Creighton Samuiels wrote:
Joshua Myrvaagnes wrote:
Don't hate me Paul, but I am prepared to switch to CFL. Why? the heat is still plenty (13 watts), and it is less likely to burn me in the middle of the night. The mercury is a sunk cost, the manufacture, the light is not affecting me as it's under my blanket...so may as well use it for what it wasn't designed for: heat. I hope we all appreciate the irony here. (Wouldn't it be nice if there were mini resistance heat elements that could be got cheap/free? I'm thinking of pipe heating tape that's for preventing pipes from freezing...or Christmas lights) I had thought Paul was stretching the numbers to make his point with the original article--now I think he was being actually very conservative, we can easily go much further.
Here's a pack of 6...
They are available in 7 watt as well. And colors, if that's your thing.
Jay Angler wrote:I thought I'd particularly point out this quote in the article:
Cloud-based gaming, in which graphics processing is conducted on remote servers, is especially energy intensive, increasing overall electricity use by as much as 60 percent for desktop computers and 300 percent for laptops.
I believe I'm interpreting this accurately, in which case it's reminding people that their *own home* energy gaming footprint is only part of the issue, and can be controlled by only playing games that are isolated on their own computer. Any of those multi-player on-line games require a server somewhere out there that is gobbling electrons at a great rate, and I suspect that's what that "60%" electricity increase is referring to, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure.
Do we have any permies out there who could hazard some intelligent guesses about how much electricity game servers are consuming? How much electricity is the server equivalent of permies dot com consuming anyone? (That doesn't mean I'm at *all* suggesting permies shouldn't carry on - at least we're getting people thinking about better ways of doing things! I'm just curious.)