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 3:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
It was actually worse then that they were giving them worse loans or denying them while giving loans to non blacks or hispanics that were in a lower financial position.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 3:23:46 PM , Rating: 1
The person looking over CEO's shoulders can only be the government. Thats what it has to do with checks and balances.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 3:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that's just worked out SWELL hasn't it...

The banks would be far better off if the government had never done anything and let the banks decide who to give loans to. The only thing regarding our financial system the federal government has the right to control is the printing of currency. Of course they're certainly excelling at printing money lately.


By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 5:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
We can't rely solely on North Korea to print our money...


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By theapparition on 7/1/2009 11:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just to start off, I'm not a listener of Limbaugh.

Saving energy is a great thing. Less polution in the enviroment is a great thing. Breast implants are a great thing!

What I think you are trying to infer is that center state backward conservative republicans are against any change. While some minority may have that view, the majority are for smart change.

If it is cost effective to implement high efficency power supplies in computers, than great, I'm all for it.

However, explain how it's a good idea to try to force solar power (for example). It is still not a cost effective solution. Explain how CO2 levels are lower than in previous history yet modern society is supposedly the cause of it. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Just take a look at incandescents vs fluorescent bulbs. Yes CF bulbs use less electricity, but I guarantee 20 years from now we'll all feel another backlash from all the mercury being dumped in landfills. Sometimes the cure is not better than the disease.

It's not change that I fear, it's dumb decisions that will affect my children based on garbage science and political motivations (not to mention some politians lining their own pockets).


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 2:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely, we need to dump this stupid republican and democrat thing and do what makes sense for the future. Unfortunately politics is politics and I'm sure most of all American can agree that 99.9999% of politicians or sleazy scum bags one step below lawyers, which most of them were before they stepped up into an even sleazier job.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is why you should not let them dictate your health care coverage to you, what kind of car you are able to buy and drive, what kind of light bulb you can use, how many gallons of water your toiler can flush, how much you should pay for energy or gas, etc.

And why you should vote for politicians who do not want to do those things. AKA, ACTUAL conservatives. Not fake ones.


By someguy123 on 7/1/2009 6:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
AKA, the invisible man.


By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 3:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
I will admit this issue is way above my head. Thats why I listen to the experts in the field. Kind of like if I have a major health problem I will listen to the doctor instead of going by my opinion. Granted its always best to get the opinions of more then one doctor. It does seem that climate change is the norm for the planet and has been going on for a long time, possibly due to solar cycles. It is also true that the atmosphere's composition has varied greatly in the past. The whole issue is for bigger minds then mine and probably to complicated for any one person to figure out period. Whatever the cause natural or man made there is the potential for it to turn our way of life on its head.


By shortylickens on 7/5/2009 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I intend to offset the efficiency of my new computer with a roll around Air Conditioner.

Also, I vote Libertarian.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By GodisanAtheist on 7/1/2009 11:25:32 AM , Rating: 3
The Energy Star Program doesn't elicit the same howls market interference as many other EPA policies do because it is merely a consumer tool and a guideline, not an unattainable standard that is mandatory because politicians think engineers are magicians.

Frankly I think such a program (awarding a certificate rather than mandating a baseline) would be just as effective with car manufactures as it has been with washers/dryers/water heaters/TV's/etc...


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jansen (blog) on 7/1/2009 11:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy figures are readily available when buying a car.

PSU efficiency figures aren't...


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2009 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
MPG isn't the only thing the government cares about. On the 2004 GTO, the lean cruise feature that existed in the Australian version was disabled in the US despite the fact that it boosted MPG from 26 to 29 on the highway. Why? Because the nox emissions were too high.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2009 2:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Fuel economy figures are readily available when buying a car."

P.S. this was also a government regulation, not only that but the government has to keep modifying it to keep manufacturers from trying to give misleading fuel economy numbers.


RE: Refreshingly fact-only news article
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 6:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy is not equal with efficiency. A fuel efficient truck is very different from a fuel efficient car. In fact the truck could easily be more efficient than the car if measured properly.

A better measure of efficiency would be Miles per Gallon per Ton. By this measure locomotives are roughly 3 to 4 times more fuel efficient than your typical Prius. And last I checked a Prius doesn't fit everyone's needs (good luck towing a horse trailer with a Prius.)

Other useful measures of fuel economy would be Passenger Miles per Gallon - this would allow you to determine if it really is more efficient to take a single hybrid Tahoe or two Priuses when transporting your local soccer team.


By foolsgambit11 on 7/1/2009 8:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
MPG/Ton would be a useful rating for those who are planning on doing a large amount of moving equipment around. But that's not the majority of consumers, really - especially not those looking at a Prius, or any sedan.

As for MPG/Passenger, the fact remains that most cars are driven with one, maybe two people in them most of the time. So the numbers have to be taken with the understanding that these are optimum fuel efficiencies not normally reached by most drivers. None the less, for comparison, a Chevy Tahoe Hybrid seats 8 and is rated at 21 city/22 highway. A Prius seats 5 and is rated at 51 city/48 highway. A soccer team of 11 (no subs), assuming they're kids and can't drive, would fit in 3 Priuses or 2 Tahoes. Over 50 city miles, the 3 Priuses would burn just under 3 gallons. The 2 Tahoes would nearly 5 gallons. Even in a worst-case scenario, where you need to move 6 people total - two Priuses but only one Tahoe, over 50 miles, the Priuses together would burn 2 gallons while the one Tahoe would burn about 2 and a half.

All of the info to figure this out, though, is made available - passenger capacities and fuel economies. For towing, it's harder to find the effect on fuel economy.


By pukemon on 7/1/2009 3:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
Because most of us can agree that when doing a system build, spending an extra $20 or so and buying a good power supply is a really good idea. Most of the better ones are going to be 80+ anyway.


exceptions
By tastyratz on 7/1/2009 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Servers have similar but more intensive requirements people can read about here:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_spec...
(not linked in the article)

Also elaborating on video games in the computer spec:

quote:
Game Console: A standalone computer-like device whose primary use is to play video games. Game consoles use a hardware architecture based in part on typical computer components (e.g., processors, system memory, video architecture, optical and/or hard drives, etc.).

Looks like a game console is defined as a computer in the computer spec and therefore has to adhere to the same minimum power supply specifications for energystar labeling. If you read further the other requirements are slightly different. Console makers appear to get an additional year before it goes into effect for them. Also, the specification is not final for video game specific clauses as well.




massive waste?
By GlassHouse69 on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: massive waste?
By Parhel on 7/1/2009 1:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
That's just ridiculous. Somebody throw a stone.


RE: massive waste?
By RandallMoore on 7/1/2009 2:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
*throws stone

What next sir?


RE: massive waste?
By lightfoot on 7/1/2009 6:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
The point is how much energy is wasted remanufacturing consumer goods that are designed to be disposable. A car that lives to 300,000 miles is arguably more efficient than the 3 cars that only live to 100,000 miles - regardless of the fuel economy.


RE: massive waste?
By dark matter on 7/1/2009 6:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
Very good point. Throw out all the stuff that is currently working to buy 'efficient' stuff.

Problems?

1. The older the product the more likely it is to contain toxic chemicals. (Toxic chemicals in the water table or food chains is nasty) Keeping that product running for longer lessens the environmental impact.

2. Throwing out a pefectly functioning anything is by its nature completely and utterly wasteful (Mobile phone users take note)

3. No-one seems to be factoring in the energy requirements and environmental damage of producing the new 'efficient' stuff. Mining the raw materials. Smelting them into workable products. Shipping those products accross the world. Building the components. Shipping them to other countries. Building the finished products. Shipping them to other countries. Then shipping them to the various stores. And finally delivering them to the final destination. I'm quite sure that all that produces a heck of a lot of kilograms of CO2, and for what, a product that is typically 5-20% more efficient? The question is, how long until that product actually 'breaks (carbon) even'? How long until the efficiency savings actually cover all the energy required in its production, packing and shipping.

Off Topic: Japan has a very efficient method of collecting electronics that are at the end of their life, or their owners have given up. These products contain a lot of precious metals. So much so that Japan has now got quite a substantial mountain of precious metals. It is working on methods of extracting those metals. If it succeeds it will change Japan from being a net importer or precious metals to a net exporter (even after factoring in its domestic demand for those products.)


RE: massive waste?
By trinibwoy on 7/2/2009 10:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
That's a particularly short-term view. Over time the R&D capital spent on efficiency improvements will be far less than the savings on energy consumption realized through that investment.

I also don't get your comparison - efficiency has nothing to do with reliability. And more efficient products most definitely aren't inherently LESS reliable.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki