3 ms·

The point is the power delivery system we have does a good job for 99% of real power consumed (or whatever the number really is). I hate waste; my mains-connec

by ip26 8y ago

The point is the power delivery system we have does a good job for 99% of real power consumed (or whatever the number really is). I hate waste; my mains-connected smoke detectors (1% efficient) and garage door opener (15W standby) gnaw at my soul. But that's scope for improvement, not an efficiency crisis.

gnu8 8y ago
> mains-connected smoke detectors (1% efficient) Those aren’t a waste, they are critical life safety equipment. If their 1% efficient power supply lasts the full 10 year lifespan of a smoke detector rather than 6-18 months like a typical LED lightbulb, I’d say that’s the appropriate level of reliability.
- ip26 8y ago
  Yeah, they're important & valuable. However, battery-powered smoke detectors do it with 1% of the power. If every home in Australia had two smoke alarms, that means 5,600 kW of continuous and largely wasted energy consumption. I don't mean wasted in purpose: smoke alarms are essential. The wasteful part is the fact that 99% of the power going into smoke alarms goes to converting AC power to DC power. As far as I'm concerned, that's 99% scope for improvement. https://reductionrevolution.com.au/blogs/news-reviews/5842566-99-waste-the-unexpected-energy-consumption-of-smoke-alarms https://reductionrevolution.com.au/blogs/news-reviews/584256...
  - gnu8 8y ago
    That is an incredible amount of energy and I agree that it is worth trying to reduce, but I’m skeptical of adding numerous DC-DC converters to the chain. In the current state, it’s all passive devices between the turbine at the power plant and the smoke detector on the ceiling. I wouldn’t trade that reliability for power savings lightly.
rmu09 8y ago
A smoke detector doesn't need that much power, so efficiency of the power supply is less of a concern. You have to find a useful compromise between efficiency and use of materials. Those additional components for higher efficiency need to be produced which uses resources and energy. Although 15W standby for a garage opener seems excessive.

by ip26 8y ago

gnu8 8y ago

> mains-connected smoke detectors (1% efficient) Those aren’t a waste, they are critical life safety equipment. If their 1% efficient power supply lasts the full 10 year lifespan of a smoke detector rather than 6-18 months like a typical LED lightbulb, I’d say that’s the appropriate level of reliability.

ip26 8y ago
Yeah, they're important & valuable. However, battery-powered smoke detectors do it with 1% of the power. If every home in Australia had two smoke alarms, that means 5,600 kW of continuous and largely wasted energy consumption. I don't mean wasted in purpose: smoke alarms are essential. The wasteful part is the fact that 99% of the power going into smoke alarms goes to converting AC power to DC power. As far as I'm concerned, that's 99% scope for improvement. https://reductionrevolution.com.au/blogs/news-reviews/5842566-99-waste-the-unexpected-energy-consumption-of-smoke-alarms https://reductionrevolution.com.au/blogs/news-reviews/584256...
- gnu8 8y ago
  That is an incredible amount of energy and I agree that it is worth trying to reduce, but I’m skeptical of adding numerous DC-DC converters to the chain. In the current state, it’s all passive devices between the turbine at the power plant and the smoke detector on the ceiling. I wouldn’t trade that reliability for power savings lightly.

rmu09 8y ago

A smoke detector doesn't need that much power, so efficiency of the power supply is less of a concern. You have to find a useful compromise between efficiency and use of materials. Those additional components for higher efficiency need to be produced which uses resources and energy. Although 15W standby for a garage opener seems excessive.