# More Energy Efficient Receivers? 722 uses 60 watts/hr



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

Does anyone know why satellite receivers use so much energy? I have a 722 and it constantly uses about 60 watts even when "off". Does echostar try to make receivers energy efficient? 

This is lots of times a hidden cost since we only see our monthly bill and not that our hd receiver is adding almost $10/month to it in electricity alone. That's over $100 a year just to have the darn thing plugged in.

It'd be nice of software was introduced to let the receiver lose the satellite signal since 

I believe the receiver never really powers off so it doesn't lose the satellite signal, but the 722 uses almost 3 times the power of a 522. Is all that energy really needed when the receiver is only needed to be on standby and is not used to process video?

It'd also be nice if software was introduced that let the receiver lose the satellite signal at specified times (during the night, while at work) and only gain it again 15 minutes before a timer fires.

Cost of running the 722:

Cost/Day: $0.29
Cost/Month: $8.64
Cost/Year: $105.12


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

People want more features so they need more powerful computers to run those features. The STB is no more then a specialized computer. Expect power consumption to go up with each new feature laden model.... I can't imagine what the 922 will pull 

You really wouldn't want to power down the LNBs a few times every day. Keeping them powered and heated up makes them much more stable and reliable.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

DVRs are going to use more than regular receivers... and as already noted, the more features we want the more the power draw ends up being too.

Also, people like having remote controls... but that means things have to never be off in order to be remote-controlled. Additionally, the Dish receivers do some work in "standby" to update the program guide and process for timers and firmware updates too.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Energy Star rated televisions burn less than a watt watching for a signal from the remote, running a clock and maybe tracking auto-on timers. Current Dish receivers check for updates once a day (3 a.m. unless changed by the user); once that processing is complete they should be able to stand down to a more minimal stand-by mode.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

BobaBird said:


> Energy Star rated televisions burn less than a watt watching for a signal from the remote, running a clock and maybe tracking auto-on timers. Current Dish receivers check for updates once a day (3 a.m. unless changed by the user); once that processing is complete they should be able to stand down to a more minimal stand-by mode.


ding ding we have a winner.

A major DVR manufacturer is planning on doing this since the current or maybe future EU standards requires similar power consumption for DVRs.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

BobaBird said:


> Energy Star rated televisions burn less than a watt watching for a signal from the remote, running a clock and maybe tracking auto-on timers. Current Dish receivers check for updates once a day (3 a.m. unless changed by the user); once that processing is complete they should be able to stand down to a more minimal stand-by mode.


The Dish receiver does much more. The guide data can be updated at any time as noted with the recent Presidential Address. Channels can also be added at any time (as has been shown by channels being added in the middle of the day) which means the receiver has to be in "receive" mode to get the signal to get these updates. The LNBs really have to be powered all the time to avoid other problems. If you spun down the HD then people would complain it takes 15 seconds to start watching TV.

Not saying there may not be ways to save a bit of power but you can't compare it to a TV.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Not only that, but DVRs are constantly buffering the last XX minutes of the current channel you're watching. People want that feature (to be able to rewind live TV), so the box has to be buffering all the time. That means most of the DVR has to be active and working at all times.


----------



## ka8zay (Feb 12, 2009)

Electric must be expensive where you are. I come up with the following based on the national average for KWH (currently $0.10120 per KWH.

24HR's $0.15
1 Week $1.05
1 Month $4.15 (AVG)
1 Year $54.75

I do agree though you can not power down as some have said to 1 watt like a TV. You have to power the LNB's at all times, run the timers, multiple tuners and keep the HD running ready to record or play without a long boot time. Would you want to wait every time you go to watch TV as long as it takes to resume after a power outage? Hey if so then plug your receiver into a power strip and turn it off when your not watching it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In addition to all the above...

How do most of us use our receivers?

When watching a program at 8pm and another at 10pm...  should I watch the 8pm show, turn off everything, then turn everything back on at 10pm? Then turn off again after that...

I don't leave my car running all the time... but I don't shut it off at stop lights either and much of my fuel ends up being burned waiting in traffic to turn or for a green light.

I do agree though that there are probably places that can be improved... I just don't know what they are, and the hard drive really mucks with things a bit. In order to be available for timers, a hard drive would probably need to be warmed up 10-15 minutes prior to the timer firing... so if you had multiple timers firing during the night do you really want to repeatedly shut it down and warm it up over and over in between every timer firing?


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

The only reasons we could come up with for the receiver using so much energy has to do with things that are common to all dish DVRs, why the 722 uses 3x the energy as a 522 is beyond me, like I said there shouldn't be any video processing in its standby state. Are the chips really drawing that much more? I'm think efficiency wasn't given much consideration. I could see major improvement in this area. I think most people would be shocked to learn their receiver is costing them this much a month to just have plugged in.

Currently costs per KWH are very misleading. My cost per KWH is similar (about 12 cents), however you pay delivery fees and other fees based on your total KWH usage. To obtain a real estimate of what you're paying per KWH divide you bill by your KW usage and you'll see it's much higher than this.



ka8zay said:


> Electric must be expensive where you are. I come up with the following based on the national average for KWH (currently $0.10120 per KWH.
> 
> 24HR's $0.15
> 1 Week $1.05
> ...


----------



## bmaigatter (Oct 1, 2008)

My ViP622 uses 57 watts when on and 55 watts when "off". I couldn't live with the 55 watts, so I put my 622 on a timer. I am careful to download software updates myself (when they become available) by going in and setting the update time to 1 minute later than now. I update "manually" since I think if the timer turned off the power mid-update, this could be disastrous to the DVR. I've used this timer since May with no issues. The timer (or I) turn on and off the power at least once a day. The timer has turned off the DVR during a recording and the recording is still valid: it just stops early...though I rarely let this happen.

My Dell notebook computer uses 14 watts when the screen is off. I believe that if Dish cared enough about power usage they could use the same power efficient components used in a laptop.

If you have an LCD TV, adjust the backlight down. My 46" TV uses 10 watts for each of the 10 notches in the backlight setting. My TV is rated at 236 watts and with the backlight off it uses 136 watts. With the power savings setting (which is usually what I use), the TV uses 86 watts. That said, my TV looked best with a backlight setting of 2, so I'm not giving up much brightness. My other LCD TVs had a similar backlight-to-energy usage characteristic. No other settings affected the energy usage (except for the "power savings setting").

I am a bit of an energy conservation freak. Luckily, my wife puts up with it. I love her more than my Kill A Watt. Really, I do.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

bmaigatter said:


> My Dell notebook computer uses 14 watts when the screen is off. I believe that if Dish cared enough about power usage they could use the same power efficient components used in a laptop.


Can your laptop record 3 HD streams while watching a 4th?


----------



## ka8zay (Feb 12, 2009)

Fist let me say I have been a watcher of these forums for many years and never a poster until I just had to get in on this post. I am an energy nut myself, but in being so you have to understand how things work. I am currently looking at going to all LED lighting but the power/light/cost ratio on LED still at this point does not make it a good enough option but I watch every day for it to. 

You can not compare a laptop to a DVR, my laptop running full power 100% CPU and all only draws 80 watts, however my laptop is not:

1.) Powering a LNB
2.) Running a 5400RPM disk laptop's use 4200RPM disk that is a bigger power drain then you might think.
3.) Powering any switches in your system
The receivers for what they do are not bad in power usage, I am not saying they can't do a little better but don't expect tons here. Your receiver is "processing" the data stream even when off, your timers are running, etc.... To be fair compare a desktop PC with the DVR and you'll get a better idea. My only PC that can record video and do what a DVR does draws over 200 watts. 

As for your electric you are still way high, we pay about 5.7 cents if I don't include all the riders and delivery charges in the price.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Actually power usage has gone down in the current HD DVR's vs the first one, the 921. Still it would be nice if they could use some of the common computer techniques to save some additional power on the next gen (the 622/722 was initially designed at least 4 years ago)

KwH Rates may be low in some areas, but they are much higher in others. About $.19 now here, and large rate increase request in the works.


----------



## RollTide1017 (Oct 12, 2008)

60 watts is not that bad.

Most AVR receivers pull an average of 500 watts (or more) and a PS3 pulls around 150 - 200 watts when turned on (more depending on what you are doing, ie game or movie).

Granted these things are not on 24/7 but, when they are on, they pull a lot more power the your DVR. Not too mention that most people leave there PCs on for a good portion of the day and that draws a good bit more power the a DVR as well. I just don't think 60 watts is that bad at all for what the DVR does.

If you need to save on your power bill I bet that there are some other areas where power can be cut before you need to worry about the Dish DVRs.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

I'm not saying 60 watts is TOO MUCH, i'm saying it's probably unnecessary. Comparing it to a PS3 or AVR isn't quite the same, basically the PS3 has a LOT more power and an AVR is using a lot of that energy to power speakers.
I don't think any of us have a problem with the receiver using 60 watts, what we don't like is that it uses 60 watts while in standby as well, which means it basically does nothing different when on and when on standby.

These DVRs really aren't doing that much video processing, play an HD stream is the most intensive part. When recording it's not processing anything, just dumping the stream on the hard disk.

Does anyone know more about the receiver's inactivity mode? I've never seen it in the mode since it takes 4 hours to get there, but it'd be interesting to know usage numbers on that.
I would love Echostar to look into a better standby mode.

Also, anyone have any non-DVR HD receivers they can measure power on? I'm guessing it's going to be very similar to the 722..



RollTide1017 said:


> 60 watts is not that bad.
> 
> Most AVR receivers pull an average of 500 watts (or more) and a PS3 pulls around 150 - 200 watts when turned on (more depending on what you are doing, ie game or movie).
> 
> ...


----------



## TSR (Feb 7, 2009)

The Inactivity Standby mode you are speaking of is when the DishNetwork logo comes on the screen. That is only for inactivity of approx. 4 hours. If you actually power off the rcvr, it may use less voltage, because that is the true standby mode. Try doing that and then monitoring it with a meter if you can...

That standby mode you are speaking of is specifically for burn in.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

RollTide1017 said:


> Most AVR receivers pull an average of 500 watts (or more) and a PS3 pulls around 150 - 200 watts when turned on (more depending on what you are doing, ie game or movie). ...


Re the receiver pulling an *average of 500 watts.* That simply is not correct. When the cannons go off while you are listening to the 1812 Overture, you *might* hit 20 watts if you had the volume cranked way up.

You can use a Kill-A-Watt meter to verify this, as I have. Additionally, many TV's have audio speakers designed to handle 7½ - 15 Watts. Crank the volume all the way up and you'll likely wake the neighbors. (With a terribly distorted waveform, at that. lol)

Also, your PS3 will not pull 150-200 watts. It's outputs are relative low digital video and also low power audio - in my case fiber optic light.

60 Watts for the Sat receiver is quite high, probably second only to the TV. (My 60" Plasma draws ~450 Watts with no audio and a light image.)


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> Re the receiver pulling an *average of 500 watts.* That simply is not correct. When the cannons go off while you are listening to the 1812 Overture, you *might* hit 20 watts if you had the volume cranked way up.
> 
> You can use a Kill-A-Watt meter to verify this, as I have. Additionally, many TV's have audio speakers designed to handle 7½ - 15 Watts. Crank the volume all the way up and you'll likely wake the neighbors. (With a terribly distorted waveform, at that. lol)
> 
> ...


As you said AVR do not typically draw anything like this much power. The ratings of output power, e.g. 500 w, being measured totally different.

The First PS3 do draw 200w when running full speed. Actually the specs rate them as 380W. The newer models draw less, the specs say 280W.


----------



## catnapped (Dec 15, 2007)

ka8zay said:


> As for your electric you are still way high, we pay about 5.7 cents if I don't include all the riders and delivery charges in the price.


Actually your area is way low...I even think that national average quoted above is lower than reality. You're going to see many areas of the country in the .20-.30/kwh range in the not too distant future (some are already that high)


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

SaltiDawg said:


> Re the receiver pulling an *average of 500 watts.* That simply is not correct. When the cannons go off while you are listening to the 1812 Overture, you *might* hit 20 watts if you had the volume cranked way up.


He might hit 200w for a half-second, but you are absolutely correct in that the AVERAGE is probably 20-30w.

I have a DJ system with some SERIOUS amplification. My two amps together are speced to draw a max of 14.8 amps of 120V power. In order to draw that much power continuously, my system would have to be loud enough to cause pain and physical damage even in a large room. Cranked WAY loud in a big hall, the whole system pulls 3-5 amps on average with peaks up to 12. Instantanious peaks may be a little higher, but my meter can't measure that fast.

My lighting rig, on the other hand, can easily draw 12A continuously with a few of the lighting fixtures on.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Found an interesting study done in 2006 for the CEA. The below are average figures for the following devices when they are active.

Compact Stereo - 23w
DVD-R Player - 20W
Home Theater in a Box - 38w
PC (no monitor) - 75w
Satellite HD DVR STB - 42w
Cable HD DVR STB - 29w
PS2 - 18w
XBox 360 - 173w

http://www.ce.org/pdf/Energy Consumption by CE in U.S. Residences (January 2007).pdf


----------



## AED55 (Oct 2, 2008)

This question is not directly related to the topic being discussed, it's just something I have always wondered about. How do the LNB's on the dish receive their power? 

When they installed my DN system, the dish was connected into the existing cable house box which distributes the incoming dish signal to the 2 rooms that have TV's. Does the coax cable carry power as well as signal?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

AED55 said:


> Does the coax cable carry power as well as signal?


Yes they do.


----------



## TheChef (Oct 2, 2008)

AED55 said:


> Does the coax cable carry power as well as signal?


Indeed Dc voltage gets carried to the lnb to keep it fired up.


----------



## manzelmo (Apr 16, 2008)

TheChef said:


> Indeed Dc voltage gets carried to the lnb to keep it fired up.


This begs the question couldn't we have solar power provided some of that?


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

How much power is used to power the LNBs anyway? I would have liked to see this energy efficient question brought up on the tech chat. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

bmaigatter said:


> I am a bit of an energy conservation freak. Luckily, my wife puts up with it. I love her more than my Kill A Watt. Really, I do.


That's pretty funny. I had to show my girlfriend since I'm very energy conscious as well. She was like, I notice you didn't say the same thing, hahaha


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

manzelmo said:


> This begs the question couldn't we have solar power provided some of that?


Maybe you should invent one and become a millionaire  Time to get in on the stimulus package $$$$$


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

manzelmo said:


> This begs the question couldn't we have solar power provided some of that?


Are you prepared to only watch TV when the sun is shining brightly? Do you know how expensive solar power is per kW/hour?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

My Bill is usually around $150 per month in the winter and closer to $200 per month in the summer. I have a couple of months in the season changes where I'm using virtually no heat or A/C and those months drop sometimes in the $50-$75 range.

Basically that tells me most of my energy has been going to the central air unit as I expected.

Next comes the refrigerator (on all the time of course).

Then the other big consumers are the dryer and the stove and microwave.

Then we get into the lighting and my computers, tvs, Dish receiver, and so forth.

Quite honestly... the bulk of my bill is either in the cooling/heating OR in things I can only get so "green". The handful of things that I agree could be greener just aren't taking up that much of my monthly bill.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

IIP said:


> Are you prepared to only watch TV when the sun is shining brightly? Do you know how expensive solar power is per kW/hour?


I do, and don't understand why everyone doesn't install enough for their home. 30% of the cost is now covered by a federal income tax credit. In many areas there are also major state credit and power company rebates.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Because the cost for a 1000kWh on-grid system installed is about $50,000.00 (study from late 2008). Most people would be lucky to be able to afford a loan for that much (even at a 30% discount) much less if it would ever pay for itself over the lifetime of the system.

This doesn't factor in that solar panel degrade in performance over the years and any repair costs that might be incurred over it's lifetime. Plus you still have to pay for electric at night since they don't produce power during that time.

But then this thread is about Dish receivers and not solar power


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

HobbyTalk said:


> Because the cost for a 1000kWh on-grid system installed is about $50,000.00 (study from late 2008). Most people would be lucky to be able to afford a loan for that much (even at a 30% discount) much less if it would ever pay for itself over the lifetime of the system.
> 
> This doesn't factor in that solar panel degrade in performance over the years and any repair costs that might be incurred over it's lifetime. Plus you still have to pay for electric at night since they don't produce power during that time.
> 
> But then this thread is about Dish receivers and not solar power


whoa...hang on there. First off, most people do not use 1000kWh in a month. I use less than 500, although I don't have kids. Second, if you have an on-grid system, you could sell your electricity back to the power company in most states, or you could have batteries which store the electricity produced during the day.

Solar panels already pay for themselves in about 10-12 years in most areas, and this number will only decrease as electricity becomes more expensive and more incentives go toward clean energy. To say solar panels aren't worth it, or people don't have the money isn't really a great reason. There's companies out there now that will pay for your solar panels as long as you pay them for your electricity use off of them. They offer you like a 30% discount of your current electric rate, and your rates will never increase. So there you go, you could have solar panels for basically nothing.

As far as dish receivers, there has been no incentive to use lower energy components and or software to reduce energy use, and that's the key to efficiency. If we push Dish, I know we will quickly see changes.


----------



## olds403 (Nov 20, 2007)

I use between 6-700 kW per month, and I live by myself. I have a lot of electronics(RPTV, bluray player, av receiver, dvd player, ViP722, powered subwoofer, UPS for system) and I use them at night. I personally would not spend the money on a solar system with such a long payback. It is cheaper to buy the power that I use. I do use CFL's to save some, and purchase energy star appliances but investing $30-50,000 is just way over the top. 

Sorry to continue the off topic stuff but I couldn't resist. Back to the original topic now.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

AppliedAggression said:


> Solar panels already pay for themselves in about 10-12 years in most areas,


In case you didn't know, panel ratings are done under ideal conditions. In the vast majority of installs people will see no where near the rated output. That 1000kWh setup would most likely produce a max 700kWh when installed on a home. I've studied the real figures and actual installs for a panels in my area, not just some hype given by the producers and sellers of the panels.

Yeah, here is sunny Michigan where this winter when we had 42 straight days with only 10% sunshine, days that only have 10 hours of total daylight. First I would have to cut down those trees, the same trees that shade the deck and cut cooling costs in the summer. Let me go out and do that right away.



AppliedAggression said:


> As far as dish receivers, there has been no incentive to use lower energy components and or software to reduce energy use, and that's the key to efficiency. If we push Dish, I know we will quickly see changes.


And pigs fly too :lol: We can't get current "bugs" fixed quickly. Not that all of this isn't a good idea, just that it would be many many years before it happens.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Throwing water on the gas fire here... Where I live, the HOA actually has banned solar panels. So even if I wanted to install some, and had the money to do it, I couldn't do it without a legal battle.

We just came off a multi-year drought situation, and we couldn't even use rain barrels to collect water for irrigation on the dry days! Again, HOA situation.

But back to topic... while I do agree Dish could probably do better in some areas with power consumption (particularly in standby mode), I'm not seeing this as the major power-consuming device in my household. By the time I've eliminated/reduced everything else that is really taking power in my home, the Dish DVR will be about last on the scale.


----------



## ImBack234 (Aug 26, 2008)

tnsprin said:


> KwH Rates may be low in some areas, but they are much higher in others. About $.19 now here, and large rate increase request in the works.


You got to love LIPA!!! The reason they gave for a price increase was because we didn't use enough electricity. They ask us to conserve and when we do they want to charge us more!! WTF!!! :eek2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This almost happened in NC due to water conservation during our drought the last few years. After being urged to reduce water consumption, and fines for excessive use... there were talks of increasing the rates on the reduced consumption to make up for lost revenue.


----------



## EHorst99 (Jan 10, 2007)

Power usage of these receivers is a real issue.

We now have two (2) 722's. The two receivers alone account for more than 10% of our total electricity usage for the house. And, at the marginal electricity rates in California that approach $0.30/kwh, these receivers cost us an extra $12.50/mth each.

Clearly, these devices could be designed to consume far less electricity -- perhaps based on giving the customer the ability to make trade offs.

For example, the customer should be able to select a lower power sleep mode that gives up continuous buffering of shows in order to allow the receiver to spin down the disks (probably 5 watts there alone). It knows when recordings are requested or updates are coming and can spin up the disks in advance of that. This could possibly be implemented as a software upgrade (depending on how the system is designed).

It should also be able to go completely "dark" and turn off the video output circuits. These units always drive the displays with info on how to wake up the unit. This should be optional, too.

With better design, I suspect they could cut the standby power usage by at least 70% with little loss of functionality.

As for me, I'll be exploring timers.


----------



## ka8zay (Feb 12, 2009)

Maybe if people are so worried about the 60 watts they should stop watching TV, or just go back to rabbit ears? This would produce the best cost savings.


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

EHorst99 said:


> Power usage of these receivers is a real issue.
> 
> We now have two (2) 722's. The two receivers alone account for more than 10% of our total electricity usage for the house. And, at the marginal electricity rates in California that approach $0.30/kwh, these receivers cost us an extra $12.50/mth each.


Is this a JOKE? This thread is really getting to be a joke itself. You have got to be kidding, two DVR's you claim are 10% of your electrical use.

Do you live in a car with two HDTV's in the back seat?

Man come on guys, stop whining. 60 watts is freaking peanuts. If you can afford two HDTV's (or more) and the power to run them, not to mention the Dish bill itself, you can freaking afford 2x 60 watts. Wow.

How about putting some blame on the people providing your ridiculous rates for power. Two 722's cost me < 35 cents a day, and I can live with that.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

Thank you, you're absolutely right. I only have 1 722 but it's still almost 10% of my bill, I don't know how that doesn't count as a major contributor. When the receiver is put in standby, it doesn't even buffer anything and it's only been fairly recent that dish has left the video output always on with that "Screensaver" type thing, and the energy use hasn't changed much. So I'm not sure those would help. There definitely has to be a way to power some things off without changing the behavior much. The receiver using almost the same energy when it's doing nothing and recording 3 streaming (2 Sat, 1 OTA), downloading and playing back a full 1080p movie is REALLY ridiculous. Honestly I'm a little over conscious of energy use and try to lower my impact on the environment and that's why I made this thread. Hoping for others to get on board and have Dish add just some sort of power management. That'd make a much bigger difference than all the recycling I can do. 

If computers can go into standby and wake on lan, i'm sure this thing could do the same. They could literally be saving everyone at least $5/month, and even get on the bandwagon and send out emails saying how they're "GREEN" now. 

I wish I could put my 722 on a timer, but I have quite a few Dish Passes that record things at odd times or when I'm not aware of them. Although I guess shutting it off from 1 am to 11am probably wouldn't miss any recordings.



EHorst99 said:


> Power usage of these receivers is a real issue.
> 
> We now have two (2) 722's. The two receivers alone account for more than 10% of our total electricity usage for the house. And, at the marginal electricity rates in California that approach $0.30/kwh, these receivers cost us an extra $12.50/mth each.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

While I agree with the concept that Dish could possibly design more energy-efficient receivers... I'm finding it difficult to believe the Dish receivers are the major power-consumption devices in anyone's homes.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

Well, in my home with 1 722, the only things that use more electricity through out the month are fridge (90 watts avg/hour, dish dvr uses only 35% less), hot tub, stove and dryer. Now if that's not a ridiculous comparison, I don't know what is.

Again the problem here is that it basically uses 60 watts 24 hours a day, no other device in my house is on 24/7 besides the fridge. Go and figure out how many KWh you use a month then compare it to the 722's usage which is about 43 KWh a month. For people that have more than one, ouch.



Stewart Vernon said:


> While I agree with the concept that Dish could possibly design more energy-efficient receivers... I'm finding it difficult to believe the Dish receivers are the major power-consumption devices in anyone's homes.


----------



## tigerwillow1 (Jan 26, 2009)

Besides the electricity cost issue, there's the heat issue. The receiver is a 60 watt heater running 24x7. In the winter, that's not too bad. In the summer, you're making the house hotter and, if you have an air conditioner, using even more electricity to remove the receiver's heat from the house.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

tigerwillow1 said:


> Besides the electricity cost issue, there's the heat issue. The receiver is a 60 watt heater running 24x7. In the winter, that's not too bad. In the summer, you're making the house hotter and, if you have an air conditioner, using even more electricity to remove the receiver's heat from the house.


So it saves you in the spring/winter/fall and costs you in the summer.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

tigerwillow1 said:


> Besides the electricity cost issue, there's the heat issue. The receiver is a 60 watt heater running 24x7. In the winter, that's not too bad. In the summer, you're making the house hotter and, if you have an air conditioner, using even more electricity to remove the receiver's heat from the house.


If that were true my basement would be a LOT toastier than it actually is.

I should just tell my wife we need another 722.


----------



## ka8zay (Feb 12, 2009)

tigerwillow1 said:


> Besides the electricity cost issue, there's the heat issue. The receiver is a 60 watt heater running 24x7. In the winter, that's not too bad. In the summer, you're making the house hotter and, if you have an air conditioner, using even more electricity to remove the receiver's heat from the house.


If it where a 60Watt heater would mean that it was doing nothing but converting energy to heat. It is hardly a 60watt heater, it might put out 10 watts of heat, mine doesn't run that hot so that might be high. Most of the 60 watts used is actually used


----------



## tigerwillow1 (Jan 26, 2009)

> If it where a 60Watt heater would mean that it was doing nothing but converting energy to heat. It is hardly a 60watt heater, it might put out 10 watts of heat, mine doesn't run that hot so that might be high. Most of the 60 watts used is actually used


Used for what? All electricity consumed by a device is eventually converted to heat. Since a satellite receiver doesn't produce light, pump water, or anything along those lines, all of the heat will be emitted from the receiver box or what's connected to it. The only heat that won't be emitted inside the house is what comes from the LNB and the outside wiring leading to it. Even all the electricity used for a light bulb turns to heat eventually. The amount emitted as light converts to heat whenever the light is absorbed by something.


----------



## ka8zay (Feb 12, 2009)

Yes but saying a 60watt heater infers that all 60 watts are used to generate heat. The heat from the receiver is mostly caused from resistive losses. That and the heat from the spinning of the hard drive are the heat you feel. If it was truely a 60 watt heater the STB would do nothing but put off heat and not convert some of that 60 watts to other forms of electrons and energy.


----------



## EHorst99 (Jan 10, 2007)

ZBoomer said:


> Is this a JOKE? This thread is really getting to be a joke itself. You have got to be kidding, two DVR's you claim are 10% of your electrical use.
> 
> Do you live in a car with two HDTV's in the back seat?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if its a joke if you bother to do he math (which you probably didn't).

The fundamental issue is that they run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

2 receivers X 60 w/hr/rec X 24 h/day X 30 d/mth = 86,400 watt-hours/month
= 86 kwh / mth

We use, on average, 600-700 kwh / month for our family of 5. 86 kwh is actually closer to 13% for us.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Interesting question... I know folks have said the power consumption is the same whether on or in standby. How has this been determined?

What I'm asking is... how many measurements were taken before it was assumed to be the same all day? Or was a device connected that monitored for a long period of time and recorded the data used?

I'm not doubting, just asking where this data/assumption came from?


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Next comes the refrigerator (on all the time of course).


HD DVR's waste a ridiculous amount of energy.

Actually your refrigerator should only be on a few minutes every hour or two. My kitchen 18 cubic ft Fridgidaire (manufactured in 2001) that is not energey star compliant uses less energey then a Dish VIP 622 over the course of a month. The DirecTV HD DVR is much more efficeient then Dish.

They have schedulers built in to them. Why can't they get a firmware update to give us an option to have them go to low power when not doing anything for 4 hours or more?


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Interesting question... I know folks have said the power consumption is the same whether on or in standby. How has this been determined?
> 
> What I'm asking is... how many measurements were taken before it was assumed to be the same all day? Or was a device connected that monitored for a long period of time and recorded the data used?
> 
> I'm not doubting, just asking where this data/assumption came from?


I plugged a Kill a Watt meter in for a few days. Turned off or on there is not much difference.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

ka8zay said:


> Yes but saying a 60watt heater infers that all 60 watts are used to generate heat. The heat from the receiver is mostly caused from resistive losses. That and the heat from the spinning of the hard drive are the heat you feel. If it was truely a 60 watt heater the STB would do nothing but put off heat and not convert some of that 60 watts to other forms of electrons and energy.


I think in the winter time when you normally heat your house you benefit from your 60 watt DVR as it heats the house at 100% efficiency. No differently then a 60 watt light bulb or a 60 watt heater.


----------



## EHorst99 (Jan 10, 2007)

gitarzan said:


> I plugged a Kill a Watt meter in for a few days. Turned off or on there is not much difference.


Kill-A-Watt is a pretty interesting and useful device.

Using it, I realized that each of our computer systems in our office (we have 2) was still using about 40 watts when "off". It was actually the monitor, a printer, an external hard drive, a cordless phone, a halogen desk lamp transformer, an audio amplifier, and a subwoofer -- all essentially in standby.

Based on this, I bought a device that's like a powerstrip that hooks up to one of the USB ports on the computer. When it senses the USB port shutdown, it turns off the powerstrip. I then plugged everything into that. When the I turn the computer off, it now turns everything else off, too. Instant savings of about 40 kwh/month.

Some manufacturers are getting pretty good at this on their own. My new Sony LCD uses only about 0.3 watts when in standby. A vast improvement over earlier generations.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

ka8zay said:


> If it where a 60Watt heater would mean that it was doing nothing but converting energy to heat. It is hardly a 60watt heater, it might put out 10 watts of heat, mine doesn't run that hot so that might be high. Most of the 60 watts used is actually used


Seems you missed that Thermodynamics Course Freshman year.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

ka8zay said:


> Yes but saying a 60watt heater infers that all 60 watts are used to generate heat. The heat from the receiver is mostly caused from resistive losses. That and the heat from the spinning of the hard drive are the heat you feel. If it was truely a 60 watt heater the STB would do nothing but put off heat and not convert some of that 60 watts to other forms of electrons and energy.


And you earlier seemingly missed the High School afternoon discussion of Thermo. :nono2:


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

EHorst99 said:


> I'm not sure if its a joke if you bother to do he math (which you probably didn't).
> 
> The fundamental issue is that they run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> ...


No, I just made up the numbers. 

Just so I wasn't throwing around other people's power usage numbers, I just measured my 722. It uses 47-48 watts, on or off. There really is no "off" on these, so that's expected. I'm not sure why someone else's would use 60 and mine 48, but that's the case.

My power cost is 11.8-cents per KWH (which actually is highest in the area, I believe it's like 9-cents in the city of Austin itself), so the receiver costs 13-cents a day, 95-cents a week, $4.07/mo, and $49.61 a year.

I have two receivers, so double that, and its 26-cents a day, $1.90 a week, $8.14 a month. (I know the numbers don't completely add up due to rounding)

It's winter, so my air-conditioner isn't being used, and my bill is the lowest it gets. I used 858 kwh in Dec, or $101; both receivers used about 8% of my power bill.

I do admit that seems pretty high for two satellite receivers, but I just am not going to cry over 26-cents a day for BOTH, especially since I also have a 60" Plasma, 40" LCD, 130w x7 receiver, PS3, several computers, fridge, freezer, etc. It's worth it to me and the family. I work from home, so mine's actually on for probably 18 hours a day, and it's worth it. My wife is a flight attendant and when home also leaves hers on a lot while she works around the house, etc.

During the summer when my a/c comes into play, the DVR's numbers become less of a percentage. My bill last month in the heat wave spiked to over $200, so the DVR's were more like 4% or less.

Hey, I'm not saying I wouldn't like the receiver to use no power at all when turned off, but just the nature of what it does; it has to be on all the time to record programs, receive updates, etc. That said, it seems they could design it to spin down the drive and run in lower flea-power when nothing was recording, but I'm not sure how much that would save, just powering down the drive and possibly fans. Enough of it has to remaining running to fire off timers, power the LNB's, etc. too.


----------



## AED55 (Oct 2, 2008)

There is a simple solution to this whole issue. Do as our new president suggests and put a windmill in your backyard. Not only would you have plenty of free power for your receiver, but you would become part of the "green" brigade.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

ZBoomer said:


> It's winter, so my air-conditioner isn't being used, and my bill is the lowest it gets. I used 858 kwh in Dec, or $101; both receivers used about 8% of my power bill.


But if the receivers were not running and putting out heat, your heating usage most likely would be higher. Factor in that most are saying 100% of the power used by the receiver is converted to heat, you could say that it is costing you nothing to run your receivers because it is saving you money on your heating bill 

IMHO, the only time the power usage should be an issue is when you have to run the A/C to offset the heat output of the receiver.


----------



## jbrooks987 (Jun 5, 2004)

> There is a simple solution to this whole issue. Do as our new president suggests and put a windmill in your backyard. Not only would you have plenty of free power for your receiver, but you would become part of the "green" brigade


Don't I wish. In my neck of the woods (where the wind blows nearly every day) those things are not legal - because somebody thinks they look ugly, and spoil his view of the cattle feedlot he lives next to!!


----------



## ImBack234 (Aug 26, 2008)

jbrooks987 said:


> Don't I wish. In my neck of the woods (where the wind blows nearly every day) those things are not legal - because somebody thinks they look ugly, and spoil his view of the cattle feedlot he lives next to!!


In my neck of the woods those things are not legal too - because the electric company can't rape you then!!!! Don't forget they have the help of the New York State Public Service Commission, who says it's ok.:eek2:

"At 17.4 cents, Connecticut's average electric rates are far above the national average of 10.9 cents. *New York State has the second-highest rates, at 17.5 cents*, and New Jersey the eighth-highest, at 14.8 cents. (Hawaii tops the charts at 24.5 cents.)"

Welcome to NY, now did they kiss you yet!!!!:eek2:


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

Has anyone been able to measure the usage of a Directv HD dvr or a HD Tivo? I don't have either but would be very interested in knowing what those use in when in standby.


----------



## ImBack234 (Aug 26, 2008)

AppliedAggression said:


> Has anyone been able to measure the usage of a Directv HD dvr or a HD Tivo? I don't have either but would be very interested in knowing what those use in when in standby.


A quick search and I found this:



davring said:


> Approxamatly 39 watts in standby (off) and 45 watts "on". Should barely be noticable on your light bill. About a dime a day at $.10 KWH.


----------



## exieramos (May 18, 2007)

ImBack234 said:


> A quick search and I found this:


Don't know if that was a D* STB or a TIVO STB but at least 11 D* STB's are Energy Star Certified.

http://www.multichannel.com/article...ified_For_Energy_Star_Program.php?rssid=20059


----------



## commodore_dude (Aug 25, 2008)

Just wanted to chime in as a new customer moving from D*. I had an HR21 and it used very little power, I have my A/V equipment hooked up through a UPS with a usage meter and with the TV off and the DVR "off" it would read 0%. The same situation with my 722 and it reads 9%. I don't remember what that % is out of, but clearly the 722 is more of an energy hog


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

AppliedAggression said:


> Has anyone been able to measure the usage of a Directv HD dvr or a HD Tivo? I don't have either but would be very interested in knowing what those use in when in standby.


The ViP622/722 are older designs that incorporate two separate decoders. This dual chip design consumes more power, but it allows Dish Network to support PiP and/or output two different channels simultaneously.

The TivoHD, DirecTV's HR21/HR22/HR23, and the Dish ViP612 all adopted a single chip design with lower power consumption. By so doing, they sacrificed the ability to support PiP and/or output two different channels simultaneously.

The TivoHD and HR21/HR22/HR23 DVRs all consume 30-35 watts. I haven't seen any measurements for the ViP612, but I would guess that it falls within the same range.


----------



## EHorst99 (Jan 10, 2007)

ZBoomer said:


> My power cost is 11.8-cents per KWH...
> 
> It's winter, so my air-conditioner isn't being used, and my bill is the lowest it gets. I used 858 kwh in Dec, or $101; both receivers used about 8% of my power bill.
> 
> ...it has to be on all the time to record programs, receive updates, etc. That said, it seems they could design it to spin down the drive and run in lower flea-power when nothing was recording, but I'm not sure how much that would save, just powering down the drive and possibly fans. Enough of it has to remaining running to fire off timers, power the LNB's, etc. too.


So, it looks like you did the math. That's great.

In California, our electric rates are tiered to provide extra incentive to conserve. And it's worked extremely well. Average electricity use per person in this state has been essentially flat since 1976 -- despite all these new fangled electric toys and lots of new jobs. The bottom tier (for the first 120 kwh or so) is 7 cents per kwh. Over a couple more tiers, you eventually get up to 30 cents per kwh. It's priced so that a little conservation goes a long way.

So, additions -- such as upgrading to a 722 -- come in at the top. I.E. that's why the marginal rate here (at least for me) is around 30 cents per kwh. And, hence, about triple your numbers.

It would be easy for Echostar to design a device that would save some amount. I'm not sure what it would take to "power the LNB", but I'm also not sure it it really needs to be powered all the time. By and large, the device knows when it will need to do work -- the scheduled time to receive updates and future timers. It seems like it could shut down pretty much everything until it reaches one of those points or some hits the power key on the remote. If the LNB system was turned off, it would probably need to go through reacquiring satellites. So, it would probably need to wake up a minute or two early to get that out of the way.

I'd be happy if it gave us the option for a "deep standby" mode that turned off the LNB completely during down time. Usually, if we're waking up the system, we'll be watching it for a while. Others, that don't want to wait to reacquire satellites, could use the "standard" standby mode.

Let the user decide the tradeoffs they want to make to save energy.

But this "always fully on just in case there's something to do" design doesn't make sense these days.

With about 14,000,000 subscribers, if each one had just one 722, the Dish customers alone would be using over 500 Million-KWH per year -- mostly doing nothing.


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

exieramos said:


> Don't know if that was a D* STB or a TIVO STB but at least 11 D* STB's are Energy Star Certified.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article...ified_For_Energy_Star_Program.php?rssid=20059


The energy star program for set top boxes had been suspended for the last several years at the request of the people that make and buy them. Glad to see it being done again.


----------



## nicedeboy26 (Jul 27, 2007)

This is what gets me everytime I see this topic's title..... 60 watts is almost nothing compared to a desktop computer. My power supply is rated at or about *650 watts*! Some people, not including me, do not turn off their computer at all.

But getting upset at 60 watts, really? If you are concerned about this very thing, how about you push that comuter power button and watch the electric bill go down.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

nicedeboy26 said:


> This is what gets me everytime I see this topic's title..... 60 watts is almost nothing compared to a desktop computer. My power supply is rated at or about *650 watts*! Some people, not including me, do not turn off their computer at all.
> 
> But getting upset at 60 watts, really? If you are concerned about this very thing, how about you push that comuter power button and watch the electric bill go down.


I don't mean to be rude, but there is no way your computer uses 650 watts, although as you say it may be rated for that. If it did, then you'd be paying close to $100/month to just leave your computer on.

During normal usage I'd guess your PC uses about the same energy as the 722, of course that's before it's smart enough to go to stand by and use only a fraction of what the 722 does


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Per my above post.

PC (no monitor) - 75w (in 2007)

Of course in the winter the heat put off by your electronics actually heats your house lowering the costs used by your heating unit.


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

Ok, I was one standing up for the 722, but I just measured power usage on my new U-Verse HD DVR (I have both Dish and U-Verse at the moment, but plan to keep Dish), and it uses only 13 watts in standby, 17 when watching an SD program, 18 when watching HD.

Wierd to use an extra watt when watching HD, maybe the meter is just floating a little, or maybe it uses more processing power, dunno.

I'm not even going to say this DVR does what a 722 does, but it sure uses less power if that's your main priority.

This does't include the internet gateway required to run it; I'll measure that later, I don't want to go offline right now to unplug it. I don't really consider this part of my TV usage, since I need internet regardless, and we all have a DSL modem or Cable Modem anyway.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

I seem to recall that about 20W was needed for the LNBs. If you have an external switch with a power inserter, the 722 will measure a lot less than 50-60W. My 722 connects to a 1000.2 dish on port 1, and its wattage will drop a little bit when another DishPRO receiver is also connected to other 1000.2 ports (and powered of course).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wonder how much of the measuring takes all those things into account.

In my setup, I have 2 ViP receivers. I have a DPP44 switch and power inserter. I have a 500+ dish (110/119/118.7) and another dish pointed at 129.

So... I have 3 LNBs (1 doing dual duty for a 4th orbital location) and a switch that need power. The power inserter should be taking care of the switch but does that also power the LNBs?

I don't have a convenient way to measure my Dish receivers... but I would assume mine might measure lower as a result of having the power inserter that is supplying the other power.

I wonder if folks running 60W from their ViP receiver are folks who are running without a power inserter and are powering their LNBs with their receiver only. Also, since we know some people run the DPP44 switch without a power inserter (even though they are not supposed to) those folks should be drawing more power as well... and those things will be always on even in standby.


----------



## Geordon (Sep 27, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> In case you didn't know, panel ratings are done under ideal conditions. In the vast majority of installs people will see no where near the rated output. That 1000kWh setup would most likely produce a max 700kWh when installed on a home. I've studied the real figures and actual installs for a panels in my area, not just some hype given by the producers and sellers of the panels.
> 
> Yeah, here is sunny Michigan where this winter when we had 42 straight days with only 10% sunshine, days that only have 10 hours of total daylight. First I would have to cut down those trees, the same trees that shade the deck and cut cooling costs in the summer. Let me go out and do that right away.


I feel your pain. I am just south of Lansing, MI. I average 650KWh/mo at an actual cost of $0.117/KWh (inclusive of all fees and taxes). The house backs up to woods on the south, east, and southwest sides. We can barely pick up Dish satellites because of the tall nearly trees. I have a friend east of Lansing in a ranch with solar hot water, and going geothermal, solar PV, and wind power. He wants me to go solar, but I just don't see how I will get enough sunlight when the low winter sun blocks my roof, and the trees keep out lower azimuth sun rays year round.

The numbers I see are probably closer to yours, and the only tax incentives are federal. State and power company don't care. Selling excess power to the grid was quoted at $0.02/KWhr, so where is the sense in that? Sell for 2 cents, buy back at 11.7?

CA probably makes a lot of sense to go solar, but I don't see the payback in anything less than 20 - 50 years at the current rates for my situation.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Geordon said:


> The numbers I see are probably closer to yours, and the only tax incentives are federal. State and power company don't care. Selling excess power to the grid was quoted at $0.02/KWhr, so where is the sense in that? Sell for 2 cents, buy back at 11.7?


LOL, I forgot about that dirty little secret that the hypsters doesn't tell you. If you are lucky enough to be able to feed the grid an hour or two a day, they just sell you back your own power at a huge profit. Man, I need to get in on a scam like that!

I'll use my 622 to heat my house for the 6 months a year my furnace runs and suck it up for the 2 months my A/C runs. Figure I'm coming out ahead in the long run.



> solar hot water, and going geothermal, solar PV, and wind power.


 So he's going to spend $100k+ to get all that installed? Wonder how long that payback period is?


----------



## Jedon (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm off grid so you bet I'm concerned about any 24/7 drain! 
"Alternative" power can't hope to compete with cheap grid electricity prices at least in the short term. 
Right now I run on solar during the day ( 300W ) and run a generator in the evenings to do laundry, watch TV etc. 
Average sun per day here in Northern CA is around 6 hours so 300W x 6 = 1500W/Hrs per day before you take into account losses from battery storage and inverters. 48W x 24hrs = 1152W/Hrs so now my $1000 of solar panels are used pretty much completely to power a 722? Ouch.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

I've since bought a great timer that lets me program 44 on/off times so now I have my DVR plugged up to it and it's only on 6 hours a day (6pm to midnight) so that I can still record all my shows and it's only using 25% of the power it used before.

This timer pays for itself in just a few months, so its well worth it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0016FG5RU/ref=ox_ya_oh_product

It's funny that when there's a $5 fee for something consumers complain like crazy, but when you're paying $5-10 for electricity for your DVR a month it goes unheard.


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

Jedon said:


> I'm off grid so you bet I'm concerned about any 24/7 drain!


Yeah, I doubt people "off the grid" play much into the design considerations of a modern-day electronic device.

I salute your effort, but it's just not practical for me.


----------



## Jedon (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't have a lot of choice about being off the grid, it's many miles away from my house... Well I did choose to build out here in the woods but I love it! I know that my situation doesn't apply to most people but most people could drastically cut their electricity bill using conservation, if not for the environmental impact at least for the fiscal one. 

Anyway this looks cool:
Smarthome ApplianceLinc-Relay-INSTEON-Plug-in-Appliance-Control-Module-3-pin ( wouldn't let me post a URL yet since I'm a n00b )

So I can program it from my computer. I can't stand most simple interfaces on things like toasters and VCR's for some reason even though I'm a software engineer :lol:


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

BattleZone said:


> Not only that, but DVRs are constantly buffering the last XX minutes of the current channel you're watching. People want that feature (to be able to rewind live TV), so the box has to be buffering all the time. That means most of the DVR has to be active and working at all times.


When in standby mode ("off"), the buffers are off. You would have to keep the DVR on all the time in order to have a full buffer waiting for you to rewind.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

AppliedAggression said:


> I've since bought a great timer that lets me program 44 on/off times so now I have my DVR plugged up to it and it's only on 6 hours a day (6pm to midnight) so that I can still record all my shows and it's only using 25% of the power it used before.
> 
> This timer pays for itself in just a few months, so its well worth it.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0016FG5RU/ref=ox_ya_oh_product
> ...


One can buy an on/off timer for far less than that. You don't need a heavy duty or electronic timer for the DVR.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

ImBack234 said:


> In my neck of the woods those things are not legal too - because the electric company can't rape you then!!!! Don't forget they have the help of the New York State Public Service Commission, who says it's ok.:eek2:
> 
> "At 17.4 cents, Connecticut's average electric rates are far above the national average of 10.9 cents. *New York State has the second-highest rates, at 17.5 cents*, and New Jersey the eighth-highest, at 14.8 cents. (Hawaii tops the charts at 24.5 cents.)"
> 
> Welcome to NY, now did they kiss you yet!!!!:eek2:


I wish I had those rates, it's 38 cents for me in Ca beyond baseline usage, which I far exceed.


----------



## looney2ns (Sep 20, 2007)

AppliedAggression said:


> I've since bought a great timer that lets me program 44 on/off times so now I have my DVR plugged up to it and it's only on 6 hours a day (6pm to midnight) so that I can still record all my shows and it's only using 25% of the power it used before.
> 
> This timer pays for itself in just a few months, so its well worth it.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0016FG5RU/ref=ox_ya_oh_product
> ...


And how much does the timer draw?


----------



## looney2ns (Sep 20, 2007)

Jedon said:


> I'm off grid so you bet I'm concerned about any 24/7 drain!
> "Alternative" power can't hope to compete with cheap grid electricity prices at least in the short term.
> Right now I run on solar during the day ( 300W ) and run a generator in the evenings to do laundry, watch TV etc.
> Average sun per day here in Northern CA is around 6 hours so 300W x 6 = 1500W/Hrs per day before you take into account losses from battery storage and inverters. 48W x 24hrs = 1152W/Hrs so now my $1000 of solar panels are used pretty much completely to power a 722? Ouch.


Doesn't the cost of running the Generator quickly offset the savings?
Fuel, Maintainence, etc?


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

I unplug my R-15 500 every night when I go to bed and don't plug it back in untill just before turning it on so it can boot up. i also bought a USB fan to keep it cooler also.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

looney2ns said:


> Doesn't the cost of running the Generator quickly offset the savings?
> Fuel, Maintainence, etc?


He is using Solar Panels (as am I) so the Fuel is free and there is almost no maintenance. The generator at night is a problem of course. Sounds like he doesn't have or least want a power company. Batteries (a bit expensive) charged from the panels are one possibility for night uses. Many power companies have a net metering options (mandatory in some states like NY) so you bank extra power generated during the day against power used at night and for months when less power is generated.

I suggest a more complete solar installation. Here LIPA (Long Island Power Association) in New York is currently charging 18.8949 kwh. Thats slightly down from what they were charging. LIPA is a not for profit so they do try and keep the prices lower and encourage installation of wind and solar power. I generated 7500KWH last year so $1413 savings.

Ps: That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see them design a more power efficient receiver. Perhaps have the DVR spin down the hard drive, etc. Nationwide with the millions of receivers on all the time every bit of improvement can lead to a large reduction of power needed.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Satellite DVRs are a luxury.

If you object to their power consumption, do the right thing and get rid of yours.

Those of use who realize it to be a luxury are willing to pay extra for both the luxury and the power it uses.

Yes, Dish could have probably designed them to be more energy efficient, but they are what they are.

Perhaps this discussion will put the idea in the pipeline at Dish to use energy consumption considerations into future designs, but powering hard drives and multiple lnb's 24/7/365 does have a cost and for the feature set it is mandatory.

WAG, but there may not be a whole lot of savings to be gained if you must power the hard drive and 3-4 lnbs plus the hardware to control them.

My Panasonic Showstopper (ReplayTV) powers down totally and it takes it about 15 seconds to power up and then it shows a menu I must maneuver through to play pre-recorded programming or select a channel - really a pain. I prefer being able to turn it on and have it ready to use and will pay $0.15 a day for that convenience.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

gomezma1 said:


> I unplug my R-15 500 every night when I go to bed and don't plug it back in untill just before turning it on so it can boot up. i also bought a USB fan to keep it cooler also.


How much power does the fan use?


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

The USB fan probably uses about 2 watts and the timer probably less than that. I don't understand all the protest here. Just because satellite DVRs are a luxury doesn't mean we shouldn't expect them to be efficient, just like cars, they're not absolutely necessary but people should expect them to be efficient.

To me having the timer hooked up isn't inconvenient at all, my DVR is always on when I get home and turns off after I go to bed and I get to save $60/year.


----------



## Jedon (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't have enough solar panels yet, I'll be getting another 400W soon and then some microhydro next year. Running a generator is never a money saving proposition but I don't have a lot choice since a generator is orders of magnitude cheaper than solar panels in the short term and I just build a house which took all my money and then some. 

I know a DVR is a luxury which is why I don't have one yet but would like to start living a little less Spartan... ( plus it would please the wife ;-) )


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Cars can be a luxury too...

You can buy one that is more fuel-efficient, or you can buy a Hummer... Don't buy a Hummer and then wonder why it isn't getting great gas mileage.

Same goes for the Dish DVR... Get a non-DVR and have less power consumption if that is your goal. If your goal, however, is having a DVR for the luxury of it... then expect more power drain for the features.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Cars can be a luxury too...
> 
> You can buy one that is more fuel-efficient, or you can buy a Hummer... Don't buy a Hummer and then wonder why it isn't getting great gas mileage.
> 
> Same goes for the Dish DVR... Get a non-DVR and have less power consumption if that is your goal. If your goal, however, is having a DVR for the luxury of it... then expect more power drain for the features.


I know you're only trying to help, but I'd be willing to bet that a non DVR HD receiver uses up nearly as much power as a HD DVR. Anyone out there know for sure? What's consuming power on these things is it not having a low power state when off and the fact that it's always powering the LNBs. Of course you could consider HD a luxury, but that's not what this is about.

In today's world companies should be making items energy efficient, Dish just hasn't because they have no reason to. They spend their time on what makes them money, not what saves us money. Until we demand more efficient electronics we won't get them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I haven't seen a DVR vs non-DVR comparison lately... but on the LNB front, those LNBs need power... so how would you want to power them down? IF they are powered down on a DVR then you introduce another way for timers to fail.

For a non-DVR, you could shut down and not power the LNBs during offline... but then you'd miss the overnight EPG updates and sometimes firmware updates.

If people wanted to go back to the old days, they probably could save alot of power by doing that.

I will agree, though, that I think sometimes things could be better designed to consume less power than they sometimes do.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Yes the DVR could be made to use less power
Yes that would cost more to make
Part of the blame goes to the makers & designers of the chips used in the DVR.
Even at 7200 RPM a laptop drive would use less power and generate less heat, cost for the drive would be much higher too.

A hard drive could be made that uses less power, Variable speed depending on the load. My guess is that it wouldn't work real good for a DVR.

Low power usage chips could be designed and built it would cost a lot more to do. A new fabrication line would probably be needed. 

The new computer CPUs run much cooler and use less power while running faster than the old Pentium 4 designs. 

Worried about power usage? Throw away that old computer, get a netbook with a SSD and save a lot of power.

My WD Media player reportedly draws 7 watts in use, slightly more when powering a portable Hard drive. So spend some money for the HD-DVR to capture HD. Store it on the portable drive and watch later from the media player. Not the best solution for me of course when I may have three things DVR'ing at once so I'll stick with the VIP622 and VIP612 and a 522.

Save some watts by using the TV as a display for the computer at a time when it would already be on, PIP.

GO LED lights and let the savings compensate for the DVR. Throw out that PLASMA and LCD TV and switch to a LED HDTV for the same reason.

and so on.

I almost for the best money saver, live in a state where the state pays for a portion of a senior / disabled citizen's electric bill. 

Don't forget the hidden costs of saving. Unplugging and replugging when needed will sooner or later cause a bill for the electrician needed to replac ethe outlets that wore out from the constant use.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

In fairness, a 722 serves 2 tvs, so divide its energy usage in half when comparing to a single tuner unit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

My power bill dropped almost in half during the last month wherein I didn't use air conditioning or heating much... so for all the talk about how much power the Dish receivers take... I still find them to be far down the list in terms of what is actually making my power bill be high most months.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

Here in Ca. they're talking about limiting wattage for TVs. Won't apply to larger than 58" though.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> My power bill dropped almost in half during the last month wherein I didn't use air conditioning or heating much... so for all the talk about how much power the Dish receivers take... I still find them to be far down the list in terms of what is actually making my power bill be high most months.


Amen Stewart - Amen...

This last month, my TED5000 said I used 1100-1200 KWh from 29 Sep - 25 Oct - And that is with almost no Heat Pump use for either heat or cooling. A typical summer month and I'm easily hitting 1500 - 2000 KWh. Part of my issue is that my house was built as all electric in 1983 - and most of my heat makers still are (oven, washer / dryer, water heater). I also have swimming pool (about 3 KWh / hour) for the pump that needs to be run some amount of time on the summer while the pool is open. Our power company offers some options on lowering your electric rates - I switched on Sept 24, see if it helps.

And if you guys are really serious about checking out your energy use - www.theenergydetective.com


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm at about 1100 this past cycle, and was around 1700 the previous cycle. Only difference is mostly no air/heat.

Traditionally I have a couple of cheap months around March/April and then a couple more November/December.

My lowest usage in the last year was last November's cycle which was about 600 kWh.

This year I bought a new computer... but switched out a lot of light bulbs to LED bulbs.. so I think that has been about a wash.

My big summer/winter months for cool/heat can top 1800 kWh... so the different between cool/heat every day vs no cool/heat seems to be around 1200 kWh if I subtract my peak month from my low month.

Since that leaves aroung 600 kWh average per month for everything else (multiple computers, multiple Dish receivers, refrigerator, water heater, washer/dryer, oven, and all the lights)... I can't complain too much about my Dish receiver power consumption.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

The dish receiver uses about 43 kWh a month. I just don't understand why the receiver uses the same amount of power when processing 2 HD signals as it does when it's idle or off.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

AppliedAggression said:


> The dish receiver uses about 43 kWh a month. I just don't understand why the receiver uses the same amount of power when processing 2 HD signals as it does when it's idle or off.


There is no true "off." Turning a Dish Network or DirecTV DVR "off" disables video output, but everything else continues to run just the same.

Unlike modern PC CPUs, current DVR CPUs currently lack power management; they have no means to manage or reduce power consumption when idle. Broadcom announced several new DVR SoCs with power management, but none are shipping yet. You'll see those CPUs in DVRs next year. That should cut consumption by 10-20w when idle.

Constantly spinning up and down the hard drive reduces the lifespan of the DVR, so that's not something manufacturers want to do with great regularity.

Energy efficiency is not a high priority for cable/satellite providers, but if it were to become a priority at some point, both satellite providers they could probably design their software to spin-down the the hard drive and cut power to the LNBs during certain parts of the day when no recordings are scheduled (ex: once per day from midnight to noon).


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

ZBoomer said:


> Ok, I was one standing up for the 722, but I just measured power usage on my new U-Verse HD DVR (I have both Dish and U-Verse at the moment, but plan to keep Dish), and it uses only 13 watts in standby, 17 when watching an SD program, 18 when watching HD.
> 
> Wierd to use an extra watt when watching HD, maybe the meter is just floating a little, or maybe it uses more processing power, dunno.
> 
> ...


Where are the hard-drives located in the Uverse DVRs? I know they have whole-home access... so are they in the "DVR" or are they in your internet gateway?? My sister ahs it, and while I didn't look into it too much, that gateway is HUGE


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

Ken_F said:


> Constantly spinning up and down the hard drive reduces the lifespan of the DVR, so that's not something manufacturers want to do with great regularity.
> 
> Energy efficiency is not a high priority for cable/satellite providers, but if it were to become a priority at some point, both satellite providers they could probably design their software to spin-down the the hard drive and cut power to the LNBs during certain parts of the day when no recordings are scheduled (ex: once per day from midnight to noon).


Exactly, where is the incentive to the Cable/Satellite companies?? You reduce the life of the hardware... to save money for someone else... and in doing so drive up your own support costs?? I wouldn't do it if I were them.

They could switch to SSD's instead of Magnetic hard drives.... but that significantly ups their costs, and customers used to getting everything for free would not likely be willing to pay the difference.


----------



## flatus (Aug 18, 2006)

Spinning a hard drive up and down does not reduce its lifespan.

SSDs are still expensive, but are rapidly falling in price. They wont totally replace regular hard drives for a while. However, I think they are cheap enough now that the DVR makers should offer a SSD 'Upgrade' for people who want a quiet DVR for a bedroom and such. They could charge a premium price for this, and get some additional marketing bullet points.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

flatus said:


> Spinning a hard drive up and down does not reduce its lifespan. ...


There are as many adherents to the notion that this action *does* reduce device lifespan as there are detractors.

Your position is clear.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

flatus said:


> Spinning a hard drive up and down does not reduce its lifespan.
> 
> SSDs are still expensive, but are rapidly falling in price. They wont totally replace regular hard drives for a while. However, I think they are cheap enough now that the DVR makers should offer a SSD 'Upgrade' for people who want a quiet DVR for a bedroom and such. They could charge a premium price for this, and get some additional marketing bullet points.


So you've gone and priced them lately ?

Here's one sample -
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4622486&CatId=4147

only 250 GB, and $700 dollars - not exactly a "replacement" yet for use in a DVR.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

This discussion shouldn't really be about hard drives since they don't consume much power, but while we're talking about SSDs they're unlikely suitable for a DVR because they have limited/write cycles and with the constant buffering that would "fill" it faster than we'd like.

I guess they could put the buffer in ram but then we're talking about at least 2GB of ram.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

This has always been a concern of mine too. I have 3 HD DVr's running. For roughly $10 a month in my electric bill. yes i can afford the $10 but if given a choice I would prefer not to spend it on electricity. I think it would be great if future DVR's could od what my replay did 10 years ago and shut itself down the 16+ hours a day I'm not watching it. I would gladly sacrifice the ability to back up and watch what is currently in the buffers for $10 a moth in savings. 

The only reason they use so much power is because no one has tried to make them use less.


----------



## flatus (Aug 18, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> There are as many adherents to the notion that this action *does* reduce device lifespan as there are detractors.
> 
> Your position is clear.


And neither side has been able to prove their point with anything more than anecdotal evidence. Either way, its not a big power draw.

If you are interested in a nerd fight, lemme know and I'll take a harsher stance.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

With regard to powering down the LNBs..............

That would require all the satellite boxes to communicate with each other so that whatever unit is powering the LNBs would know not to power down when a box was on or turned on and to power up the LNBs for timers on any of the units.

The easiest way would be to build one unit that took a input and a output for every TV set in the house. So if you were subbing for 2 TVs the box would have 4 tuners and two outputs. Want to upgrade to a 3rd or 4th TV set? Plug in a module for them, run the wires and done.Then you could probably implement power saving easily.

SSDs are not suitable for DVRs... They have a limited amount of write cycles for each byte of memory. They have to use special firmware to move anything that is constantly accessed around on the drive for wear leveling.

Cheers


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have a pretty consistent (though seemingly inconsistent) position.

I agree they could probably improve power-consumption a bit if they truly wanted... but at the same time, we can also choose receivers with less features if the power-consumption is more important to us.

When I buy a car, I can buy one with better gas mileage or one that I like to drive, which may or may not have better mileage... What I can't do is buy a sportscar that looks cool and then complain it doesn't get as good mileage as the economy car.


----------



## flatus (Aug 18, 2006)

scooper said:


> So you've gone and priced them lately ?
> 
> Here's one sample -
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4622486&CatId=4147
> ...


That 256 GB SSD is larger than the hard drive in my 522.
What did a 256GB SSD cost last year? By this time next year, it will be affordable. Not as cheap per GB as a normal HD, but cheap enough.

Besides, a DVR doesn't need the high speeds of the today's top of the line, expensive drives. A ssd with a low end controller and slower flash chips would be sufficient.

The wear leveling and improved chips of today are enough to make the write limit a non issue.

I think there is enough of a market for a 'Silent DVR' out there that it would be worthwhile. Thats my opinion, anyway.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

flatus said:


> That 256 GB SSD is larger than the hard drive in my 522.
> What did a 256GB SSD cost last year? By this time next year, it will be affordable. Not as cheap per GB as a normal HD, but cheap enough.
> 
> Besides, a DVR doesn't need the high speeds of the today's top of the line, expensive drives. A ssd with a low end controller and slower flash chips would be sufficient.
> ...


Not at all the case. Video, especially HD video requires high speed ram.

My HD camcorder uses special high speed SD ram to record 1080i. If I use standard SD ram I am limited to 480p recording. Solid state drives are much too slow for use in the reading/writing multiple streams such as todays 722 and 722k would require, the potential to read and write 6 HD streams simultaneously.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I agree they could probably improve power-consumption a bit if they truly wanted... but at the same time, we can also choose receivers with less features if the power-consumption is more important to us.


I'm not sure any of them available today are any better.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> With regard to powering down the LNBs..............
> 
> That would require all the satellite boxes to communicate with each other so that whatever unit is powering the LNBs would know not to power down when a box was on or turned on and to power up the LNBs for timers on any of the units.


Or just use a powered multiswitch?


----------



## flatus (Aug 18, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> Not at all the case. Video, especially HD video requires high speed ram.
> 
> My HD camcorder uses special high speed SD ram to record 1080i. If I use standard SD ram I am limited to 480p recording. Solid state drives are much too slow for use in the reading/writing multiple streams such as todays 722 and 722k would require, the potential to read and write 6 HD streams simultaneously.


A SD card is not the same as a SSD. SSDs outperform traditional hard drives in every category except price and capacity.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> What I can't do is buy a sportscar that looks cool and then complain it doesn't get as good mileage as the economy car.


Sure you can, many SUV owners do it on a daily basis....Just like people that drive tons of unnecessary miles every day and complain about the cost of gas...

:lol:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> Or just use a powered multiswitch?


using a 24 hour a day powered multiswitch which would also be powering the LNBs would negate any savings in energy which seems to be some peoples goal.

Personally with all the coal available in this country I'd like to see some new Clean burning coal plants to replace the ones using imported oil. Maybe it is time to figure out how to reduce dependence on foreign oil.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

My 722 uses more than the posted 43W, as it is the principal source of current for my 1000.2. My PG&E cost for a KWH will drop as low as 7.3 cents for 6 winter months for the first 400-500 kww. In July, my incremental cost went to 44 cents/kwh once I'd gone over 300% of "baseline". Makes it harder to come up with a $ / month figure for the 722. Now if PG&E would bless my 7KW PV system, it wouldn't matter as much.

But my 508 receivers do have different wattage draws as long as they have been in Standby for about 10 minutes. There is only one tuner, so I guess it was easier for the DISH engineers to spin down the disk and they elected to do so. Power up displays "Please wait for disk to spin up". Normal On is 30W, drops 1W when I go to Standby, and after 10 minutes, it drops to 21-22W. 8W isn't a huge numeric value, but it is more than a 25% drop. Spin down - spin up can both lengthen or shorten drive life, depending on usage pattern. Something made DISH choose to do it for some receivers and not for others. That may be for more reasons than ease of implementation in the underlying OS - can't say.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Amen brother. How many among us have a 20+ year old a/c cranked to max, the bathroom window wide open, the hot water faucet leaking day and night, every light in the house lit up, haven't tuned up the Godzilla SUV since we bought it, but we are worried about the dish receiver's power draw? LOL :grin:


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

This some interesting reading to go along with the Theme of this thread
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...forniadecisioncouldlimithdtvchoicesnationwide


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> My two amps together are speced to draw a max of 14.8 amps of 120V power.


Most good amps have power supplies that can compensate for spikes in output power by tapping big caps. The power requirement peaks are decidedly clampened.

I appreciate that you left the wattage ratings out of the discussion as they are misleading at best and bald-faced lies on the average.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm at about 1100 this past cycle, and was around 1700 the previous cycle. Only difference is mostly no air/heat.
> 
> Traditionally I have a couple of cheap months around March/April and then a couple more November/December.
> 
> My lowest usage in the last year was last November's cycle which was about 600 kWh.


Just following up my own post because I just had my cheap cycle...

592 kWh for this past cycle... due mostly to no heat/air conditioning and I think it may have just missed including a washer/dryer cycle.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Just following up my own post because I just had my cheap cycle...
> 
> 592 kWh for this past cycle... due mostly to no heat/air conditioning and I think it may have just missed including a washer/dryer cycle.


 Well, you did have some heating... your Dish receiver was heating your house to the tune of ~45 kWh for the month


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Just following up my own post because I just had my cheap cycle...
> 
> 592 kWh for this past cycle... due mostly to no heat/air conditioning and I think it may have just missed including a washer/dryer cycle.


You really need a swimming pool so the 1 HP pump can run 8 hours a day every day.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> You really need a swimming pool so the 1 HP pump can run 8 hours a day every day.


uh - that's a 1.5 HP pump running 12 hours a day in the summer for me, BTW....


----------

