[Pablo2079]

I'm usually one of the first ones to get in the office in the morning..... I look around and see a good number of desk lights on and screen savers going. I used to go around and turn them off, but it was an effort in futility. I think some people actually think the screen saver is meant to save energy!

I'm thinking about calculating out the amount of energy lost on the "average" day and extrapolating that across the company. It's a big company, so the impact could be large (at least from an individuals standpoint).

Has anyone else tried to tackle this?

[FoxV]

actually the
edit---
oops, slipped and hit the submit button

anyways, you may find the savings to be quite significant, typically 70% for each item that is changed from 24/7 operation to working hours only.

So for a years operation, this works out to approximately:
$70- $100 for each CRT monitor
$30 - $40 for each LCD monitor
and $0.7/W for each lightbulb

The shame is that at least for the monitors, its just a windows setting.

Best bet would be to show the accounting department your numbers. It may be a trivial amount compared to the companies operating costs, but those bean counters will flip knowing its completely wasted money.

[turmoil]

Ya know, I bet since all the computers are connected on the network, you could change the setting globally.

I suggest talking to the network admins after the accounting department

[rogerhb]

Ya know, I bet since all the computers are connected on the network, you could change the setting globally.

I suggest talking to the network admins after the accounting department

Then they will say, cool, we can then buy some more servers/desktops/coffee-machines pool cars with the money saved.

[WisJim]

There were some news stories not long ago about how many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars some school districts in Wis were saving just by turning off computers and monitors overnight and on weekends.

[Cran]

I'm thinking about calculating out the amount of energy lost on the "average" day and extrapolating that across the company. It's a big company, so the impact could be large (at least from an individuals standpoint).

Has anyone else tried to tackle this?

Someone here wanted to do it as a green belt (quality crap) project, but was not allowed to, even though it had a massive cost saving/improvement or whatever it is you are suposed to get with six smegma projects...

So yeah it was tried, but rejected as not worthwhile

I usually turn mine off, but have no illusion that it makes any difference to the big picture.

On the plus side when the energy runs out I won't need to use a computer anymore!

[oilfreeandhappy]

I work in a plant of 600 people for a Fortune 500 company. I went around and looked at lights in a lot of areas that are seldom occupied, and found most of them ON.

I put in an Employee Suggestion, which has a small personal bonus involved, to save money using sensors. Because of safety considerations, the company opted on simple signs posted near the light switches, which I purchased and installed. Now I find that they're ON roughly 25-50% of the time.
Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

[Pablo2079]

I'll pitch it and see what happens..... right now, I think the company would just roll their eyes at those savings though....

I'll do my part though and shut my stuff down, but I'm not going on patrol anymore.

Individually, it doesn't make much of a difference but it does collectively. Now if I could convince my son that he doesn't need his TV on as background noise while he plays computer games with headphones on!

[rogerhb]

Now if I could convince my son that he doesn't need his TV on as background noise while he plays computer games with headphones on!

I suggest you physically remove his headphones just before you put the heel of your boot through his playstation. Then say calmly, "Son, I'm doing this for your own good".

[Ludi]

Approx 15% of US electricity use is for off-hours lighting, "security" lighting and street lighting. I'll see if I can find the reference for this figure again if anyone needs it.

15%, that's pretty huge.

[nocar]

From the Independent, March 6, 2006, about a British village that is aiming to get down their carbon emissions to zero:

One of the more ambitious schemes involves people from Chew Magna and the surrounding villages using spare capacity for free on a regular coach service between Bristol and its airport. If the plan goes ahead, a biofuel-powered minibus will collect travellers from villages in the Chew Valley and deliver them to the airport.

I just wonder, what are the Chew Valley travelers going to do at the airport? Air travel is one of the most carbon intensive activities that people have invented. Reducing the use of plastic bags (one example in the story) but continue to use cars and air planes is really misplaced effort.

nocar

[backstop]

Now if I could convince my son that he doesn't need his TV on as background noise while he plays computer games with headphones on!

I suggest you physically remove his headphones just before you put the heel of your boot through his playstation. Then say calmly, "Son, I'm doing this for your own good".

Hear, Hear !

[DoctorDoom]

Get the company to email all the computer users to change their Windows display properties to use "blank/power off" as the screen saver. Most monitors will use less power when the video card isn't sending a signal. Better of course is turning the monitor off so it doesn't use standby power.

Of course the bigger energy user here is the computer itself, not the monitor. Again, in the Windows display properties under power management settings you can ask that the computer be powered down in stages, i.e. hard drives off after so long, hibernate after so much longer, etc. Hibernate used to be pretty unreliable but it works well in Windows XP. Unless a computer is functioning as a server it should be set to power off completely at night. Setting it to hibernate after 2-4 hours is a good way to do this without much risk it will go off during the workday.

[gg3]

My biggest pet peeve about conservation is that those of us who understand the real issues and know how to think ahead, feel compelled to go further than conservation to the point of overt discomfort and beyond, while stupid people and thoughtless people multiply like little mice and chew through resources like locusts.

As a practical matter, re. getting people to turn off their monitors etc. overnight is appeal to their sense of patriotism. "Break the oil addiction," "do it for the sake of victory," etc.

Try something like this:

"Her neighbor's son died in the war over there, while she was wasting energy thoughtlessly over here. Get the connection. Break the addiction."

[Doly]

My peet peeve is green groups that don't particularly care about peak oil and say such things as: "Yeah, conservation is great, but we must do it to avoid climate change. Never mind about peak oil, that isn't really an issue."

I just can't understand why somebody would willingly refuse to use an argument in favour of what you are proposing.