California first state to restrict energy used by computers

Doobeedoo · December 15, 2016

Good one.

The joke I mean.

Snadzies · December 15, 2016

16 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

Most workplaces replace hardware every 2-3 years anyway making savings negligible given that the majority of workforce run mobile devices anyway unless they require workstations such as Mac Pro, or equivalent.

This is most certainly not the case.

Most businesses do not replace their hardware unless is breaks or can no longer handle the load requirement (and sometimes not even then) and that can mean hardware that is a decade or more old.

Companies that refresh their hardware regularly usually do so in stages like dept A then dept B, dept C, dept D and so forth and by the time they get back around to refreshing the hardware in dept A it has been a good 5-10 years or more.

Misanthrope · December 15, 2016

16 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

40$ in savings?

Wow, now i can finally buy the Titan T Volta!

40 over 5 years so 8 bucks per year.

SpaceGhostC2C · December 15, 2016

16 hours ago, Okjoek said:

"The California Energy Commission has voted to enforce regulations on the energy use of computers and monitors, an effort to save state residents $373 million per year. The measure may increase retail costs, but cut energy bills."

"Much of the savings that come from the new standards will be a result of change to the amount of energy a device uses while in sleep mode" I don't use sleep mode very often. I usually only shut it off when I leave home and if I plan to not use it for a while I just turn the monitor off.

(...)

"The commission has estimated that the new rules will add around $14 of retail cost for a desktop computer, but that energy savings for those computers will reach more than $40 over five years." So there's definitely an economic logic to buying newer hardware. This is personally why I never recommend that people buy older hardware unless they absolutely have to simply because they're more power hungry on the long run.

Because people making their own choices about where to spend more, where to spend less, and how much to spend in total is too liberal, you know. Let's better treat our citizens like the 5-year-olds they actually are (not like us, enlightened grownup lawmakers) and choose what's best for them, they're too stupid to be left on their own.

In a world of adults, the obvious first best is to inform everyone about idle energy costs and the alternatives available in the market, then let each person choose what suits them best. But I guess in our world of permanent underage state that's unthinkable.