Standby Surprise

On the UK government "Act on CO2" website there is clear advice, which no one would disagree with: Don't leave it on standby
"If everyone in the UK switched off unused appliances it would save £800 million a year. Leaving appliances plugged in and switched on at the socket means they're still using energy – so turn TVs, games consoles and mobile phone chargers off at the mains to save yourself money."


This is self evident advice and easy to implement. Why would any one question it? Turning something off that you don't need will save energy and save the planet. But is it always true?


Here is a simple quiz question for all you energy gurus out there:
I go out for the evening and despite my usual vigilance I leave my phone charger switched on, my TV on standby, and (horror of horrors) an electric light on. The room is heated (it is winter) by an electric heater, which has a thermostat. So here is the question, does leaving the electrical devices on unnecessarily:

1. Use extra energy, contributing to my carbon footprint?
2. Make absolutely no difference to my energy consumption, but increase my carbon footprint?
3. Increase my energy consumption by the wattage of the devices left on, but make no difference to my carbon footprint?
4. Make no difference to either my energy consumption or my carbon footprint?
5. I need more information and need to thermally model your home and the insulation system on a computer before I can say.

So here is the surprise (for some people). If you want to be pedantic and very accurate, the answer is (5), but to a very close approximation, the answer is (4). The reason? Let me go over some very simple physics.


All these electrical devices convert the energy they use into heat (I'm assuming that the phone is not plugged into the charger so we are not converting any mains electrical energy into battery energy). Actually, conversion of electrical energy into heat energy happens at 100% efficiency for almost all electrical devices. The electric heater does the same. The thermostat on the heater does not know if the heat delivered to your room is from the heater or the other devices; it is all just heat. So whilst you are heating the room, the job of the thermostat is to maintain the room at a particular temperature. Everything else being equal, it will turn on the heater for slightly smaller periods of time to exactly compensate for the heat generated by the offending devices. The energy you use will be whatever is necessary to maintain the temperature difference between the outside and the chosen thermostat temperature inside. Which electrical device generates that heat does not matter. Obviously the thermal installation makes a massive difference and air flow from the outside through your room (a draft) is probably even more important. But the TV on standby makes no difference at all.


So why might answer (5) be important. We let us suppose that the phone charger is on the window sill, behind the curtains. It might then lose the heat it generates without contributing so much to the heating of the room. There would then be an argument for switching it off to save energy. I mention this only because there will be people who spot this and then claim that my argument is completely wrong. I will let you judge, on this.


Don't be complacent if you are in a hot climate with air conditioning running. Unfortunately the physics works the other way around in this case. Because air conditioning uses more energy than it shifts, the extra devices in your home now get multiplied by the efficiency of the air conditioning. A TV on standby using five watts now needs, maybe, another 5 watts of air conditioning to keep the room at the same thermostatically controlled temperature. And this will increase both your energy costs and your carbon footprint.

Information is New World Energy Threat

Jonathan Koomey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Stanford University has estimated that 1.6% of the US electricity consumption is now being used to power servers in data centres. This includes the necessary cooling systems and associated data-networking equipment. The figure has doubled in the past five years giving an annual growth of about 14%. This represents the output of five 1000 MW power plants. For the whole world, the figure is 14 such plants, and the total cost of this electricity $7.2B per year.

If growth continues at this rate, information could become the dominant use of energy. The calculations above do not account for the domestic use of energy for information purposes. Consumption by TVs is a comparable level (1.5%) and the consumption from domestic and office computers similarly is significant.

So even if we stop burning up fuel to fly around the world, eventually, energy needed to sustain our data bases and provide the video conference in place of flying will be our next energy problem.

The solution: maybe a shortage of energy will itself bring about a population reduction. The human race is subject to the laws of nature just as much as any other species on the planet, but the implications of this may be harsher than we would wish (see Paul Chefurka, 2007)

EDF – Rewards You for Using Less!

EDF now have an advertising campaign in which the strap line is “rewarding you for using less.” This is a very interesting concept in view of the way they treated me. I used less electricity (because I left my house vacant) and they rewarded me by charging me for a complete trip round the meter, which incidentally costs about £13,000!

I moved to a rented house in another part of the country and left my house in Bolton empty because of a change of job. As it happens, just before I moved I changed gas and electricity provider. This is something we should all do periodically in our free market economy of energy supply. I this case, it was a coincidence that I made the change just before moving out of the property. But the consequences were very interesting:

On 2nd January 2007 EDF Energy claimed £13,367 from my bank account. This was done under a Direct Debit arrangement. In the event, my bank honoured the payment, but informed me by letter: “We’ve made all the payments that you arranged to come out of your account this morning. Unfortunately, because there was not enough money in your account to cover them, this means your account is now over your overdraft limit.” A slight understatement!

EDF Energy customer services were phoned immediately on receiving the letter. They told me that obviously an error had been made, but that it would take weeks to refund the money as it would need to be approved by a series of managers. When I asked why a similar procedure was not in place when claiming large amounts from domestic customers, they declined to comment (the line went silent).

After discussion with my bank, I requested that the money be claimed back under the indemnity insurance for direct debits. Interestingly my bank did not tell me that this was possible when I phoned them initially. Until that could be arranged I had to transfer some of my savings into my current account, so that I could continue to operate my bank account. The bank charged me £30 for dealing with exceeding my overdraft limit plus some interest charges.

Having looked into this further, I find that this has occurred as a result of a series of mistakes or poor practice made by EDF Energy, Atlantic Electric and Gas (my previous supplier) and possibly a meter reader contracted by EDF Energy. These three organisations each played a part. Further investigation reveals further alarming practices by both EDF Energy and Atlantic Electric and Gas.

My findings are as follows:

1. EDF Energy failed to put in place any system to check a claim for payment against a domestic customer that was clearly ridiculous.
2. EDF Energy also failed to present me with an invoice for this claim for payment. Interestingly, this was a final payment arising from us moving out of the property with tenants moving in on 1st December 2006. Final meter readings were phoned through for both electricity and gas at the same time. We received a final invoice for the gas, which we settled by cheque, but no invoice for the electricity has arrived. The first we knew about it was when my bank contacted me.
3. A meter reading made on 25 November 2006 by a contractor was incorrect for both the daytime and night-time meters. Either this or EDF Energy deliberately changed the readings.
4. Atlantic Electric and Gas, who were my supplier until 12th March 2006 provided EDF Energy with estimated meter readings that were artificially high and presented these as actual readings. This enabled them to claim more money than they were due, at a time when they knew that they were loosing the account to EDF Energy. To me, this looks to me like sharp practice.
5. EDF Energy increased their prices just one day after I transferred to them as a supplier. Clearly I changed supplier in order to achieve the best possible price. This again looks suspicious to me. Did all their customers have increased pricing on 13th March 2006?
6. Atlantic Electric and Gas produced a series of inaccurate meter readings for my night meter. This simply suggests incompetence to me.