Environmental impact of our hobby

[Sal1950]

Should we be selling off our high energy consumption gear, and should reviewers like Amir include as part of an evaluation of gear how much power it consumes.

Yea, get rid of it all!
Then I can buy a lot of the super good stuff really cheap.

 

[egellings]

My tube amp stuff is all home brew, so there's an additional "made it muh self" satisfaction I get from using it besides the sound quality.

 

[ZolaIII]

You are barking on a wrong tree! Real problem is electronic waist that we produce. Someone as a joke asked how much power consumes a single email. How about browser and adds in it? Well you can turn the page.
https://info.ecosia.org/mobile

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

My tube amp stuff is all home brew, so there's an additional "made it muh self" satisfaction I get from using it besides the sound quality.

Living in Florida when I run my tubes I have to turn up the a/c. So it's not just the gear itself. But I agree with those who posted that ewaste is a far larger problem.

How much DOES sending an email consume. All that damn ju ... oh, bitcoin miners. Never mind.

 

[AJO]

Lot of sheep on here. I do the opposite of what the so called "Cancel Culture" wants!! Before I die, I will rent the Queen Mary to leave my carbon footprint here!!

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Lot of sheep on here. I do the opposite of what the so called "Cancel Culture" wants!! Before I die, I will rent the Queen Mary to leave my carbon footprint here!!

I'm a Christian and my belief system demands I contribute more than I take from the world.

 

[kevin52]

The most measurable effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is an increase in the biomass of the planet by 10% over the past 40 years.
The Empirical data do not support the positive feedback thesis built into the computer models.

The Internet comsumes a lot of the power generated worldwide these days.

 

[mhardy6647]

Lot of sheep on here. I do the opposite of what the so called "Cancel Culture" wants!! Before I die, I will rent the Queen Mary to leave my carbon footprint here!!

I'm going to assume this is meant with the obvious level of facetiousness that it implies.
But, since you're an "n=2" poster, and perhaps you're dead serious -- you'll enjoy this.

It's referring to the "second [US] energy crisis"; 1978-9, but it conveys the same sentiment as your post.

Of course, the level of sarcastic, sardonic smarm in the song is reflected in the title of the album, too.

 

[nimar]

The true environmental "cost" of any product is rather complicated. There's a good book https://howbadarebananas.com that gives a good idea of the complexities involved, with a range of examples.

In another thread I was asking about the affect of regularly turning off hifi equipment, and how it might affect its lifespan. Which Is something worth considering, often a products biggest environmental impact is in manufacturing, rather than use.

TLDR is that its ok to turn things off, but another take away is that devices built to EU spec need to consume < 1w in standby, while my topping DACs use around 2.4W. This is still hardly any power, when just a few years ago light bulbs regularly used 50-100W each.

In short, while its important to optimise everywhere you can, I turn my dac off when its not in use, its also important to pick your battles. Changing your diet, or stopping using single use plastics will have a far more positive impact than even the most wasteful hifi.

 

[Cider]

What's wrong with a fancy lawn?
I think this is a non issue the watts spilled by hifi is at a level thats hardly seeable on the energy bill.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with a fancy lawn, but there is a cost: pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer run-off, water usage, destruction of native plants and environments, noise and air pollution from maintenance machinery, etc.

Anyways, bigger issues doesn't mean it isn't a fair question (appeal to worse problems).

 

[mhardy6647]

Totally agree about the rolled-up, cradle-to-grave "cost" being, as you observe, rather complicated.

TLDR is that its ok to turn things off, but another take away is that devices built to EU spec need to
consume < 1w in standby...

Well, yeah, but... pretty sure when (e.g.) the toggle switch on my power amp is off, it draws identically zero watts, which is rather less than "<1" watt. Technically, it's infinitely less.

Plus, imagine a couple of billion sleeping units (there are likely far, far more, world-wide) out there each consuming, let's say, 0.1 watt each. 0.1 x 2E9 = 2E8 watts. That's lotsa watts devoted to mission critical tasks like remembering what TV channels folks watch.

I do agree vis-a-vis picking one's battles, just to be clear (and to end on a positive note).

 

[nimar]

Totally agree about the rolled-up, cradle-to-grave "cost" being, as you observe, rather complicated.


Well, yeah, but... pretty sure when (e.g.) the toggle switch on my power amp is off, it draws identically zero watts, which is rather less than "<1" watt. Technically, it's infinitely less.

Plus, imagine a couple of billion sleeping units (there are likely far, far more, world-wide) out there each consuming, let's say, 0.1 watt each. 0.1 x 2E9 = 2E8 watts. That's lotsa watts devoted to mission critical tasks like remembering what TV channels folks watch.

I do agree vis-a-vis picking one's battles, just to be clear (and to end on a positive note).

Totally, which is why I switch my devices off.

Just thought it was interesting that devices are mandated to be < 1W, and I think are generally <0.5W if they don't have a display. And then we have a device from Topping which Is class leading in all other regards but consumes 2.4W. To be fair to them this is in their published specs, and its down from ~6W out of standby so they did make an effort.

In so many things in life, convenience trumps best practices (writing passwords down on paper, using the same one for everything, leaving lights on that should be turned off, etc etc). Many people would rather turn something on with a remote, then have to flick a toggle on the front (or the back with my amps).

I found my balance with using a smart plug that draws 0.4W to turn everything on/off, and unplug that when away for more than a day. This also improves the hifi's WAF, which needs to be taken into account with all environmental decisions, and non environmental ones.

Edit. Maybe this should be PAF in this day and age.

 

[hex168]

Relax and buy some reputable carbon credits or plant some trees. Offset as much of your carbon footprint as you choose. Much more cost-effective than feel-good measures that don't do much. (Don't mind me, I'm annoyed that my state is spending millions on incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. Back of the envelope analysis: if an EV saves 6 tons of carbon per year, it takes less than $300 per year to fully offset driving a normal car instead.)

 

[nimar]

Relax and buy some reputable carbon credits or plant some trees. Offset as much of your carbon footprint as you choose. Much more cost-effective than feel-good measures that don't do much. (Don't mind me, I'm annoyed that my state is spending millions on incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. Back of the envelope analysis: if an EV saves 6 tons of carbon per year, it takes less than $300 per year to fully offset driving a normal car instead.)

Problem is in the real world, offsetting isn' as clear cut as it sounds on paper. Often the "offset" projects were going to happen anyway, eg. replanting for "sustainable" forestry (Intended to be cut down again when ready) and its a bit of a greenwashing exercise. And at the end of the day it doesn't really address systemic waste and inefficiencies which if corrected would be much more impactful.

They make you feel good, I've bought them, felt good, but really could have just avoided or reduced doing the thing that needed offsetting.

Though I agree EV incentives are complicated, especially from a short term perspective. At the moment its probably much better to just buy an efficient second hand car (manufacturing still the greatest impact) than a new EV. I suppose the argument for, is the incentive does more than just replace a car, it also sends a signal to the auto industry, increases the likelihood that investments will be made in EV infrastructure and one would hope lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[egellings]

Money moving around is not likely to reduce the carbon dioxide problem. As an example, there's that whole Bitcoin nonsense, consuming huge amounts of energy powering computer systems that play games with tokens of perceived value. Stopping burning stuff does reduce increasing the CO2 load. As for my hi-fi, I turn it off using the switches on the equipment, and then I shut off the main switch on the electrical outlet strip that powers it all. No standby current flows save for the microscopic bit drawn by power cord capacitance of the switch-box.

 

[mhardy6647]

Money moving around is not likely to reduce the carbon dioxide problem.

amen and amen.

EDIT: IMO, of course.

 

[egellings]

I don't use A/C, and I do notice that my tube power amps, using 8 EL34's total, don't heat the room at all as as shown by a thermometer I have not far from my listening position. I don't feel any warmer, either. Heat is certainly being generated, about 200 watts' worth, but that's not enough to make a noticeable difference in the room temp, as far as I can tell. Now, if the room were a bathroom, well then, just maybe I might feel something.

 

[Destination: Moon]

Problem is in the real world, offsetting isn' as clear cut as it sounds on paper. Often the "offset" projects were going to happen anyway, eg. replanting for "sustainable" forestry (Intended to be cut down again when ready) and its a bit of a greenwashing exercise. And at the end of the day it doesn't really address systemic waste and inefficiencies which if corrected would be much more impactful.

They make you feel good, I've bought them, felt good, but really could have just avoided or reduced doing the thing that needed offsetting.

Though I agree EV incentives are complicated, especially from a short term perspective. At the moment its probably much better to just buy an efficient second hand car (manufacturing still the greatest impact) than a new EV. I suppose the argument for, is the incentive does more than just replace a car, it also sends a signal to the auto industry, increases the likelihood that investments will be made in EV infrastructure and one would hope lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

I buy and drive only fuel efficient cars and built a passive solar house 30 years ago. I wonder about the whole EV thing from the stand point of how capitalism is destroying much of the advantages to be gained. Yesterday I read that Rivan will be installing 10,000 charge stations in North America. Which sounds great until the part about them only serving Rivan vehicles. It's the stupidest thing ever..... If all these EVs had standardized swappable battery packs that could be sized and charged as needed, think about how much faster and better the acceptance would be.
And how much fossil fuel we could save from combustion.

As for our hobby, don't let consumerism drive purchases. I'm guilty as anyone but I try to throttle the purchase and upgraditis of everything from cameras to phones to TVs to yadda yadda..... And shut down your motor if your not driving!! Seeing people sitting in cars with windows down or up on a beautiful day always makes me think half of us haven't crawled out of the primordial ooze and are all too happy to return the rest of us there....

 

[AJO]

Maybe you Sheepole should just bury your head in the sand and don't do anything. Remember--the sky is falling!!

 

[HiFidFan]

Carbon credits = Environmentalism Xanax for the Elite.