Will computers be affected by the EU's ban on powerful home electronics?

[MirceaKitsune]

I'm not one to follow the news closely, so I don't fully know what this is all about yet. But apparently, a few politicians in the European Union suddenly have this idea that hairdriers and vacuum cleaners are a danger to the environment and contribute to global warming, and intend to ban some electrical goods based on power consumption. I don't want to dive into legal or ethical issues here, but wanted to ask one specific question:

 

Does this initiative put computer users in any danger, or might in the future? Including normal PC's, powerful servers, laptops, tablets and mobile devices, and so on. Does certain hardware, such as powerful CPU's or coolers or power sources, risk getting banned from the market? Could powerful computers even be confiscated by police at some point?

 

I'm starting from an optimistic premise this time... since I assume the issue is with powerful electrical devices, and computers should barely count in comparison to electrical lawnmowers. If I remember correctly, my desktop's power source is 500W, and I also have a LED monitor now which I heard are super cheap on electricity. But I'd like to be cautious and know for sure if there are any risks please. Thanks.

[Fuzzwood]

It's always the consumer that is at fault it seems. Never the lobbying industries.

[fiveworlds]

Seems to me the problem is how they are producing energy not the appliances themselves. All my electrical appliances run on green energy why should I have to stop using my electrical appliances? I am finding a lot of news related articles but nothing on the ban itself. http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/query/resultaction.jsp?SMODE=2&ResultCount=10&Collection=EuropaFull&Collection=EuropaSL&Collection=EuropaPR&ResultMaxDocs=200&qtype=simple&DefaultLG=en&ResultTemplate=%2Fresult_en.jsp&page=1&QueryText=electrical+ban&y=0&x=0#queryText=electrical+ban&tab=europa&page=5&filterOn=0&summary=summary

Edited September 1, 2014 by fiveworlds

[studiot]

I was going to ask for a link since I had not heard about this, but better still here is one

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29004060

 

It seems that some sort of ban has already occurred/, with more proposed.

[fiveworlds]

Here we go http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/harmonised-standards/ecodesign/index_en.htm

It seems the last change was in 2010. According to this the directive affects

Air conditioners Boilers Circulators Dishwashers Electric motors Fans Lamps (directional and LED) Lamps (household) Lamps (fluorescent) Power supplies Refrigerating appliances Set-top boxes Standby and off mode Television Tumble driers Vacuum Cleaners Washer-driers (combined) Washing machines Water pumps

 

We know about the lamps because we are already switched over to the energy saving bulbs and their new report.

http://www.ecodesign-wp3.eu/sites/default/files/Ecodesign%20WP3_Draft_Task_3_report_11072014.pdf

 

Their new report suggest banning the old CRT monitors nobody uses anymore.

Also the wireless chargers. You know the wireless electricity concept which is kinda cool apparently it uses lots of electricity. People were using it to keep their smartphones charged 24/7. At the moment this report is only a recommendation.

Edited September 1, 2014 by fiveworlds

[timo]

Two quick comments:

 

I'm not one to follow the news closely, so I don't fully know what this is all about yet. But apparently, a few politicians in the European Union suddenly have this idea that hairdriers and vacuum cleaners are a danger to the environment and contribute to global warming, and intend to ban some electrical goods based on power consumption. I don't want to dive into legal or ethical issues here, but wanted to ask one specific question:

 

Does this initiative put computer users in any danger, or might in the future? [... ] If I remember correctly, my desktop's power source is 500W, and I also have a LED monitor now which I heard are super cheap on electricity. But I'd like to be cautious and know for sure if there are any risks please. Thanks.

Your original question has already been answered with "no", I believe. The 500 Watt listed for your power source is peak power. If it was average running power, then running your computer alone 24/7 would require more 500 W * 8400 h/y = 4200 kWh of electricity, which is above the total annual consumption of an average (German*) household. That would be a very significant source of electrical energy consumption, indeed! My desktop has a power rating of 60 W, btw.

 

(*) Values can change significantly between countries. I took Germany as a reference because I happen to know the numbers. Countries with cheap electricity, many air conditioning systems or simply a solid ignorance for environmental affairs may have larger electrical energy footprints.

 

Seems to me the problem is how they are producing energy not the appliances themselves. All my electrical appliances run on green energy why should I have to stop using my electrical appliances?

To my knowledge it is commonly believed that a key enabler for fully-renewable energy supply scenarios is improved energy efficiency on the demand side. That often refers to thermal efficiency of buildings. But electric efficiency of appliances does not seem to far away from that.

Edited September 1, 2014 by timo

[MirceaKitsune]

Right... for a moment I forgot that my desktop's power source being 500W doesn't mean it uses 500W constantly (my power bill would probably be huge then). Modern PC's indeed have the added advantage that, when you aren't using a lot of CPU, the processor is dynamically underclocked.

 

I actually wonder how much power an idle PC uses on average now. In my case, I leave my PC running 24/7, but when idle it only seems to use about 3% CPU constantly. Mine is an Intel Core i7 920, which has 4 cores and 8 threads, and runs at 2.66 or 2.8 GHz by default.

[John Cuthber]

"Will computers be affected by the EU's ban on powerful home electronics?"

No.

Page 20 article 15 para 2 c

 

Computers are already made to be fairly efficient- not because it keeps the hippies happy, but because it stops them burning up.

[Externet]

Even if computers were high power users, there would be no ban against them, because the enforcerers/entities/policing would come to a halt without them.

 

But would be very interesting to have an entire continent doing daily life and business without computers. I think I would enjoy it.

[John Cuthber]

So, you would enjoy lots of people dying. That's interesting.

However the legislation won't stop powerful computers anyway.

[Delbert]

I can't understand this EU power business. For example, I use a vacuum clearer for as long I need to suck up the dirt. Presumably with a lower power job one runs the thing twice across the floor instead of once.

 

As for computers, I never really delved into the inner workings of PCs, but I understand the machine code (instruction set) is, or was, somewhat inefficient. Like it couldn't address greater than 64,000 (16 bits), resulting in memory having to be accessed in 64,000 lumps or pages, with routines to index segment registers or something (segment register used to extend the address) - I think that's roughly what happens. As for the 64 bit system now available, I don't know. But whatever, perhaps it's the case that should the machine code have been more efficient, slower CPUs, and therefore using less power, could be used without loss of performance. But as said, I don't know about 64 bit stuff, so perhaps it's a different and more efficient machine code.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Delbert

[Dekan]

I can't understand this EU power business. For example, I use a vacuum clearer for as long I need to suck up the dirt. Presumably with a lower power job one runs the thing twice across the floor instead of once.

 

Yes, it does seem mystifying, about the vacuum cleaners. I mean, a vacuum cleaner needs a certain amount of intrinsic "power" to suck up some kinds of dirt.

Especially for example - bits of fluff. When these get stuck in the fibres of a carpet, they're very hard to remove. They become entangled in the carpet fibres, which hold the fluff down. The fluff can't be released and sucked up, unless sufficiently strong power is applied. And - crucially - the power must be applied in "one go", so to speak.

 

Thus, it's no good at all running a weak hoover twice across the carpet. Admittedly, this gives two "goes" at sucking the fluff up. But in each "go", the sucking power is simply insufficient.

So it won't lift the fluff from the carpet. No matter how many times the weak hoover is run back and forth.

 

As regards computers, they're different. They're not doing the kind of physical "work" involved in pulling bits of fluff from carpets. They're internally only "flipping" binary bits inside electronic chips.

 

That can be done, on very low power. Such as is supplied by small batteries and "button cells". Computers don't actually need high-powered mains electric input at 110/240 volts. The mains electricity mostly goes into lighting up monitor-screens. So we can watch what the computers are doing.

 

Therefore, I don't think the EU power requirements need have any relevance to 32-bit, or 64-bit, or 128-bit chips. The chips only use up a minuscule amount of power. So they can be allowed to progress without fear of global energy-depletion.

[John Cuthber]

I can't understand this EU power business. For example, I use a vacuum clearer for as long I need to suck up the dirt. Presumably with a lower power job one runs the thing twice across the floor instead of once.

 

If that's true then high powered vacuum cleaners are not banned.

Problem solved.

 

Of course, you would have to show that it's true.

And that means you would have to do a better job than the manufacturers did of showing that it's true.

Good luck.

 

 

That can be done, on very low power. Such as is supplied by small batteries and "button cells". Computers don't actually need high-powered mains electric input at 110/240 volts. The mains electricity mostly goes into lighting up monitor-screens. So we can watch what the computers are doing.

 

 

In the very real sense that you can read the power ratings on the back of them and find (in my case) that the monitor is rated for 144 Watts and the computer for 1200.

Edited October 8, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Delbert]

Thus, it's no good at all running a weak hoover twice across the carpet. Admittedly, this gives two "goes" at sucking the fluff up. But in each "go", the sucking power is simply insufficient.

Spot on. I only mentioned the two goes across the floor as an example.

 

As regards computers, they're different. They're not doing the kind of physical "work" involved in pulling bits of fluff from carpets. They're internally only "flipping" binary bits inside electronic chips.

I think it depends on how they 'flip' the bits. Like whether it's done with TTL or FET (or is it called CMOS?) logic elements.

 

Therefore, I don't think the EU power requirements need have any relevance to 32-bit, or 64-bit, or 128-bit chips. The chips only use up a minuscule amount of power. So they can be allowed to progress without fear of global energy-depletion.

Well, my CPU chip has a dirty great heat-sink and fan!

[Dekan]

 

In the very real sense that you can read the power ratings on the back of them and find (in my case) that the monitor is rated for 144 Watts and the computer for 1200.

If your computer is rated at 1200W, that's more than a 1-kW electric-fire. Wouldn't such heat output make your computer rapidly get red-hot, melt its plastic case, and engulf you in flames?

 

Well, my CPU chip has a dirty great heat-sink and fan!

The fan might be just there, to make a "whirring" noise, so you think it's a proper computer. I remember when Alan Sugar started making PC's back in the 1980's, He produced a PC which didn't need a fan. It was replaced by clever design of the internal circuitry of the PC. Sugar was very proud of this. But the customers didn't like it. They were suspicious of a silent computer. So Sugar had a fan put back in. It wasn't necessary from a functional viewpoint. It contributed nothing to the cooling. But it made a "whirring" noise, and made the customers happy.

 

So, your big heat sink and fan might be the same? I mean, why haven't laptops, tablets, and smartphones got fans inside them?

[John Cuthber]

Strictly, the power supply of the computer is rated at 1.2Kw (5 amps 240 V) If I get round to it, I will measure the actual power.

 

"Wouldn't such heat output make your computer rapidly get red-hot, melt its plastic case, and engulf you in flames?"

OK, so you just explained what the fans are for.

 

"The fan might be just there, to make a "whirring" noise, so you think it's a proper computer. "

No, it's there for cooling. That's why a PC PSU can dump over a kilowatt without cooking itself.

it could be there to make a noise- but it isn't. It's easy to prove. Remove the fan and watch the computer overheat and die.

 

 

" I mean, why haven't laptops, tablets, and smartphones got fans inside them?"

Do you remember why someone started talking about computers here?

It was a question about high power computers.

They use more power because they do more stuff.

[Carrock]

Strictly, the power supply of the computer is rated at 1.2Kw (5 amps 240 V) If I get round to it, I will measure the actual power.

 

It was a question about high power computers.

They use more power because they do more stuff.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle:

 

Theoretically, room‑temperature computer memory operating at the Landauer limit could be changed at a rate of one billion bits per second with only 2.85 trillionths of a watt of power being expended in the memory media. Modern computers use millions of times as much energy.

Perhaps the EU is concerned more with improving efficiency rather than reducing computer speed.

 

My current computer is only only able to consume twice as power as my first one but it runs about 1000 times faster....

[Thorham]

If your computer is rated at 1200W, that's more than a 1-kW electric-fire. Wouldn't such heat output make your computer rapidly get red-hot, melt its plastic case, and engulf you in flames?

The fan might be just there, to make a "whirring" noise, so you think it's a proper computer. I remember when Alan Sugar started making PC's back in the 1980's, He produced a PC which didn't need a fan. It was replaced by clever design of the internal circuitry of the PC. Sugar was very proud of this. But the customers didn't like it. They were suspicious of a silent computer. So Sugar had a fan put back in. It wasn't necessary from a functional viewpoint. It contributed nothing to the cooling. But it made a "whirring" noise, and made the customers happy.

 

So, your big heat sink and fan might be the same? I mean, why haven't laptops, tablets, and smartphones got fans inside them?

 

Are you serious?

[Delbert]

The fan might be just there, to make a "whirring" noise, so you think it's a proper computer. I remember when Alan Sugar started making PC's back in the 1980's, He produced a PC which didn't need a fan. It was replaced by clever design of the internal circuitry of the PC. Sugar was very proud of this.

I think it's the case that the computer you mention very nearly bankrupted his company! Okay, the bankruptcy was apparently because of dodgy disks, but the power usage of CPUs those days were much lower - indeed, the thing I had at the time had no heat-sink (and it wasn't an Alan Sugar job).

 

So, your big heat sink and fan might be the same? I mean, why haven't laptops, tablets, and smartphones got fans inside them?

All I'll say is my laptop is a pain - hesitations and the like clearly caused by background functions. Whereas my PC is blindingly fast.

 

As for tablets and the like, as far as I can see what you see on the screen isn't necessarily real time. Like a friend of mine says: I don't open with Google because it takes too long, but rather she uses (actions) the 'internet' icon. Trouble is what is then displayed on the screen is what was on it when last used! It even produces a progress bar (although a much faster one) zooming across the top as if it were doing a real search. Indeed, it appears one even has to be connected to the internet for it to produce this out-of-date information!! My friend is completely convinced that Google is a slow way to access the internet! For example: if she had the weather forecast displayed yesterday, and now switches on and opens up the display as above, one gets yesterday's forecast and yesterday's forecast for today as it was displayed yesterday, which, as we all know, is going to be wrong!

 

And if one inserts a memory SD card, it takes ages read and thus display the contents for the first time. In other words, when one views directory contents one is really looking at is what it read whenever - like yesterday, the day before or last week. Any other time it's just a snapshot of what was read previously. In other words, there's clearly a bit of prestidigitation with these gadgets to give the illusion of speed.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Delbert

[Sensei]

ll I'll say is my laptop is a pain - hesitations and the like clearly caused by background functions. Whereas my PC is blindingly fast.

 

I will tell you story that happened month ago.

Friend came by to me with newly bought IR camera for 3300 euros, with his new i5 @ 3 GHz laptop,

complaining about that IR camera is not working as expected with 120 FPS.

Instead it was something 5-10 FPS.

I saw it on my own eyes, several hours.

We installed IR camera software on my PC desktop i7 computer (supposed to be 10% slower than his laptop).

and guess what.

IR camera reached on my desktop the highest speed it could get...

I literally see shock in his eyes..

I told guy 'you can buy from me mine PC desktop for 3k euros'

That was initial proposition to solve his problems..

Edited November 1, 2014 by Sensei