# Energy savings mode needed



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.

Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Al Gore, ladies and gentlemen!

What sort of world do we live in when people's #1 reason for energy savings isn't their electric bill?

Bottom line... I would love an energy savings mode... I could use the extra dough to put high octane leaded fuel into my muscle car.... Those tri-power carbs really suck down the gas!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Has anyone does any hard core research on the HR20 to see how much power it truely draws on a regular basis?

I know a lot of people did on the TiVo platform...


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.
> 
> Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.


IMHO what's alarming is the time wasted worrying about GW. My DVR energy usage is in line with my other electronic components.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.
> 
> Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.


Might I suggest that you could save a lot of energy by turning off your computer.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Has anyone does any hard core research on the HR20 to see how much power it truely draws on a regular basis?
> 
> I know a lot of people did on the TiVo platform...


I have a kill a watt meter, I'll stick it on over night and see what happens.


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

leww37334 said:


> Might I suggest that you could save a lot of energy by turning off your computer.


My computer has an energy savings mode that reduces power from 70 W to abuot 8W. I do turn it off when not in use for long periods. I have added relays to most home theater equipment.


----------



## krock918316 (Mar 5, 2007)

> Might I suggest that you could save a lot of energy by turning off your computer.


Sarcasm......not everyone gets it. :lol:


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

jasonblair said:


> Al Gore, ladies and gentlemen!
> 
> What sort of world do we live in when people's #1 reason for energy savings isn't their electric bill?
> 
> Bottom line... I would love an energy savings mode... I could use the extra dough to put high octane leaded fuel into my muscle car.... Those tri-power carbs really suck down the gas!


There are 3 good reasons to worry about how much electricity you use:
1) cost
2) reliance on mid east oil and therefore terrorism
3) saving the planet for younger generations

Al Gore is only a messenger, global warming is real and everything I hear from researchers (not politicians or news) in the field is extremely worrisome.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.
> 
> Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.


It would be so simple to do, our electricy is expensive here too. Why add the extra heat to the A/C load? We save where we can but don't go to extremes.


----------



## bret4 (Nov 22, 2006)

alv said:


> There are 3 good reasons to worry about how much electricity you use:
> 1) cost
> 2) reliance on mid east oil and therefore terrorism
> 3) saving the planet for younger generations
> ...


I agree 100%. Having a power saving mode on DVR's would be a good idea. I would use it if it was available. I am not a poster child for saving power and helping prevent global warming. My old 55 chevy pickup gets poor mileage. I built it before gas was over $1.50 a gal. I have plans to build some kind of electric or hybrid electric car or truck to replace it. I am going to change all my lighting to fluorescent as my old bulbs go in my home. Looks like it is going to be the law in Connecticut one day anyhow. These things should make up for my DVR not having a power saving mode for now.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

How exactly would this "Power Saving" mode work? Is it going to go in and out of Power Saver mode as it needs to record things, or would you have to do this manually yourself (Pretty much defeating the purpose of a DVR for me)?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Again...

Does anyone have accurate data on how much the HR20 draws?


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

I can tell you that with an eSATA drive (Seagate 500) that pulls 3.0A max and the HR20 on my UPC, it's only drawing 39 Watts - from what the APC is telling me. It's hard to get a correct AMP draw on it with my meter. I'll try it later when some of the important stuff isn't recording.

Doing the conversion of Watts to Amps by the equation Amps = Watts/Volts

39/120 = *.325 A* with two shows being recorded.

Someone might want to check my math on that. 

Basically, the lamp in the corner of your room is drawing almost twice as much energy (providing it's a 60w bulb) as you're trying to read the remote to power it down to save money. 

From Wikidpedia:



> 30-40 W - Tech: the power of the typical household tube light (shop light or florescent light)
> *39 W - Your average HR20* - _I added this _
> 60 W - Tech: the power of the typical household light bulb
> 82 W - Tech: peak power consumption of Pentium 4 CPU


----------



## gabe23 (Mar 7, 2007)

I worked for years doing desktop support, and the power saving options were a constant problem for us. Machines not coming back from standby, getting hung on shutdown and startup, etc. Overall, it did wonders for the energy savings of the company, but for the small percentage of people who's PCs were always on the fritz, it stunk. In my opinion, there are still more important things for the HR20 developers to work on than a power saving mode. We don't need any new features that would likely increase the potential for failures. If it's something that can be seamlessly worked into future models, than I'm all for it. And honestly, there are far more "appalling" wastes of electricity out there in most homes.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Most of the energy draw, I'm fairly certain is energizing the LNBs. Since the HR20 has to continue to keep current with Guide info, messages (maybe not the human readable ones, but authorization and software related), etc. I don't think any receiver/switch/dish combo can be easily reduced by much. 

I'm bettin' there are bigger fish to fry. (But be carefull--some ways to save on your electric bill cost more in overall energy from birth to grave of the device than the old fashioned devices...)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

That's the part I'm afraid of testing. Changing channels, with eSATA, without... I'm sure there would be spikes depending on usage. Unless you pounded the channel button I don't think you're going to get much draw.

I would imagine, majority of users USE the DVR. The DVR turns the channel once to record and then stays there for 30 minute or 1 hour or more depending on the show. Then you are just going to the HDD to watch the show and aren't doing much channel changing then either. I don't think power consumption is an issue at all here and like Tom stated, there are FAR better ways within your household to save costs.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

bret4 said:


> I agree 100%. Having a power saving mode on DVR's would be a good idea. I would use it if it was available. I am not a poster child for saving power and helping prevent global warming. My old 55 chevy pickup gets poor mileage. I built it before gas was over $1.50 a gal. I have plans to build some kind of electric or hybrid electric car or truck to replace it. I am going to change all my lighting to fluorescent as my old bulbs go in my home. Looks like it is going to be the law in Connecticut one day anyhow. These things should make up for my DVR not having a power saving mode for now.


We have switched over to flourescent lamps, all through the house. If the HR20 draws 40 watts @ .10 cents a KWH = about .10 cents a day. Not alot, but if it were to go into standby might save a buck or two. With the way oil is going, electricity is going to go alot higher, fairly soon I'm affraid. We have 3 DVR's.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.
> 
> Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.


Why not just put the unit in standby when not in use?


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Again...
> 
> Does anyone have accurate data on how much the HR20 draws?


I'd be curious to know what it draws when on vs. standby. There should be a difference, right?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Radio Enginerd said:


> Why not just put the unit in standby when not in use?


that should save a couple hundred watts just turning off the death ray...


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

Even in STANDBY I'm showing 39 Watts.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Well, I worry about things I can control and fact is that the planet has been warming since the end of the last ice age. Truth be known, while humans have some effect on the climate, the planet's own climate cycles run their own course with or without us.

Now what exactly does this have to do with the CE Forum?

I think I'll go watch my blue LEDs spin


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

say-what said:


> Now what exactly does this have to do with the CE Forum?


Nothing... and that is the reason I moved it about 1 minute after it was posted.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Nothing... and that is the reason I moved it about 1 minute after it was posted.


Mind's not working tonight, must be delerious from the heat cast off from the HR20, thought I was in the CE, maybe I need to turn my thermostat down :lol:


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Nothing... and that is the reason I moved it about 1 minute after it was posted.


Not to mention that Mars is also warming up. The ice caps on Mars are melting...must be caused by the industrial revolution that they are having there.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

Please, :backtotop as, like Mars, we are orbiting around the OP Topic. The OP is curious about how much the HR20 draws and it's a valid question that seems to be somewhat hard to answer.  Let's try to take some of this "constructive-ness" and figure it out.


----------



## Halo (Jan 13, 2006)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.


I pay 6.8 *CENTS* per kWh in Anaheim Ca. (before exceeding baseline). So, at 40 watts running 24/7 for 30 days it uses just under 29kWh which costs less than $2 per month. Most HDDs use less than 10 watts if I remember correctly.

What's a space chemist? Aerogels and other high-tech materials or something else?


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Coffey77 said:


> Even in STANDBY I'm showing 39 Watts.


Only things I've seen in a google search are:

DirecTV HR20 DVR: 33 watts - http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html

Directv H20 receiver: 27W OFF, ON is about 30W - http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=3402571&postcount=38

So I guess that's the basic ballpark.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

I could still be getting pull from the eSATA as well. I haven't tried it with just the HR20 alone. Maybe tomorrow if I remember. I can't get my meter to pull an AMP draw without jury-rigging something screwy. I COULD do it but as of right now, I just don't wanna. 

Like you said, either way we're pretty close and it's basically nothing.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I would love to see PowerSaving modes for my DVRs. For the bulk of my TV viewing, I keep my plasma TV in low-power mode, so it would be cool if there was such a feature that kicked in automatically for my DVRs that reduced energy consumption when the boxes were idle.

I have 7 DVRs, so the cost savings would really add up ...


----------



## mocciat (Oct 17, 2006)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.
> 
> Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.


Why don't you just get rid of everything in your house that uses electricity that was you can save the power for the rest of us and we can stop discussing this silly topic.

Reliance on middle east oil? Are you that naive? You must be from Berkeley.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

mocciat said:


> Why don't you just get rid of everything in your house that uses electricity that was you can save the power for the rest of us and we can stop discussing this silly topic.
> 
> Reliance on middle east oil? Are you that naive? You must be from Berkeley.


Did you miss the other comments about posting off-topic comments? Unless you're a Donald Trump, most people would welcome the chance to save a few bucks off their electric bill. That's what this thread is about - it's not a political discussion. 

At a cost of 40¢ a day per DVR, my DVRs cost me $1,022 a year. You're telling me you don't care about shaving a few cents off a day? Even if it's only 2¢ a day saved, that's over $51 into my pocket. I certainly care about that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

drew2k said:


> I have 7 DVRs, so the cost savings would really add up ...


I am not sure how much it would save... 
-----

Or how low they could get it...

The Hard Drive is about 1/3rd of the power consumption (Based on what has been posted here... 33w and 10w for the drive...)

You can't stop and start the drive... as we know the spin and spindown of the drives are the most "power consumption" pieces... and the most risk to the drive.... starting and stoping it for recordings... would happen how many times in a day (basically similar to shutting down and rebooting your computer)

What about the 20w... The tuners have to be constantly listening and processing the information from the sat line.... then the network connections, as future features will have things that involve that at a momements notice...

Phone line listening to log caller-id, and the remote sensors listening for remote commands... then the USB ports listening for remote commands from central processing units.... The RF modules...

Not to mention just hte general "housekeeping" stuff that goes on...

So I am sure they can shave some power usage from it in some places, but I am not sure how much lower you could get it... until you take a chunk from the hard drive usage... and the core processor unit...


----------



## mocciat (Oct 17, 2006)

drew2k said:


> Did you miss the other comments about posting off-topic comments? Unless you're a Donald Trump, most people would welcome the chance to save a few bucks off their electric bill. That's what this thread is about - it's not a political discussion.
> 
> At 40cents a day savings per DVR, my DVRs cost me $1,022 a year. You're telling me you don't care about shaving a few cents off a day? Even if it's only 2cents a day, that's over $51 into my pocket. I certainly care about that.


It's just not worth the aggrevation. PG&E is gonna get however much they want out of me anyway. The baseline usages are totally unrealistic. I have asked over 200 people if they have EVER stayed un der baseline and none have.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but after deregulation the electric companies can do whatever they want. It's just they way it is.

Do I want to save $51 a month on electricity? Yes. Do I want D* to spend millions developing an "energy saving" feature for the HR20? No. Why because we will be paying for that R&D and i'm pretty certain it will cost us more than $51 a year in the long run.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

drew2k said:


> At a cost of 40¢ a day per DVR, my DVRs cost me $1,022 a year. You're telling me you don't care about shaving a few cents off a day? Even if it's only 2¢ a day saved, that's over $51 into my pocket. I certainly care about that.


But at what cost to functionality does that $51 savings get you...

Yes I am playing devils advocate here...

If they wind down the drive, that introduces a delay at the start of "non-scheduled" recordings (aka you hit R)... or you lose the ability for the buffering during live.

If you shutdown the network card, then you lose the opportunity for the network port to listen for commands (such as web scheduling, or even possible MRV requests in the future)..

Shutdown the tuners... no guide data, unless you get it via another means.

While I am not against trying to get it to reduce it's power... I am just a little stumped on where it could come from in the unit... I am sure there are some, but I am not sure how much.

IMHO: outside of this HR20... I wish they would find a way to make cost effective, and practical solar panels for resedential/consumer usage.

If I could spend say $5,000 for the setup.. to suppliment my power usage in my home... I am sure it would pay for it self in a few years...

There are a lot of other power hungry devices/usages out there... that would probably go a long way in helping the overall problem.

Changing 10 lights in your house from traditional lightbulbs to floressent... will probably save you the money to offset any extra costs encurred by the DVRs... Timers on other lights, to ensure they are off during the day..

Go to a GAS high-efficient dryer (with a matching washer), will most definently save you more... I love the ones we have now... 14 gallons of water, compared to 40 per wash...

Again... not saying that the DVRs couldn't benefit from a trimming, but these are basically computers that are running 24/7... not sure how much lower then 33w you can get them...


----------



## mocciat (Oct 17, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But at what cost to functionality does that $51 savings get you...
> 
> Yes I am playing devils advocate here...
> 
> ...


I concur totally.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I do not know how much the HR20 draws, but I know if I shut off my plasma for 15 min more a day than I do now, it would well cover that. I ain't gonna do it, but I'm just saying.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mocciat said:


> The baseline usages are totally unrealistic. I have asked over 200 people if they have EVER stayed under baseline and none have.


I will completely agree with PG&E baseline usages as unrealistic.
Now make that out of 201 people, you only know of one that can stay under baseline usage, which would make 0.5% of the households could ever stay under baseline usage.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

armophob said:


> I do not know how much the HR20 draws, but I know if I shut off my plasma for 15 min more a day than I do now, it would well cover that. I ain't gonna do it, but I'm just saying.


Go to bed 15 min early...:lol:


----------



## mocciat (Oct 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I will completely agree with PG&E baseline usages as unrealistic.
> Now make that out of 201 people, you only know of one that can stay under baseline usage, which would make 0.5% of the households could ever stay under baseline usage.


These are the real crooks


----------



## mocciat (Oct 17, 2006)

Better yet plug you plasma into your neighbors electrical outlet


----------



## bret4 (Nov 22, 2006)

Better to buy things that use less power when you can to offset any waste. I have a new washing machine that uses less water. I got an LCD TV that uses 100 watts less than my old TV. I changed my 50 year old heating system for a more effcient one. 

Point is when you have to replace something think about what it will cost to run. The DVR will not have as large of an inpact as a lot of other things you can do. I would think just washing your hands with cold water should save more power than you can save on a DVR with power saver modes.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

considering just turning on my tv, suround sound, and hr20 will make my UPS show 300 + watts I guess the dvr is a small part....


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

I am not only talking about individual energy savings. Remember to multiple by the number of units. There is no one solution but with a large number of units in play, the savings is considerable. This is the only electronics component left in my house that draws considerable power when in idle.

BTW: I have done many of the suggestions posted in power savings.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But at what cost to functionality does that $51 savings get you...
> 
> Yes I am playing devils advocate here...
> 
> ...


And what a good job you do! 

Actually, my Cablevision SA8300-HD powers down on its own every morning at 2 AM, and when you resume to watch live TV, a banner appears: ONE MOMENT PLEASE - POWERING UP THE HARD DRIVE. It is a little annoying, but I accept it because I only use that box for the three HD channels I can't get from DirecTV.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

We went geothermal about 7 years ago, and I'm getting real tired of subsidizing carbon credits for all you slackers.

We're discussing toothpicks, while the telephone poles in our homes and cars are staring us in the face. If one is actually having a "hand wringing" moment over the power draw of the HR20, I'd simply suggest we have much bigger fish to fry.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

Every watt saved per unit gets multiplied by tens of thousands of DVRs... that's a few less coal-fired power plants we need to build, just by changing the software on your DVR. A small and easy way to make a change.

If Intel can build a server with a hundred times the computing power of an HR20, that winds down to under 10 watts of power while it waits for new traffic, then the HR20 can get there, too. The biggest user is the hard drive, the second biggest is the CPU. Most receivers aren't displaying video or recording anything 75% of any given year. Guide data (and other housekeeping commands) only need to be updated a few times per day, for a few minutes and that can be initiated with the CPU in low power mode and the drive off. Just like desktop computers - receive a wake-up message, then wake up. Need to record a show? Power up 15 seconds early. Receive an "ON" command from the remote? Power up, showing video instantly and starting the buffer 15 seconds later. Otherwise spin the hard drive down and cut the CPU clock by 75%. Simple.

Lets say that cuts the power by 20 watts/hr per unit for 18 hours a day, and they sell 100,000 HR20s. That's 36 megawatts saved per day, just on the HR20, hardly trivial.

I'll have to break out my Kill-A-Watt, I've measured everything in the house except that. I know my older Hughes SD receivers use 12 watts on, 10 watts in standby mode. Think about how much would be saved if they had cut that down to 2 watts... Its not about the $1 you would save each month, its about the millions spent by everyone.


----------



## PlanetBill (May 8, 2006)

I no longer need a cablebox or a vcr to be plugged in now. So maybe I'm helping the environment. I'm sure when the pretty blue ring is off I save lots of power.
Well, time to hop on the riding mower and cut the grass for the 2nd time this week. Oh no, the kids left the frige door open!


----------



## JHL (Jan 15, 2007)

I agree with technTrek. I also think that it won't happen because DirecTV has enough trouble making the box work the way they think it should. I hope that they make power saving a design goal for the next box.


----------



## bigviking (Sep 20, 2006)

SuperTech1 said:


> IMHO what's alarming is the time wasted worrying about GW. My DVR energy usage is in line with my other electronic components.


I agree that the time wasted worrying about global warming is very alarming. But, whats even more alarming is the billions of dollars spent by large corporations and countries trying to comply with carbon footprint reductions simply to try to combat the normal cycle of warming and cooling that the earth (and Mars for that matter) are going through, and have been going through long before mankind arrived on the scene. This is probably the largest waste of money in history, imagine how many people we could help throughout the world by spending this money in other ways, or how many more F22's we could build with that same money.

How many billions would the US waste per year trying to control global warming if Al Gore, or some other global warming alarmist ever actually made it all the way to the presidency ? And what would be the impact of this on our economy ? Now theres something to worry about.


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

bigviking said:


> I agree that the time wasted worrying about global warming is very alarming. But, whats even more alarming is the billions of dollars spent by large corporations and countries trying to comply with carbon footprint reductions simply to try to combat the normal cycle of warming and cooling that the earth (and Mars for that matter) are going through, and have been going through long before mankind arrived on the scene. This is probably the largest waste of money in history, imagine how many people we could help throughout the world by spending this money in other ways, or how many more F22's we could build with that same money.
> 
> How many billions would the US waste per year trying to control global warming if Al Gore, or some other global warming alarmist ever actually made it all the way to the presidency ? And what would be the impact of this on our economy ? Now theres something to worry about.


Coastal flooding alone will cost hundreds of billions since large sections of the southeast will be under water. Right now global warming costs 1-2 Billion per year in increased fire fighting out west. Not to mention if Katrina's (and future hurricanes) intensity was enhanced by global warming (there is a correlation with total wind intensity, not number of hurricanes). In the past, the economy benefited from new technologies that stopped pollution, e.g. many new jobs are created. What is effected negatively is old industries like coal fired plants. Add to that the hundreds of billions our dependence on mideast oil has cost us in our recent wars. However, this is the wrong place to discuss that.

My original point was best said by technTrek a couple of posts ago. One good programmer can produce code that will save the building of multiple power plants. That is a high payoff for society even if it isn't for D*.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ladies and Gentlemen, lets try to keep this tied more closely to the HR20 (and its DIRECTV brethren). This is a very politically and emotionally charged topic and I would not want this thread to stray...Hokay?

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## tbpb3 (Dec 10, 2006)

alv said:


> In the last 6 months I have gone to a number of detailed scientific talks on the effects of global warning (I am a space chemist) and each scares me more than the last. Currently, AFAIK, all DVR's use 40-50 W 24/7. For most of us, I suspect 3/4 or more of this time, an energy savings mode would be desirable. Taking these numbers that is about 24 kW hour per user per month wasted (about $5 per month in MA). As DVR's are now becoming mainstream, that is an appalling amount of power nationally.
> 
> Therefore, I strongly urge that an energy savings mode be added.
> 
> it allready has one why dont you UNPLUG yours!


----------



## gabe23 (Mar 7, 2007)

alv said:


> One good programmer can produce code that will save the building of multiple power plants.


Where is this guy, and how do we get him on the HR20 development team?!? But can we please put him on dual buffers before we have him save the world?


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

tbpb3 said:


> it allready has one why dont you UNPLUG yours!


Actually I have done exactly that for my old Hughes receivers for the past year and a half (between that and other things I've done I've cut my energy use 25% over the last year, and I'm working on the next 20% right now). When I had 5 of them active it was saving almost 10 thousand watts per day just by putting them either on switched outlets or power strips with a switch. I still do for the 3 that I still use.

However, you can't unplug the DVRs, the power useage must be managed internally. If you unplug them, how do you propose your scheduled programs get taped? Are you going to wake up at 3 am or come home from work at 11 am to turn it on so it can record Dirty Jobs?

Obviously, no. So the DVR must manage its power. Right now it goes full-power 24/7, and it can do better. I cringe every time I put my hand on top of my HR20 - all that heat is just wasted energy.


----------



## DJConan (Sep 14, 2006)

I posted this a long time ago. 

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=784258&postcount=1

37-39w

You're not going to find much in a power reduction unless they find a way to underclock the processing while it's not needed. Even then, my guess would be, you're talking 5-6 watts saved...if that.

We'll spend more money discussing this topic. lol


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

techntrek said:


> Obviously, no. So the DVR must manage its power. Right now it goes full-power 24/7, and it can do better. I cringe every time I put my hand on top of my HR20 - all that heat is just wasted energy.


I use a chill mat on top to draw the heat away and help warm my home. Then I crank the AC down to 74 and take a nice hot shower to take off the chill.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

You would do better to throw the HR20 into the tub with you, at least that way you'll have a warmer shower! :eek2: 


As for the figures that show a 1 or 2 watt drop when the HR20 is off - that seems to be right in line with my Huges receivers. It seems to stop the video processing and turns off the lights, but it doesn't help much. Maybe release 0245 or 0345 will fix it...


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

techntrek said:


> You would do better to throw the HR20 into the tub with you, at least that way you'll have a warmer shower! :eek2:


How shocking!


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

In my house a Dish VIP622 receiver uses about 53 watts on or off 24 x7. 

Energy for my 18.1 cubic ft Fridgidaire refridgerator built in 2001 and not 'energy star' rated is less expensive. The HR20 as reported here is cheaper to operate then the vip622 but would be a close called compared with my fridge. 

These receivers are very good at scheduling. How hard could it be to program it to sleep when not in use and wake a few minutes before a scheduled event.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

Exacly my point, gitarzan. Unfortunatley if the HR20's hardware isn't designed to allow spin-down of the hard drive, or lower clock cycles for the CPU, nothing will change. Hopefully this will be a design parameter for future DVRs if the HR20 can't do it.


----------



## lorick (Nov 16, 2005)

Does the cost of electricity vary that much in this country. One person in this thread is saying the DVR is costing them $51 per month and another said it is costing them $2 per month. 

Just what is the REAL cost???


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

lorick said:


> Does the cost of electricity vary that much in this country. One person in this thread is saying the DVR is costing them $51 per month and another said it is costing them $2 per month.
> 
> Just what is the REAL cost???


I'm sure it's far less than $51 a month and more than $2 a month. Just find out the average power consumption in Watts and multiply that by the cost per kilowatt hour.

Let's say the average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Let's also say that the average power consumption of the HR20 is 100 Watts (just for comparison, I have no idea what the average power consumption is).

100 Watts/hour = 0.1 kWh
$0.10 per kWh * 720 hours per month * 0.1 kWh avg power consumption = $7.20

So the HR20 on average would cost $7.20 a month assuming that it uses 100 Watts.

To get up to $50 a month the HR20 would need to use on average 695 Watts, which I think is HIGHLY doubtful.


----------



## ELT (Feb 20, 2007)

n00b here when it comes to the HR20. what bothers me more than power consumption is just the fact that the unit is *really* warm 24/7 and the humming noise, and the drive just constantly spinning. are there no fans to cool this thing off? it can't really be good for the life expectancy of the unit for it to be running all the time like that. so what's the scoop?


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

alv said:


> Coastal flooding alone will cost hundreds of billions since large sections of the southeast will be under water. Right now global warming costs 1-2 Billion per year in increased fire fighting out west. Not to mention if Katrina's (and future hurricanes) intensity was enhanced by global warming (there is a correlation with total wind intensity, not number of hurricanes). In the past, the economy benefited from new technologies that stopped pollution, e.g. many new jobs are created. What is effected negatively is old industries like coal fired plants. Add to that the hundreds of billions our dependence on mideast oil has cost us in our recent wars. However, this is the wrong place to discuss that.
> 
> My original point was best said by technTrek a couple of posts ago. One good programmer can produce code that will save the building of multiple power plants. That is a high payoff for society even if it isn't for D*.


ALV, if you really want to discuss global warming try the posts in the OT or the Watercooler forums.

I have one minor and (possibly) easy suggestion, would it be possible to power down the LNB's only? Then repower them when a recording needs to be made, or the power button is pushed. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

drew2k said:


> Did you miss the other comments about posting off-topic comments? Unless you're a Donald Trump, most people would welcome the chance to save a few bucks off their electric bill. That's what this thread is about - it's not a political discussion.
> 
> At a cost of 40¢ a day per DVR, my DVRs cost me $1,022 a year. You're telling me you don't care about shaving a few cents off a day? Even if it's only 2¢ a day saved, that's over $51 into my pocket. I certainly care about that.


What is your electricity rate?

7 (dvrs) * 39w * $.20 (/kwh) * 24(Hrs/day) /1000 (watts/hwr) = $1.32 per day (for all 7.)

So, your electric rate must be higher than Hawaii's at roughly $.19/kwh. (National average is just under 9cents.) Time to move?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

techntrek said:


> Are you going to wake up at 3 am or come home from work at 11 am to turn it on so it can record Dirty Jobs?


Isn't that with Norm MacDonald and Artie Lange? Man, I miss Norm... but not as much as, you guessed it, Frank Stallone!


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> What is your electricity rate?
> 
> 7 (dvrs) * 39w * $.20 (/kwh) * 24(Hrs/day) /1000 (watts/hwr) = $1.32 per day (for all 7.)
> 
> ...


Redoing my math from my above posting with 39 Watts instead of 100 and using a price of $0.10 per kWh, the yearly cost for powering the HR20 is $33.70. Monthly cost is $2.81. Daily cost is $0.09.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> Redoing my math from my above posting with 39 Watts instead of 100 and using a price of $0.10 per kWh, the yearly cost for powering the HR20 is $33.70. Monthly cost is $2.81. Daily cost is $0.09.


I guess I'll turn off a light or two, I'm not using instead.


----------



## dsm (Jul 11, 2004)

PoitNarf said:


> Redoing my math from my above posting with 39 Watts instead of 100 and using a price of $0.10 per kWh, the yearly cost for powering the HR20 is $33.70. Monthly cost is $2.81. Daily cost is $0.09.


In northern MA my electricity is .22/kWhr. I won't regale you with how Unitil managed to get this expensive or how much this annoys me. This comes out to about $73/year at 39Watts.

I would like the option to specify the on/off hours like the comcast box. I could live with it staying on if there is a recording it knows it needs to do and with a short lag when it starts up. I'd offset the startup lag by having it start before I expect to need it. Ideally it would be from standby and not a full boot.

I rarely record anything after 2am and none of my family during the week watches the HR20 until about 3pm (after school). So I could set it to remain powered down from 2am to 2pm. This would save about $36/year for me and cut the power consumption by about 50%. We have other Tivo units that will eventually be replaced but those see some morning usage so the off time would be less.

-steve


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

dsm - if done right you wouldn't have to program anything, it would be automatic. Even better than Comcast.


----------



## EdK99 (Feb 26, 2007)

If everyone would switch from traditional incandescent light bulbs to CLF light bulbs that would reduce energy way more then shaving a few watts off of the HR20. A 60w incandescent bulb becomes 14w with a CLF bulb. Now that is a lot of energy savings.

Ed


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

EdK99 said:


> If everyone would switch from traditional incandescent light bulbs to CLF light bulbs that would reduce energy way more then shaving a few watts off of the HR20. A 60w incandescent bulb becomes 14w with a CLF bulb. Now that is a lot of energy savings.
> 
> Ed


I think the CFL bulbs work better than the CLF ones


----------



## EdK99 (Feb 26, 2007)

PoitNarf said:


> I think the CFL bulbs work better than the CLF ones


Duh! Yes CFL bulbs. Darn acronyms.


----------



## jcormack (Jan 19, 2007)

Question for all the CFL users (I am one)
How do dipose of them when they go bad?
You do realize they contain Mercury, right?


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

jcormack said:


> Question for all the CFL users (I am one)
> How do dipose of them when they go bad?
> You do realize they contain Mercury, right?


Toxic waste disposal. Same as with batteries and almost all electrical equipment.


----------



## jcormack (Jan 19, 2007)

One can hope..........

But how many are just tossing old ones in the general trash ?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> What is your electricity rate?
> 
> 7 (dvrs) * 39w * $.20 (/kwh) * 24(Hrs/day) /1000 (watts/hwr) = $1.32 per day (for all 7.)
> 
> ...


It's actually quite difficult to say what my energy rate is, because my power company, LIPA, tacks on fuels surcharges (now know as "power supply charges") and other costs and fees (ex: PILOT - "payment in lieu of taxes" and Suffolk County Tax Adjusment) to repay for a nuclear power plant that never opened. From my last bill, I used 2170 KWH in 32 days at a cost of $355.51, making my "average" cost 16.4¢/KWH, so I overestimated a little bit, and I'm currently not as bad as Hawaii.

When I posted my first total calculations, they were based on someone else's number for the daily cost per DVR, which was posted at 40¢. Recalculating with your formula and my rate, my 7 DVRs cost me $1.07 a day total, or 15¢/day each, or $390.55 annually. That's a little easier to swallow than my first annual cost!


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

I'm curious about one thing here. I thought that the Tivos went into a low power usage mode when you turned them off, as opposed to the HR 20. If they can do it why can't the HR 20 (unless, of course, I'm wrong about Tivo)?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

shendley said:


> I'm curious about one thing here. I thought that the Tivos went into a low power usage mode when you turned them off, as opposed to the HR 20. If they can do it why can't the HR 20 (unless, of course, I'm wrong about Tivo)?


While it is possible they save just a tad in standby mode, both the DirecTiVos and the HR20 are really on all the time retrieving data, listening for authorizations, waitin' to record that next show.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

From a post a while ago, someone suggested tuning to a channel not received, before going to standby, to give the buffer a break. This post was for the hard drive noise. Could this also be used for the OP's purposes? Until it changes channels to record something of course.


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

EdK99 said:


> If everyone would switch from traditional incandescent light bulbs to CLF light bulbs that would reduce energy way more then shaving a few watts off of the HR20. A 60w incandescent bulb becomes 14w with a CLF bulb. Now that is a lot of energy savings.
> 
> Ed


Why not do both? Also, most lights are not on 24/7.


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

I don't really understand the resistance. If D* does this correctly, with minimal interuption to our daily routine (turn on time about equal to a couple of channel changes or so) everyone saves a little. Just because it isn't the biggest source of wasted power in our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the waste - and all with no effort on our part.


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

alv said:


> I don't really understand the resistance. If D* does this correctly, with minimal interuption to our daily routine (turn on time about equal to a couple of channel changes or so) everyone saves a little. Just because it isn't the biggest source of wasted power in our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the waste - and all with no effort on our part.


I don't really understand the need to micromanage. Improvements are constantly made in this area. Just not fast enough for some folks I guess.
If the product doesn't meet your personal requirements then don't acquire it. IMHO


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

alv said:


> I don't really understand the resistance. If D* does this correctly, with minimal interuption to our daily routine (turn on time about equal to a couple of channel changes or so) everyone saves a little. Just because it isn't the biggest source of wasted power in our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the waste - and all with no effort on our part.


IMHO, Slight monetary savings does not outweight the risk of losing program recordings due to failures to 'wake up'. There are some who use a second HR20 or HR10-250 to backup the recordings as it is. 
The whole basis on owning a DVR device is to be constantly working, updating guide data every 15min, and checking for recording conflicts. The mere ownership of a DVR is considered waste in most environmentalists eyes. 
Again IMHO, what is being asked is comparable to asking drag racers to use ethanol fuel to help the environment, or to put a filter on a good cigar to protect your mouth and lungs.


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> While it is possible they save just a tad in standby mode, both the DirecTiVos and the HR20 are really on all the time retrieving data, listening for authorizations, waitin' to record that next show.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Thanks. I was wondering if I was wrong about that. I was surprised to learn that the HR 20 never really turned off because I assumed that when I put the HR 10 in standby that it did turn off - or, at least, went into a low power mode. But I never really knew that to be true. And I guess it makes sense. As one of the posters put it, you really want this machine to be working all the time in a sense. I would also miss the buffer you get when you turn it on. I've used that a couple of times now where I turned the machine on, saw a show that had already begun I was interested in and was just able to hit record and get it all. Still, my sympathies are with the OP. If it could be made to go into a lower power mode and still preserve functionality, then it's a no brainer - gotta like that for the environment, for a bit of extra spare change in your pocket, for a lot of reasons.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

armophob said:


> IMHO, Slight monetary savings does not outweight the risk of losing program recordings due to failures to 'wake up'.


Way back in 2000 my Replay DVR use to turn itself off and wake itself up for scheduled recordings. I don't recall it ever missing one.

Sometimes companies need prodding to do the right thing when somneone else is having to pay for their failure to act. In this case the customers are paying the higher electric bill so why should DTV care? Much like apartment complexes would have zero insulation if it wasn't required. After all the apartment complex owner isn't paying the electric bill so why should he care?

If congress mandated tomorrow that DVR's had to reduce their electric consumption I have no doubt the next release would use 25% less power and we as customers would never notice a change.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> Way back in 2000 my Replay DVR use to turn itself off and wake itself up for scheduled recordings. I don't recall it ever missing one.
> 
> Sometimes companies need prodding to do the right thing when somneone else is having to pay for their failure to act. In this case the customers are paying the higher electric bill so why should DTV care? Much like apartment complexes would have zero insulation if it wasn't required. After all the apartment complex owner isn't paying the electric bill so why should he care?
> 
> If congress mandated tomorrow that DVR's had to reduce their electric consumption I have no doubt the next release would use 25% less power and we as customers would never notice a change.


Did the replay actually save power during the standby mode? Did you mind that the buffer was flushed when you woke it up?

That is the trade off (which could be put into an option, of course). Buffer everything or save power.

In the case of a satellite DVR, the unit is always receiving data you usually want: guide updates, authorization updates, and standard dvr buffering. But if you preferred, DIRECTV and E* could setup options for disk power down and tuner power down that would affect the overall dvr experience. Guide data might not be fully populated out to two weeks. Buffering of the channels would be gone. And wakeup would likely be longer as the LNBs had to energize and settle.

All this could be done. And for some rooms, I might set them up to do so. But the most heavily used rooms, I would not.

And has been said before, there are likely much bigger fish to green first. (Tho I did get gas water heater and clothes dryer when I bought this house.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## djwww98 (Jan 12, 2006)

drew2k said:


> I would love to see PowerSaving modes for my DVRs. For the bulk of my TV viewing, I keep my plasma TV in low-power mode, so it would be cool if there was such a feature that kicked in automatically for my DVRs that reduced energy consumption when the boxes were idle.
> 
> I have 7 DVRs, so the cost savings would really add up ...


I know this would be a HUGE sacrifice, but if you are that concerned about the power consuption, maybe you could somehow live with only 6 DVR's instead of 7. Reminds me of the millions of people driving their SUV here, there, everywhere, all day long, and complaining about the price of gas and acting all concerned about global warming. Spare me.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

djwww98 said:


> I know this would be a HUGE sacrifice, but if you are that concerned about the power consuption, maybe you could somehow live with only 6 DVR's instead of 7. Reminds me of the millions of people driving their SUV here, there, everywhere, all day long, and complaining about the price of gas and acting all concerned about global warming. Spare me.


Well, thank you for singling me out. Can you tell from the information I posted what other measures I have taken in my life to reduce my energy consumption? No? Then please don't presume to know me and pass judgment. Really ... spare *me*.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

At one time the government did 'energy star' certifify set top boxes. That is if a set top box used on average 25% less energy then the norm it could get an 'energy star' logo. But I believe the set top box makers argued that the technology required all set top boxes to be on 24X7 and the technology was so similar there was no room for any manufacture to really gain an edge. So the 'energy star' program for set top boxes was scrapped. 

My set top boxes are mostly inactive midnight to 5pm most days. My $29 clock radio reliablly wakes me up in the morning and only uses 2 or 3 watts. It even has a weekend program. Again, how hard could it be to put some logic in these boxes to wake up to record a scheduled show, download guide data, or other scheduled maintenance and then turn back off? Sounds pretty simple to me.


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

gitarzan said:


> At one time the government did 'energy star' certifify set top boxes. That is if a set top box used on average 25% less energy then the norm it could get an 'energy star' logo. But I believe the set top box makers argued that the technology required all set top boxes to be on 24X7 and the technology was so similar there was no room for any manufacture to really gain an edge. So the 'energy star' program for set top boxes was scrapped.
> 
> My set top boxes are mostly inactive midnight to 5pm most days. My $29 clock radio reliablly wakes me up in the morning and only uses 2 or 3 watts. It even has a weekend program. Again, how hard could it be to put some logic in these boxes to wake up to record a scheduled show, download guide data, or other scheduled maintenance and then turn back off? Sounds pretty simple to me.


You and others are ignoring the "buffering" feature of DVR's. It may not be important to you, but it is to many. The DVR must be on or in standby for this to function. I suggest a regular set top box and a recorder of some sort with a timer function would better suit you.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

SuperTech1 said:


> You and others are ignoring the "buffering" feature of DVR's. It may not be important to you, but it is to many. The DVR must be on or in standby for this to function. I suggest a regular set top box and a recorder of some sort with a timer function would better suit you.


There's no reason it couldn't be optional.

It could also wake itself up every 24 hours to check for sat updates even if nothing was scheduled to record.

The key would be making the "wake up" instant. Users can't be expected to wait for the thing to boot up.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

How about a user setable window for when the dvr may shut itself down to save power if no one appears to be actively using it. Buffering will be lost. If users enabled it from 12 midnight to 6 am that alone could save 25%.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> How about a user setable window for when the dvr may shut itself down to save power if no one appears to be actively using it. Buffering will be lost. If users enabled it from 12 midnight to 6 am that alone could save 25%.


Assuming for the sake of argument that this mode of operation won't be a problem for other DVR features and operations, why not use an appliance timer. Seems like that would use even less energy than the "wakeup" circuit would on the receiver.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Assuming for the sake of argument that this mode of operation won't be a problem for other DVR features and operations, why not use an appliance timer. Seems like that would use even less energy than the "wakeup" circuit would on the receiver.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Then it couldn't wake up long enough to perform scheduled recordings.


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

HiDefGator said:


> There's no reason it couldn't be optional.
> 
> It could also wake itself up every 24 hours to check for sat updates even if nothing was scheduled to record.
> 
> The key would be making the "wake up" instant. Users can't be expected to wait for the thing to boot up.


It's optional now. Unplug your DVR when you're not using it.
If approx. 30 watts is too much for you I hope you don't have any electric clocks, your tv's plugged in when not in use, microwave unplugged till needed (that clock is eating power), and air conditioning is definitely out.
I could go on, but at this point I feel like I'm....
:beatdeadhorse:

(P.S. To me having a DVR shut down makes as much sense and having my refrigerator shut off until I open the door)


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

corrected to post, not reply

I think we have come full circle to a huge problem with the HR20. It can't tell time without the link. If you put it to sleep and go to low or no power, it will be no different than unplugging it. Before we ask for an energy saving function, we should concentrate on the wishlist item "The ability to watch recordings when there's no satellite signal". Without that, the hopes of energy savings is a mute point.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

I wasn't actually asking for it to be implemented. I was just pointing out that you could easily save 25% of the power consumption if you wanted to.


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

SuperTech1 said:


> It's optional now. Unplug your DVR when you're not using it.
> 
> (P.S. To me having a DVR shut down makes as much sense and having my refrigerator shut off until I open the door)


Your refrigerator does shut down when the temperature reaches its setpoint which seems equivalent. No DVR activitity needed, low power power consumption. Maybe some of you actually need the DVR 24/7, most people don't.


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

alv said:


> Your refrigerator does shut down when the temperature reaches its setpoint which seems equivalent. No DVR activitity needed, low power power consumption. Maybe some of you actually need the DVR 24/7, most people don't.


I knew you would come back with something like that. I was talking about not letting the refrigerator perform as it was designed to (like you're attempting to do with our DVR's). 
The whole purpose of a DVR is to run 24/7 (as it was designed to do) as a refrigerator is designed to keep my food "constantly" cold not just when I want something. If the idea of a 24 hour device is adverse to you I again suggest a set top box with a stand-alone recorder with a timer. 



> "most people don't"


I believe you're very wrong here!


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

Many of you are missing a big point - the DVR does not have to turn OFF, only go into a true standby mode when you press power and the blue light turns off. It can still process a request from the remote to turn on, or a request from the satellite to update the guide, and keep track of the times to wake up to record programs - *because the CPU is still running, just running slowly*.

The HR20 can do that, from a logic perspective. Reality may be different if the hardware isn't designed to allow it, but future DVR's could be designed to do it. Back to logic, though. If ALL off the following list is true, the DVR can go low-power. Things would still be recorded, the guide would be updated, etc.

- in standby mode (blue light on power button is off)
- not recording a show
- not updating the guide info
- not updating software
- not doing other "housecleaning chores"

This describes most DVRs, 75% of the day on average.

Off-topic, someone said they would loose their buffer and said it buffers in standby mode - I'd like to know what HR20 they have since the buffer is not active in standby mode...


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

Oh, and SuperTech, your refrigerator does not run 24/7. The compressor only runs about 25% of the day. The rest of the time its essentially in a low power mode, running the timer and lighting the light if you open the door.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

techntrek said:


> Off-topic, someone said they would loose their buffer and said it buffers in standby mode - I'd like to know what HR20 they have since the buffer is not active in standby mode...


I have two HR-20-700s which have single live buffer working all of the time [in standby too].
Powering down the DVR would stop this function which is a useful feature, so even if I had the option to reduce my 39 watts, I would not select it for this reason. I, for simple economic reasons, look everywhere to save power, but I'll splurge 78 watts for my DVRs, and change a few light bulbs or turn off a few more for my savings. [BTW: I drive a 4 cyl car, so no SUV for me].
There are just many more places to look to effectively save energy than a 39 watt DVR. IMO


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> There are just many more places to look to effectively save energy than a 39 watt DVR. IMO


I agree.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Of course, you could look at it this way:

Let's guesstimate that there are 10 million DVRs in use today (probably low, but let's go with it). If each one of them could cut their power cunsumption by 10 watts for 10 hours per day, that would be 100,000,000 watts, of 100 megawatts per day. That's equivalent to an small generating plant. As the number of DVRs grow, this modest savings alone could save the construction of a new power plant in the future, and the carbon emissions associated with its operation.

So, while I agree the savings are modest, they DO add up.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Titan25 said:



> Of course, you could look at it this way:
> 
> Let's guesstimate that there are 10 million DVRs in use today (probably low, but let's go with it). If each one of them could cut their power cunsumption by 10 watts for 10 hours per day, that would be 100,000,000 watts, of 100 megawatts per day. That's equivalent to an small generating plant. As the number of DVRs grow, this modest savings alone could save the construction of a new power plant in the future, and the carbon emissions associated with its operation.
> 
> So, while I agree the savings are modest, they DO add up.


Take public transportation and we'll save more yet. Ban all cars.. I think the price of gas is already doing this.
Go for the light bulbs first & many, many more watts will be saved. Somewhere down the line my 39 watt DVR will make sense, but there are just too many "bigger fish to fry" right now.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

Titan25, I made the same point last week on this thread. A few watts per unit adds up really fast for a high-volume product. If all consumer devices were designed efficiently (most aren't, there isn't profit in doing so) we literally wouldn't have to build new power plants for years. Eventually this will be mandated by gov't and/or the consumer when we hit nationwide power crunches or price spikes.

veryoldschool - I'm cutting my energy use every way possible so I can eventually install solar to cover all my needs. Its a shame that I can cut the power useage for everything in my house except the DVRs. I switched to CFL's, put a timer on my (electric) water heater, bought a fridge that uses 4 times less energy than my old one, put all my gadgets on switched outlets or switched power strips so they are truly OFF.... but I can't do that to my DVRs. They need to do the job themselves; the nature of the beast.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

not to add fuel to the fire but..
If you look at energy use in a home, it's the constant on stuff that uses he most energy in your home.. the light you use for a hour or two is minor compaired to the pc thats on 24/7..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

techntrek said:


> ...put all my gadgets on switched outlets or switched power strips so they are truly OFF.... but I can't do that to my DVRs. They need to do the job themselves; the nature of the beast.


Well you can do it now, you'll just need to power it up 10 min early to use it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> not to add fuel to the fire but..
> If you look at energy use in a home, it's the constant on stuff that uses he most energy in your home.. the light you use for a hour or two is minor compared to the pc thats on 24/7..


I turn my PC off, like most things, when I'm not using them [but then I'm old school, & cheap too].


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Most of the energy draw, I'm fairly certain is energizing the LNBs. Since the HR20 has to continue to keep current with Guide info, messages (maybe not the human readable ones, but authorization and software related), etc. I don't think any receiver/switch/dish combo can be easily reduced by much.
> 
> I'm bettin' there are bigger fish to fry. (But be carefull--some ways to save on your electric bill cost more in overall energy from birth to grave of the device than the old fashioned devices...)


Also, DVRs are designed to be recording to disk at all times, whether you are watching or not. So the disks are going to be spinning and using power at all times. DVRs really just aren't designed to be power-saving devices. There are a lot better ways to save energy - using lower-watt light bulbs, turning out lights that aren't needed, etc. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal the other day about the possibility of new federal legislation that would phase out incandescent light bulbs completely in favor of fluorescent lighting over the next few years.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Take public transportation and we'll save more yet. Ban all cars.. I think the price of gas is already doing this.
> Go for the light bulbs first & many, many more watts will be saved. Somewhere down the line my 39 watt DVR will make sense, but there are just too many "bigger fish to fry" right now.


Or get rid of those gas-guzzling SUVs. Failure of the federal government to mandate increases in fuel economy standards over the past few years is probably one of the biggest contributors to the problem.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Sure, get rid of gas guzzlers, switch to energy efficient light bulbs, and take more public transportation. All GREAT ideas. But dismissing other options because you think the relative savings are too small is like saying "I'll quit smoking but I'll keep drinking because more people die of lung cancer than cirrhosis of the liver". 

EVERY power savings matters, no matter how small, when multiplied across the entire population.

Electrical savings are particularly important since most of the replacements for internal combustion will require electricity to produce (IOW, they are simply ways of storing and using electricity when disconnected from the source).


----------



## majikmjk (Jul 12, 2006)

I thought the original topic here was interesting and raises a valid question.

While the hard drive needs to spin 24/7, why have a buffer recording to the drive when the buffer will not be looked at? Have a setting to enable/disable the buffer. It does take power to write to the drive. Why not include the ability to "disable" the buffer when in standby mode? I did not mind when it did not buffer in standby mode in the past.

Why have power going to the second tuner all the time? Since there is no dual buffers supported, so there is no reason to have power going to the second tuner unless you are recording at least one program? Same with watching/recording a program using the OTA.

Does the CPU support a low power feature? This tech has been available for years.

If I am in standby mode, is the picture still being processed and the output being blocked or do they turn off the decoder?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I think at this point [100+ postings] that we all know it won't be with the HR-20.
Maybe some day with a new design they might include it, but since the "new" model is years away, changing your light bulb would make a difference long before the next DVR.
When we see the feature available, we can buy it.

Can we call this: :beatdeadhorse: ?
I think the thought is noble, but it won't happen with a software update so it isn't anything coming soon. FWIW


----------



## g4jedi (Aug 21, 2006)

All jokes asside, we pay over $300 a month for our utility bill... so any way to save a few bucks is good in my opinion. Maybe a power saving mode on the HR20 would be good.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Well you can do it now, you'll just need to power it up 10 min early to use it.


I do for my 3 older receivers (use to be 5, but 2 of them have been replaced with DVRs). When we want to watch TV in those rooms we turn on the switch for the outlet, or turn on the switched power strip. In a little over a minute the "aquiring guide data" screen goes away and we are ready to watch.

Can't do that with a DVR, if you want it to function like a DVR and record things.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

techntrek said:


> I do for my 3 older receivers (use to be 5, but 2 of them have been replaced with DVRs). When we want to watch TV in those rooms we turn on the switch for the outlet, or turn on the switched power strip. In a little over a minute the "aquiring guide data" screen goes away and we are ready to watch.
> 
> Can't do that with a DVR, if you want it to function like a DVR and record things.


and why I pay for the 39 watts and get it to buffer a show before I know I wanted to watch it.


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I think at this point [100+ postings] that we all know it won't be with the HR-20.
> Maybe some day with a new design they might include it, but since the "new" model is years away, changing your light bulb would make a difference long before the next DVR.
> When we see the feature available, we can buy it.
> 
> ...


But do we have confirmation from DirecTV that the box can't do a low-power mode? I haven't seen anything like that on this thread. All we know is they still don't have the _normal _functions working right, so even if the box can do low-power, you are right that we won't see it any time soon. :crying_sa


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

houskamp said:


> ...If you look at energy use in a home, it's the constant on stuff that uses the most energy in your home...


You have to be careful with statements like this one. It is the constant on stuff that uses more energy then you think, but probably not the most energy in your home.

At 2 AM that constant on stuff is down to under a 600 watts in my house (I measured). 600 watts * 24 hours = 14.4 Kilo Watt Hours a day. That's a drop in the bucket compared to my what my AC or pool pump use in a day.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

Sooner or later someone will make a power efficent DVR, then they will advertize it as a market advantage. 

"Do you want to spend $3 a month running their DVR or $1 a month running ours and help save the planet?"


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

techntrek said:


> But do we have confirmation from DirecTV that the box can't do a low-power mode? I haven't seen anything like that on this thread. All we know is they still don't have the _normal _functions working right, so even if the box can do low-power, you are right that we won't see it any time soon. :crying_sa


D* won't confirm..sqat, but the chips [processors] are so streamlined that "thinking like computer" doesn't work for them. They are "trimmed down" to do just the tasks needed by design.


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey, there's nothing wrong with saving power if you can. I don't care if you go from 39w to 30w. Savings add up. If you don't feel that way, then your parents failed at teaching you the most basic rules around.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Agrajag said:


> Hey, there's nothing wrong with saving power if you can. I don't care if you go from 39w to 30w. Savings add up. If you don't feel that way, then your parents failed at teaching you the most basic rules around.


Now I know you're not replying to me as I can remember when a nickel would get me something good at the store.


----------



## Agrajag (Jun 22, 2004)

hehe. That wasn't aimed at you.


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

techntrek said:


> Oh, and SuperTech, your refrigerator does not run 24/7. The compressor only runs about 25% of the day. The rest of the time its essentially in a low power mode, running the timer and lighting the light if you open the door.


I understand how a refrigerator works.
My whole point was that it made as much sense to change how a DVR works as it does to CHANGE how a refrigerator works (i.e. it only cools when I use it).
Not the best analogy in the world I admit and I fully expected it to be attacked. You didn't disappoint.
And YES the HR20 does buffer in standby.

Shut down the DVR, save the planet.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Give me a break.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

SuperTech1 said:


> I understand how a refrigerator works.
> My whole point was that it made as much sense to change how a DVR works as it does to CHANGE how a refrigerator works (i.e. it only cools when I use it).
> Not the best analogy in the world I admit and I fully expected it to be attacked. You didn't disappoint.
> And YES the HR20 does buffer in standby.
> ...


And with that I'd say we pretty much beat this one to death. Time to put a fork in this thread, it's done!


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

My Windows Media Center DVR goes into hibernation or S3 standby automatically (whichever I choose) when not in use. And then it wakes up automatically a few minutes before it has to start a recording. Dare I say it, but the MCE machine has been more reliable at recording shows than the HR20.  It works perfectly. Hell, its a hoot to watch the thing come to life on its own to record.

I don't see why this couldn't be done with a DVR. In fact, it is probably easier than getting a Windows machine to do so. Yes, the 90 minute buffer wouldn't be there when you turned the unit on. But I can see giving up that feature to save on some energy. Hell, the 90 minute buffer didn't even work coming out of standby on the HR20 until a couple months ago.


----------



## alv (Aug 13, 2002)

I don't understand why the 90 minute buffer is desired after standby. Doesn't the act of putting it in standby indicate you don't care what is on?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> My Windows Media Center DVR goes into hibernation or S3 standby automatically (whichever I choose) when not in use. And then it wakes up automatically a few minutes before it has to start a recording. Dare I say it, but the MCE machine has been more reliable at recording shows than the HR20.  It works perfectly. Hell, its a hoot to watch the thing come to life on its own to record.
> 
> I don't see why this couldn't be done with a DVR. In fact, it is probably easier than getting a Windows machine to do so. Yes, the 90 minute buffer wouldn't be there when you turned the unit on. But I can see giving up that feature to save on some energy. Hell, the 90 minute buffer didn't even work coming out of standby on the HR20 until a couple months ago.


Your MCE has a much bigger processor that sucks more watts than the complete HR-20.
Since there is more processor, it was designed to go into power savings mode. Do you think the HR-20 has the same processor? :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

alv said:


> I don't understand why the 90 minute buffer is desired after standby. Doesn't the act of putting it in standby indicate you don't care what is on?


I "know what you mean", but what is very nice is the other side: you press "on" and find a show that is a hour old and looks good enough to watch. Hey..I can go back to the beginning and watch it. It's one of those "you don't know you wanted it until you're there" things. It great & why my 39 watts is being spent.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

alv said:


> I don't understand why the 90 minute buffer is desired after standby. Doesn't the act of putting it in standby indicate you don't care what is on?


This is one of the beauty's of the DVR's functions. You don't have to care. You can turn it on and find a wonderfull surprise on it you didn't even expect. 
It is by definition, a luxury item, with luxury features. It is over and above what the normal household uses for entertainment. 
Ownership of this device is a self indulgence and comes with a environmental cost, sure. But if the people who are concerned about the energy impact who posted on this thread, were truly as concerned about the energy usage, they would be using the lesser reception devices already. 
It is not fair to the Ferrari owners of the world to ask the manufacturer to turn off the AC when the owner is not in the car, just because you wanted a Ferrari also. 
This is not a love it or leave it post. More of a hypocrisy call out.
End of Rant


----------



## techntrek (Apr 26, 2007)

armophob said:


> This is one of the beauty's of the DVR's functions. You don't have to care. You can turn it on and find a wonderfull surprise on it you didn't even expect.
> It is by definition, a luxury item, with luxury features. It is over and above what the normal household uses for entertainment.
> Ownership of this device is a self indulgence and comes with a environmental cost, sure. But if the people who are concerned about the energy impact who posted on this thread, were truly as concerned about the energy usage, they would be using the lesser reception devices already.
> It is not fair to the Ferrari owners of the world to ask the manufacturer to turn off the AC when the owner is not in the car, just because you wanted a Ferrari also.
> ...


Hmmm, so I should leave my lights on all the time just in case I want walk around at night, or I should leave my car running all the time (with the AC running!) just in case I decide to hop in and go for a ride? Leave my computer on all the time in case I want to write a book?

Same rules apply to a DVR, turn it off when not in use, and if you turn it off, it should be as close to off as a DVR can be (I have already agreed that it must be on to some degree, like a fridge). There's no reason to waste a megawatt of electricity every day "just in case" you want to watch something that started an hour ago. If you see something you like, use the search function and tell the DVR to record it one of the other 10 times it will be on in reruns. I'm betting you didn't keep a tape in your VCR recording all the time "just in case".

Finally, just because I'm environmentally conscious I can't have luxury items? This country doesn't have to go back to the stone age for us to save our resources. I'm sure not a single Ferrari owner leaves his car - and AC - running all the time when he's inside watching his plasma TV and DVR.....


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

Just use some common sense. Do you really think DVR's can continue like they are designed today if every home is eventually going to have 2.5 of them? It would be hard to justify building new power plants so that 300 million Americans can turn on their TV and find something good in the buffer.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> Just use some common sense. Do you really think DVR's can continue like they are designed today if every home is eventually going to have 2.5 of them? It would be hard to justify building new power plants so that 300 million Americans can turn on their TV and find something good in the buffer.


I can hear Maxwell Smart saying it right now: "Ah the old, 'Just use common sense', trick" 

Do you think those power plants won't be needed anyway? That by turning a DVR into a power miser of say 8 watts the plants will never be built, while our A/C units still use 10-30 times the amount of energy and population continues to grow? The plants will be built, the sun will shine, we'll have more HD.

So, I come back to: there are bigger fish to fry, there will be enough energy as we need it, unplug yours if you want.

Cheers, its a beautiful day out there. If not today in your locale, then tomorrow.
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

techntrek said:


> Same rules apply to a DVR, turn it off when not in use, and if you turn it off, it should be as close to off as a DVR can be (I have already agreed that it must be on to some degree, like a fridge). There's no reason to waste a megawatt of electricity every day "just in case" you want to watch something that started an hour ago. If you see something you like, use the search function and tell the DVR to record it one of the other 10 times it will be on in reruns. I'm betting you didn't keep a tape in your VCR recording all the time "just in case".


Being one of those "left coasters", I've been understanding those that have been promoting conservation. What I don't like is someone that starts telling me how to live my life. If you don't want your DVR running unplug it until you want to use it. Don't tell me that I can't use 39 watts to enjoy my life. I use it to entertain me now not to search out something in the future to entertain me. I would bet my "carbon foot print" is much less than yours. How many gallons of gas did you buy last year? I haven't used 100.
I strongly agree that we all should be smart about our use of energy, but when someone tells me to I need to use a search function instead of using a nice feature I now have gets me just plain mad.
Use your "search" to find things that will have a bigger effect than this [now completely stupid] idea of going after a 39 watt DVR.
Just to show how stupid ideas can get: Why don't we all not wash our clothes? That would save more & then we wouldn't need to...

Now back to our currently buffered programing....


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Both sides of this argument have been argued at length and both sides hold some merit. As such, I vote for this thread being closed.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> Both sides of this argument have been argued at length and both sides hold some merit. As such, I vote for this thread being closed.


+1


----------



## SuperTech1 (Jan 9, 2007)

PoitNarf said:


> Both sides of this argument have been argued at length and both sides hold some merit. As such, I vote for this thread being closed.


+2


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I've toyed with closing this, wanted to leave it for everyone to weigh in upon. But the vote is compelling.

Thread closed.

Cheers,
Tom


----------

