Archive for the ‘Green’ Category

Thinking about power consumption when buying a TV

Wednesday, February 1st, 2006

Power consumption isn’t the first thing that enters your mind when buying a TV. Picture quality is a big one. How many different inputs it has. And the most importantly – whether its just a bit bigger than the new TV your work mate just bought! ;)

Its worthwhile thinking about power consumption though. I’ve just been trawling a few manufacturers’ sites, trying to get an idea of the differing power consumptions. Obviously, the big difference is between technologies – CRT, LCD, or Plasma. Comparisons are a bit tricky – Plasma TVs are universally at the big end of the size spectrum, followed by LCD, followed by good, old CRTs. In my quick google around the Net, I couldn’t find a size that was available in all technologies, but for the purposes of comparison I’ve looked at 32″ (which you can get in both LCD and CRT), and 42″ for the plasma.

From a quick sample, you’re looking at the following sort of power consumption:

  • 32″ CRT – 220 Watts
  • 32″ LCD – 170 Watts
  • 42″ Plasma – 370 Watts

To put this into a sample scenario, lets say you watch television 6 nights a week. A lot of people turn on the box around 6:30pm, and watch till around 10:30pm. But, you do take that trip to the coast each year for a fortnight. So, over a year, you have the TV on for 50 weeks x 6 days x 4 hours = 1200 hours. (Wow! Thats 50 full days, or 150 8 hour working days. We have to start getting out more!)

What does that mean in terms of power consumption? Over the year, we’re looking at the following:

  • CRT: 264 KwH/year
  • LCD: 204 KwH/year
  • Plasma: 444KwH/year

Here in Canberra we currently pay 9.9c/KwH for our electricity. So, it costs around $20/year for the CRT, $26/year for the LCD, and $44/year for the plasma. Obviously electricity prices can vary widely from area to area – this just gives an idea.

Aside from cost, though, there’s the environmental issue to consider. Depending on your electricity provider, there’s typically 1.44 Kg CO2 produced for every KwH, so in the case of the Plasma TV, that’s over half a tonne of CO2 per year… :(

Just one more thing to think about, as if TV buying wasn’t complicated enough…

Worm Farms – being a bit green in a townhouse or apartment

Friday, January 20th, 2006

I’ve found moving from a house to a townhouse quite the change. I mean, I love it and all, but veggie gardens are a little tough with only a small, concreted courtyard. And compost bins are right out! ;)

And without a compost bin, I was getting that twinge of hippy-guilt – thats when your inner Greenie is rebelling against your actions – everytime I chucked leftover vegies in the bin. Not to mention that towards the end of the week, things could get a bit gross….

The answer (well, partial answer) is a worm farm. Pretty straightforward concept – stacks of plastic containers which you populate with some worms. You chuck your scraps in, the worms eat it. As the population of worms grows, you add containers on top of the stack. And when you get to four stacks, or so, you empty out the bottom one (which has now broken down to good chocolatey soil) and keep on going.

Perhaps a piccy will make things clearer:

Worm Farm

While not the kind of thing you’d have as a centrepiece in your living room, its not an eyesore – I have mine in my garage. It’d easily fit on a balcony. If you have it running OK, it has a kind of musty, rainforesty smell to it – nothing like some composts you may have encountered.

There’s some caveats – worms aren’t big fans of citrus or onion. And feeding them meat is a Bad Idea (plus you wouldn’t want them developing a taste for it… :) ). But, generally a big win. Maintenance is so low as to be non-existent. Its way better for the environment (chucking scraps in the bin, and thus to landfill, tends to end up resulting in anaerobic composting, which releases heaps of methane). And if you have pot plants (or a small garden), the resultant soil and liquid is fantastic for them.

Mine cost about $80 (AUD). You could probably make your own without to much hassle.

ACT’s Water Tune-up program

Thursday, January 12th, 2006

The ACT Government offers a program for its residents called “The Indoor Water Tune-up”. Basically, they subsidise the cost of a plumber to visit your place, install a variety of simple water saving devices (like tap aerators, water-saving shower heads, etc), and give you advice. Additionally, you become eligible for other incentive programs for things like replacing single-flush toilets with dual flush. The cost to you is $30.

(Its worth checking the rest of the Think Water website too – there’s a number of other incentive and rebate programs you may not have been aware of for things like water tanks, water-saving shower heads, etc)

Even though I’ve already done a few things on my own in this area (replaced all the shower-heads, gone with a front-loading washing machine, etc), I went ahead and signed up. I certainly can’t complain about the service – when I rang to register, they offered me an appointment the next day! The guy who came round was great – friendly, punctual. Most importantly, he was a wealth of knowledge – I now know a lot more about what to consider when replacing my toilets with water efficient options.

I’m not sure how much longer the program is going to go, but I’d recommend it. If you’ve already done the obvious water saving steps, its $30 to have a plumber visit and advise you (which is good value in itself). And if you haven’t even begun to consider water efficiency, its a no-brainer: the value of a new shower head, plus the savings in water and electricity bills should have you well in front.

Book Review: Going Native

Monday, October 10th, 2005

I’ve recently finished a book called “Going Native – living in the Australian Environment” by Michael Archer and Bob Beale. I was impressed enough to decide to jot down a few items in my blog about it…

The title says it all really – its primarily about how Australia, as a society, doesn’t seem to “think Australian”. We still have a very English way of looking at things – you only have to look around at the huge lawns and cottage gardens in one of the driest continents in the world to see that. :)

The book has some further case studies of how we are often the last to realise some of the assets and benefits our continent provides. It was news to me, for instance, that we are a net importer of Eucalyptus oil – Portugal is now the world’s biggest exporter of the stuff! Bit depressing, really!

But the book isn’t a guilt trip, “woe-is-me”, type book. You leave it feeling kind of inspired. There’s great case studies of farmers who are thriving by trialling crops of various Australian natives for niche markets. Theres interesting coverage of reasearch projects. And there’s a “big picture” by the end of it all about the kind of things we could be doing as a nation to better, more effectively and more sustainably use our resources.

I can see a lot of it won’t sit neatly with many. There’s a strong case put in there for the harvesting of kangaroos, for instance, which is anathema to some. And the crux of their sustainability suggestions is based on getting native resources to turn a profit so its in peoples interest to sustain it – its best described as “hard” rational environmentalism.

But all in all, I liked it. Eye-opening in places, inspiring in others. And definitely thought-provoking, no matter where you sit on the environmental issues. Certainly worth a read.

How much does a Prius save you?

Friday, September 9th, 2005

I’ve been a proud owner of a Prius for 18 months now. I love it – its got all the features I could want (cruise control, climate control, air-bags), drives nicely, and super low fuel consumption.

I’ve had plenty of chats with my friends about how much I save in petrol, but had some spare time this evening to actually calculate it. So you can relate your experiences to mine, I drive around 20,000km a year. I used to get around 4.6-4.8 litres to the 100km. After a recent move, however, my driving is mostly made up of frequent small trips so that figure is now more like 5.2l/100km.

So, with petrol prices at $1.20/litre I’m paying $1248 a year in petrol. For comparison, according to www.greenvehicleguide.com.au, the owner of a Subaru Forester would be paying around $2640 a year. (actually, I think the real figure would be higher – the quoted fuel consumption is 11l/100km which strikes me on the low side…).

So, I’m saving around $1400 every year. Or, to put that in more meaningful terms thats 3 1/2 iPod Nano’s every year. :) Not too bad!

Of course, its nothing compared to my mountain bike – the petrol savings are even higher there ;) – but impressive nontheless. Combined with the fact that there are pretty much no sacrifices for that saving (drives like a normal car, servicing costs are the same, uses normal petrol), its a great car. Its nice when being green carries a greater reward than just a warm inner glow!

Kyoto looks like getting up

Friday, October 1st, 2004

So, it looks like it’s finally going to happen! ABC News Online is carrying the following story:

Kyoto supporters jubilant as Russia backs ratification. 01/10/2004. ABC News Online

On a personal note, I think its fantastic. I just can’t understand the attitude of those who say “The agreement’s not perfect because a) it doesn’t include developing countries, or b) it doesn’t go far enough, therefore we shouldn’t ratify it”. The key thing to me would seem to be it’s a start! There are no other agreements on the international table, and given how long Kyoto has taken to get to this stage, it doesn’t seem likely we’d see a radically different agreement get approved in the next 10 years. So, lets take what we can.

I also see from the above news story that next year talks begin to set the next range of targets, and to bring China and India on board, which goes a long way to resolving some of the Kyoto criticisms.

And on a final note, I’m hoping someone can explain the Australian Liberal Party’ stance on Kyoto. Near as I can understand it, it is “We won’t ratify the protocol, but we will meet our targets under the protocol”. Soooooo, we will go to all the effort to meet our targets but won’t sign the protocol which would allow us to benefit financially? You gotta admit, its seems like a strange approach. Unless, of course, there was no intention to meet our targets in the first place! But hey, I’m sure there’s a well-reasoned argument behind it all that I’m just not seeing…

And you never know, maybe the impending ratification will encourage a “change of heart”. Here’s hoping!