Should There be Energy Efficiency Rules for Amplifiers?

[Mr. Widget]

I started this thread as a parody of of the other decarbonization threads around here.

Thanks for the heads up. I almost really embarrassed myself.
I was about to start a private conversation to tell you where I get the good Soylent Green... the vegan fed stock is terrible, you really want the meat eaters.

 

[BJL]

I would be very interested in knowing the relative efficiency and energy consumption of amplifiers before I buy, as I would favor more efficient amps. I'm now looking around to decide on new amplifiers for a 7.1.4 set up, and I'm planning to expand to 9.1.6. I gather from other comments that the Class D amplifiers are in general the most efficient (vs. A/B), I'm not clear on how it varies between different manufacturers, or how the standard should be written. This would be useful information from the standpoint of calculating load on the circuit as well as consumption, and especially good to know for those of us who have or are planning on moving to solar electric.

If such standards could be established an implemented, I would support requiring the information to be published with mandatory labels, similar to the way that water heaters and refrigerators always come with an obvious and visible label indicating consumption, making it easy for consumers to make an informed choice. I've noticed comments on AVR reviews here that indicate that some AVR's produce a lot of heat, i.e. waste energy. It would be helpful if the manufacturers would be required to quantify this information in a user friendly format.

 

[JRS]

I would very much like to upgrade the Onkyo AVR I bought on ebay for 5 x 100W, with a six channel Buckeye NC502. If the Feds would give me a 1K tax credit as incentive, I,d be on the phone tomorrow.

 

[Keith_W]

I thought from the beginning this was a parody thread. Which is why I talked about crazy regulations on cooking be done before messing with amps. You don't really think I'd advocate against hickory smoked BBQ did you?

Why not. It's a triple whammy. You have to raise animals for meat. This contributes to deforestation, fertilizer runoff, methane production, and not to mention cruelty to animals. Your meat might come packaged in plastic. You have to chop down trees for wood, and then you burn it and emit even more noxious gases. If we were to ban BBQ, we could save the planet. Hickory smoked BBQ is one of the most evil foods on the planet. Greta Thunberg is scowling at you!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Why not. It's a triple whammy. You have to raise animals for meat. This contributes to deforestation, fertilizer runoff, methane production, and not to mention cruelty to animals. Your meat might come packaged in plastic. You have to chop down trees for wood, and then you burn it and emit even more noxious gases. If we were to ban BBQ, we could save the planet. Hickory smoked BBQ is one of the most evil foods on the planet. Greta Thunberg is scowling at you!

Greta doesn't scare me. Try running for political office planning on banning BBQ.

Don't Plan on the Ban. Keep BBQ safe.

 

[Phorize]

Do you like living in a nanny state where the government regulates every aspect of your life? There is a saying in Australia to describe that particular philosophy - "if it's not banned, it's compulsory!". There is a certain economic cost that comes with reducing freedoms, over-regulation, and increasing red tape (and therefore increasing armies of bureaucrats). And it's not as if every household in the USA has a massive 300W Class A amp wasting 95% of its energy as heat. People who use such amps are very few in number. Do you think it is a good idea to introduce new legislation to ban a fringe activity with minimal harm to the environment? How much carbon do you think you will abate by doing this, compared to creating even more useless bureaucratic jobs to enforce the ban?

There is a serious ethical question irrespective of one’s politics regarding the relationship between the state and the individual; should manufacturers have constraints placed upon them in furtherance of environmental protection. If this were moral philosophy review I’d be intrigued to hear the detail of an argument in support of laisez faire manufacturing standards. My totally arbitrary feelings on the ops question is that audio manufacturers should be subject to the same standards as any other consumer electronics manufacturer within reason. However, the drive towards mobility/miniaturisation seems to be driving efficiency of amplifiers anyway, at least where the manufacturing volume is. I’m not sure we would gain much bringing pass labs etc in line. I’d also suspect that the manufacturing process itself is where most of the energy is used, raising the likelihood that standards of repair and reuse would do more environmentally that power consumption standards.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There is a serious ethical question irrespective of one’s politics regarding the relationship between the state and the individual; should manufacturers have constraints placed upon them in furtherance of environmental protection. If this were moral philosophy review I’d be intrigued to hear the detail of an argument in support of laisez faire manufacturing standards. My totally arbitrary feelings on the ops question is that audio manufacturers should be subject to the same standards as any other consumer electronics manufacturer within reason. However, the drive towards mobility/miniaturisation seems to be driving efficiency of amplifiers anyway, at least where the manufacturing volume is. I’m not sure we would gain much bringing pass labs etc in line. I’d also suspect that the manufacturing process itself is where most of the energy is used, raising the likelihood that standards of repair and reuse would do more environmentally that power consumption standards.

John Stuart Mill's harm principle:

The harm principle is the idea that people should be free to act as they wish as long as their actions do not cause harm to others.

In an interconnected world, almost anything might be seen to cause some harm to someone somewhere somehow. Maybe even sometime, as the idea is increasingly extended to future people who aren't even alive yet. Or blame assigned to people who are long dead for harm they had no way of knowing would occur. Do you exercise this ethical idea ruthlessly to an infinite degree or allow practicality to limit your horizons? Things only get stickier from there on out.

 

[JaccoW]

I started this thread as a parody of of the other decarbonization threads around here. Face it, there aren't enough tube and class A audio amplifiers being sold to make it worth bothering with. It is also a parody of the US DOE proposed regulation on Gas cooktops. The rule only will force the redesign of high end cooktops. There are easily more of them than tube and class A amplifiers, but still they represent a small market, not worth messing with.

However, as most off topic threads at ASR do, it has gone off the rails.

Personally, I believe ASR should be a haven from the difficulties of this world. After all, few things satisfy like music. Climate related discussions get contentious. Instead of making friends I'm making a list of people that I don't want to discuss anything with. I'm sure there are lots of places to talk green or talk not green (red?) other than here. I have expressed my feelings on this to management.

Too bad this could not proceed in the light hearted manner that I intended.

When rereading the first post it isn't entirely clear it was a parody. But sarcasm is difficult to bring across online. That's why the /s is a useful addition.

Like @Trell has already mentioned, nobody is coming to take people's old, inefficient, devices. At some point new ones will simply not be made anymore (probably because of efficiency laws) and our family will probably donate half your stuff to goodwill for free because they don't want it.

I'm all for laws banning inefficient designs. Or make exemptions for the few that are around as more of a collector's item. Like most countries do with vintage cars.
I love my 10.5 inch reel to reel machine. But I don't listen to music on it all that often because it is not that practical if you switch music a lot. Still very cool to have around.

With regard to gas stovetops, new homes in the Netherlands don't even get a gas connection anymore and you will have to pay for all the infrastructure if you really, really need it. A home with just gas stoves would be a negative for me. It's a bit like moving into a place and finding a wood or coal burning stovetop for cooking. Cool to look at, but not very practical.

Florida is a Soylent Green farm, isn't it?

They have to make money somehow once DeSantis runs their biggest employer and tourist attraction out of the state (Disney) for giving him the finger on his anti-trans bullshit. Why not sell off all the old people? Nobody wants zombie bog people.

One thing can be sure, the more things we allow the government to control, the more they will find to control. (Do you really needs a large bedroom and living room? Tall ceilings? A lot of space to heat...) One thing for sure, with force push to electric cars, and "green" energy, there will be constraints on the supply of energy. And we will already have signaled our willingness to live with it.

Again, they won't be tearing down housing for being too old-school. It's just that new ones won't be built at some point.

But there will be constraints on the supply of energy because the planet has a limit it can safely provide before society will collapse. Either you learn to limit your energy usage by replacing inefficient designs with newer ones when they fail or you will get to a point when it just isn't there anymore.
The whole idea that places like Texas have rolling blackouts in both winter and summer because the grid cannot provide is insane to me. That's not something that should be possible in a developed nation. Even brownouts is a sign of either bad infrastructure or people using too much. And it is probably both.

And if you really want to be bothered by old stuff being torn down just take a look at the many, many historic buildings in the US that were torn down to make room for parking lots for cars that would never come.

Try running for political office planning on banning BBQ.

Don't Plan on the Ban. Keep BBQ safe.

That's easy, have you seen how many people absolutely suck at barbequing? Too much smoke. Burnt meat. Food poisoning?
Make it a professionals only thing. Follow a BBQ education. Get certified.

Rake offenders over the coals!

 

[Phorize]

John Stuart Mill's harm principle:

The harm principle is the idea that people should be free to act as they wish as long as their actions do not cause harm to others.

In an interconnected world, almost anything might be seen to cause some harm to someone somewhere somehow. Maybe even sometime, as the idea is increasingly extended to future people who aren't even alive yet. Or blame assigned to people who are long dead for harm they had no way of knowing would occur. Do you exercise this ethical idea ruthlessly to an infinite degree or allow practicality to limit your horizons? Things only get stickier from there on out.

JS Mill was referring to individual civil liberties in that statement, rather than corporate liability or state regulation of corporate activity. In Mills day nature was the only force that could pose a genuinely existential threat to human existence, technological advancement now presents multiple extinction opportunities,with implications for our understanding of harm. FWIW I still think that Mills was generally right on civil liberties. I also think it’s likely to be academic as consumer preference seems to be driving energy efficiency for cost, miniaturisation and mobility reasons.

 

[JaccoW]

“EnergyStar ratings”-like system for amplifiers would be welcome in my book. Don’t mandate efficiencies, but let the market decide.

You can either ban or let the market decide by making it very unattractive to buy the inefficient stuff. Pick your poison.
But I'm pretty sure some people will complain when they get a heavy tax on items they want.
Especially with people still arguing how A/B amplifiers sound better than Class D.

One thing I am very much against is self-regulating when it comes to the environment. Time and time again it has been shown this doesn't work.
Either some manufacturers undercut the efficient designs by making the old stuff extremely cheap or it gets turned into a status symbol.

EDIT: I would appreciate reviewers hooking up their tested amplifier to a power meter. Most PC reviewers already tell how much most parts take in idle, gaming and stress testing.
It's definitely something I would take into consideration when making a purchasing decision.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Florida takes in $82 billion per year in tourism. Disney World is only $5 billion and that is not much over 5%. So much for your BS.

When rereading the first post it isn't entirely clear it was a parody. But sarcasm is difficult to bring across online. That's why the /s is a useful addition.

Like @Trell has already mentioned, nobody is coming to take people's old, inefficient, devices. At some point new ones will simply not be made anymore (probably because of efficiency laws) and our family will probably donate half your stuff to goodwill for free because they don't want it.

I'm all for laws banning inefficient designs. Or make exemptions for the few that are around as more of a collector's item. Like most countries do with vintage cars.
I love my 10.5 inch reel to reel machine. But I don't listen to music on it all that often because it is not that practical if you switch music a lot. Still very cool to have around.

With regard to gas stovetops, new homes in the Netherlands don't even get a gas connection anymore and you will have to pay for all the infrastructure if you really, really need it. A home with just gas stoves would be a negative for me. It's a bit like moving into a place and finding a wood or coal burning stovetop for cooking. Cool to look at, but not very practical.



They have to make money somehow once DeSantis runs their biggest employer and tourist attraction out of the state (Disney) for giving him the finger on his anti-trans bullshit. Why not sell off all the old people? Nobody wants zombie bog people.


Again, they won't be tearing down housing for being too old-school. It's just that new ones won't be built at some point.

But there will be constraints on the supply of energy because the planet has a limit it can safely provide before society will collapse. Either you learn to limit your energy usage by replacing inefficient designs with newer ones when they fail or you will get to a point when it just isn't there anymore.
The whole idea that places like Texas have rolling blackouts in both winter and summer because the grid cannot provide is insane to me. That's not something that should be possible in a developed nation. Even brownouts is a sign of either bad infrastructure or people using too much. And it is probably both.

And if you really want to be bothered by old stuff being torn down just take a look at the many, many historic buildings in the US that were torn down to make room for parking lots for cars that would never come.

That's easy, have you seen how many people absolutely suck at barbequing? Too much smoke. Burnt meat. Food poisoning?
Make it a professionals only thing. Follow a BBQ education. Get certified.

Rake offenders over the coals!

As for BBQ, depends upon how you look at it I guess. Popular where I live and no most people don't suck at it. Never once had food poisoning from BBQ, and lots of people BBQ. You need a certification to BBQ.......pretty damn funny. Do you have a comedy podcast or something?

Oh, and guess which stove will still work if things fall apart?

The bit about historic buildings torn down for parking lots is a load of BS. It might have happened yes, is it the norm, heck no. Your fantasy BS doesn't fly here. Oh, and by your attitude old buildings that aren't efficient enough should be torn down. Hypocrisy much?

 

[JaccoW]

Florida takes in $82 billion per year in tourism. Disney World is only $5 billion and that is not much over 5%. So much for your BS.

I called Disney the biggest employer. And it certainly is the biggest one. Please do not misrepresent my points.
And don't you think at least another $5 billion is coming from the hotels, restaurants and car rental people need to visit?

55 million of the 137 million tourists to Florida go to Disney World each year. Don't you think losing 40% of your tourists is going to impact the economy?

As for BBQ, depends upon how you look at it I guess. Popular where I live and no most people don't suck at it. Never once had food poisoning from BBQ, and lots of people BBQ. You need a certification to BBQ.......pretty damn funny. Do you have a comedy podcast or something?

I could start one. You can be my first follower.

Oh, and guess which stove will still work if things fall apart?

I have full camping gear that I like. But I still prefer sleeping in a normal bed and house if I am just living my everyday life.
And it is generally a lot easier to reroute an electric grid than to restart the supply of coal and wood to millions of people.

The bit about historic buildings torn down for parking lots is a load of BS. It might have happened yes, is it the norm, heck no. Your fantasy BS doesn't fly here.

Give me a town in the US and I will show you pictures of parking lots where there used to be buildings.

Oh, and by your attitude old buildings that aren't efficient enough should be torn down. Hypocrisy much?

That's a strawman fallacy. Not what I said at all.

Old buildings should be preserved by updating them to modern requirements from time to time. If that means tearing down everything but the walls and replacing them with new guts that's a good way to preserve the historic character of an area while bringing it into a new century. And I am not at all opposed to modern buildings next to, or even integrated into old buildings. It depends.