28 April, 2009
Four blackouts in four weeks, that's Sydney's electricity
Guess what? Four power outages in four weeks. With latest power outage this morning in Sydney CBD AGAIN. No where compares to quality supply as Boston's electricity.
NSW Premier Nathan Rees promised it wouldn't happen again (after the first power cut). The reality, it is continuing to happen. Well, we shall know that we can't trust politicians.
There's a quote that Don should be interested. Energy Australia's George Maltabarow said in an interview: “We have already ordered new protection equipment from the United States, which is state-of-the-art.” (7News, 28 April 2009)
A power generator seems to be a good investments for Sydney residents. (to Don: Antony is poor, he can't afford a power generator.)
News source: Black-out hits Sydney CBD, stops Australia Fashion Week (The Daily Telegraph, 28 April 2009)
related blog entries:
Unbelievable! blackout in Sydney again! (13 April, 2009)
Sydney CBD blackout AGAIN (4 April, 2009)
the unreliable power supply in Sydney (30 March, 2009)
more April 2009 blogs. (or 2009 blogs)
from iTunes Store:
Posted by Antony on 28 April 2009 6:24 PM
Again, it's probably because they're doing work on the lines, not because of equipment failure.
That sentence is ambiguous in meaning. You seem to have interpreted it to mean that the United States is state-of-the-art, though that last phrase could also be applied to the word "equipment" rather than "United States".
I can't resist, maybe if you used a little less electricity Antony in running all your unnecessary gadgets, the rest of Sydney would have power!!LOL!!
One way or the other, the state-of-the-art is either the United States or from the United States.
Rev. Dr. Wu Yi,
I am a very conservative person.
Antony, if you consider yourself energy-conservative with all of the gadgets you leave running, then what am I and Rev. Dr. Wu Yi?
Sorry, meant to say, what are Rev. Dr. Wu Yi and I?
I guess I don't speak English!
Firstly, I don't have "unnecessary gadgets". All are very useful. And I always try to get the most energy efficient versions whenever possible and affordable.
There's nothing wrong with leaving the devices connected in standby mode. This is 21st century, and that is the way of living. Although still far behind the Boston's standard, but still, I don't unplug all devices at night.
I am the one who don't speak English.
I would call a lot of your stuff, "unnecessary gadgets," actually.
Leaving devices in standby, in my opinion, is a waste of power. That's why I toggle the switch on both of my powerboards before going out or going to bed, and don't turn one on if I don't need anything plugged into it.
There are many benefits of leaving your useful devices on standby. Besides, you don't shorten the life of your expensive useful gadgets by keeping the devices standby.
Just because you don't shorten their lifespans, it doesn't mean that they aren't using more power than necessary.
What "benefits" are there of leaving anything on standby if you aren't planning on using them? I have no reason to keep anything turned on if I'm not using it, unless it's something like a clock.
Just to name a few...
Such as able to start up the device (to useable state) faster than cold start. And able to maintain as well as display a correct time (on many devices).
You can't be bothered to wait a few more seconds to save some electricity?
What devices without battery backup (other than clocks, maybe) do you have that, for whatever strange reason, need to maintain the time?
For example, Mac will run maintenance tasks at night (early hours of morning) automatically if you leave it on. Even for video gaming consoles, by leaving it on, it will perform contribution to the science which will help the research of medicine for example. Plus by leaving it on, the machine will fetch headlines on hourly basis.
To maintain the time? Your high power Hi Fi stereo! By leaving it plugged in (and stand by) the clock will display correctly. You can even have your VCR (or digital recorder) scheduled for recording. If you power it off completely for long the clock might not be accurate. Same goes to your modern microwave oven, or even oven.
1) You can schedule those maintenance tasks to run, say, on one particular day. I doubt you need them running every single day. So instead of wasting electricity seven days, you only need to waste it one day.
2) Instead of running Folding@Home on your PS3, you could just keep it turned off and save tens or even hundreds of kilowatt-hours of power each year off your electric bill.
3) Why do you need anything to fetch headlines on an hourly basis if you're not even using it? You can't wait a few seconds while it fetches headlines when you turn it on?
4) My stereo doesn't have a clock to begin with, nor is it "high power" - unless you suddenly consider a 12-watt FM radio and 5-watt speakers to be "high power". My VCR is not programmable, and does not have an external clock display. I never even bothered setting the clock on the microwave (useless anyway), and it's kind of difficult to pull the oven out from the wall just to unplug it, unlike everything else.
I will admit that I am more shocked that, by your last few comments, you are trying to justify wasteful behavior.
In the order of replying,
1) The Macs are leaving powered on overnight as there are usually some tasks such as video encoding running.
2) I see running Folding@Home is a great contribution to the society, outweighing the saving of a few cents on electricity. (BTW, I measured the power usages of PS3, not "hundreds of kilowatts" as you'd like to make it sound.
3) Why not? It's a feature.
4) Any clock around is good. I don't have a high tech watch wearing on my arm like yours. I rely on getting the time from all different sources. When I turn my head around, if I can see the time whether it's on VCR or on microwave oven, it is a benefit.
Further, if you power off the TV for a prolonged period, you will have to re-set the channels which will take quite a few minutes before you can watch any channel.
I am not trying to justify the so-called "wasteful behaviour" as I am not a wasteful person at all. Again, I always try to buy energy efficient gadgets when practically affordable.
1) Why can't you run those tasks in the background while the machine is turned on? I assume you can change the priority of a process on OS X.
2) Folding@Home is, again, great to run in the background, as you're not always using 100% of your system's resources while doing other tasks. But if I were you, I would run it as a background task only, and keep it turned off at all other times. Furthermore, I said "each year" in kilowatt-hours, not instantaneously in hundreds of kilowatts.
3) Just because it's there doesn't mean you need to use it, especially if it's wasting electricity.
4) Why not jut get a simple watch? I'm sure that any watch you buy would cost more than mine anyway. The TV tuner box for my TV seems to retain the channels long enough, especially considering that I may keep it unplugged for a week or more at a time.
In my opinion, you can't really call yourself "not wasteful" if you're wasting electricity and buying lots of stuff, as you do.
1) Because I don't know how long I would be away, and terminating a heavy task halfway is not a good idea.
2) Unfortunately, you can't run that as a background task while playing PS3 games or watching Blu-ray movies on PS3. Further, I doubt your estimation on the amount of power used. Furthermore, 1 unit of electricity is defined as 1 kilowatt hour, I assume you know that.
3) This is 21st century, it is feature-loaded century. Using a bit more electricity above absolutely minimum is not wasting.
4) You can get the time on many places, why not? I haven't been wearing a watch for years. (Read: Antony is poor.) Not just resetting of TV is needed after prolonged power off (completely), I also need to reset the time on my mini Hi-Fi (Panasonic) just after a few minutes of power cut.
Again, this is 21st century. You don't want to live like a 'stingy' person, and using a fraction over the absolutely minimum is not considered 'waste'. Further, wasting is not a crime.
1) That task should not be "terminated" if you were to suspend the computer to the disk and turn it off.
2) Then don't run it at all, and save yourself some money. In the long run, one individual contribution to Folding isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.
3) I don't buy into the "feature-loaded" thing, you know that. I would rather buy or build something that does exactly what is needed and not much more, hence, no extra features to waste time and money on.
4) You may be interested to know that I put a capacitor in parallel with the channel preset memory to my radio. That way, if I unplug it, the radio will retain the presets for an appreciable amount of time. I'm actually thinking of doing the same for my clock radio.
Even if you consider me "stingy", I find nothing wrong with not demanding more than I need. Just because something isn't legally a crime doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.
1) I don't have your super powerful application. If I hit the "stop" button, it is likely to have the task terminated.
2) I am so glad that many people around the world contributing to the projects like Folding@Home do not share the same view with you. Even if I don't run the Folding@Home while not using PS3 for gaming for video watching, it is still highly likely that the machine will be left on, 24/7.
3) Your superfast 64-bit dual-processor laptop has all sorts of features, and all sorts of ports.
4) I have no intend to crack up the TV, Hi-Fi or whatever to void the warranty just to implement some feature which can be easily retained with leaving the power on.
Using an incy, wincy, teeny, weeny bit more than absolutely minimum is absolutely nothing wrong at all. Such act is not a crime. Life does not have to be 'stingy'. This is 21st century, and you live in high class beautiful Boston, you are entitled to live comfortably and generously.
1) It doesn't matter what application you have, super powerful or not. Suspending to disk should not cause a background task to stop, unless you purposely hit the stop button before suspending.
2) And I don't see how you will possibly ever benefit from wasting money on running Folding@Home 24/7.
4) Again, it's cheaper to buy stuff used, without restrictive warranties. There are no cracks on my radio, it was designed to cleanly come apart with the removal of just four screws; maybe your fancy Sony equipment discourages that by making the devices difficult to open.
We are not talking about an "incy, wincy, teeny, weeny bit more" electricity, but rather a cumulative effect that ends up costing you money as time goes on. I never said that doing so was a crime, but again, just because it is not a crime does not mean that it isn't wrong. Living in Boston does not entitle me to live "comfortably and generously;" in fact, that is an extremely selfish concept.
1) Without stopping the application, the other application would not have enough system resource to perform smoothly. Remember, I don't have 12GB of RAM nor a quad core processor
2) Geez. Anyway, you missed out the other part, even without participate Folding@Home, I would most likely still leave the device on. So, why not running Folding@Home.
3) Mine doesn't.
4) Why bother opening devices up, and adding a few features just to show the world that you are a geek? Many of those features can be easily obtained from better brands or different model.
I've been running Folding@Home and quite a while, and well as leaving other useful devices on standby etc... I haven't noticed a huge increase in electricity bill.
Again, using a bit more electricity more than absolutely minimum is NOTHING wrong. Selfish concept? You call your American's high class living style an 'extremely selfish concept'?
1) What, exactly, are you running then? Even when I do video encoding tasks, 2GB of RAM and two cores are enough to do that and something else.
2) Why would you still leave it on if you're not running Folding or anything else?
4) I am not trying to show the world that I am a geek. Buying those better brands and different models are often more expensive, so I go the cheaper route.
I would label what you call the "American's high class living style" to be extremely selfish and wasteful; that is why I don't submit to it. We are not talking about "a bit", but "more than necessary", which is the problem.
1) All sorts of things, including converting video with Turbo.264.
2) There's nothing wrong with leaving it on.
3) You have a superfast 64-bit dual-processor laptop that is feature loaded.
4) You don't have to choose the cheaper route all the time. You should choose the good brand items and stylish devices to match your high class status.
Using slightly more than absolutely minimum (or necessary) is nothing wrong at all. Not that I encourage wasting, but using a bit more than (the stingy living style) is nothing wrong at all.
1) So you're offloading the video converting process to Turbo.264 but you still find your computer too slow to use? Geez, you should have been here while I was rendering MPEG-2 - and still using Pidgin, Outlook, and Firefox, no less.
2) Then you would be leaving it on just to leave it on, with no purpose whatsoever. There couldn't be a worse reason to leave it on and a better reason to turn it off than that.
4) "Good brand items" are something I don't have the patience for. Style is not important. Furthermore, I am not "high-class"; I've been telling you that for years now, but you refuse to accept it on the grounds of my skin color, hence I would call you racist.
You apparently are not at all concerned with "wasteful" and "using more than necessary" being the exact same thing.
1) The Turbo.264 did not offload the disk I/O tasks. While it dramatically improves the performance of other tasks, it still uses some system resources.
2) Obviously, I don't look at things like you do, refusing to contribute simply because I am unlikely to be the beneficiary of a certain project (e.g. Folding@Home). It is possible that one day, one of the beneficiaries may be someone you know.
3) You bought a feature-loaded laptop.
When does "using more than necessary" equal to "wasteful"? You were not born during the recession, I am surprised that you have such concept.
1) I didn't know that browsing the Web or reading e-mail or the like constituted heavy disk I/O.
2) I am not refusing to contribute on the grounds that I will never benefit, but on the grounds that I have no good reason to waste power to do so.
3) Again, back then, this was one of two or three laptops that met the criteria for being full-screen, dual-core, and 64-bit. The other two were more expensive.
How else would you define being wasteful, then?
Easy. Throwing away a perfectly good unexpired Mountain Dew is an act of waste. However, when someone asks for a 320ml Mountain Dew, and giving that person a 375ml of Mountain Dew is NOT waste but it also qualifies your "more than necessary".
I don't throw away unexpired Mountain Dew, actually. When I was in France, I actually bought a 1.5-liter bottle of Coke Lite that had expired two months earlier - and drank it all the same.
Chances are I will drink that extra 55mL of Mountain Dew. I would have absolutely no use for leaving a radio on while not using it, though.
So, excess Mountain Dew won't be considered as "more than necessary", and won't be "wasted". But other resources would?
Again, I would drink the excess Mountain Dew, but do nothing with a <your choice of device here> that was kept on but not being used.
Even if the radio/TV/light is left on while no one is there, it is still not considered as a waste.
Sometimes people do that for security reason, to reduce the chance of breaking in. In such case, this could be a huge saving.
If you are that worried, you can buy one of those home security systems, or even cheaper, just buy a light timer. That way, they won't need to stay on the entire time that you are out.
Personally I put my laptop into standby, flip the switch on the powerboard, and turn off the lights before I leave my bedroom.
Further, I asked Jessica and Nerida today that if they feel leaving light/TV/radio on when no one is at the room is considered as waste, they both replied no. (I did not mention your name during the conversation.)
You're the one that told me that people tend to have like-minded friends.
(Completely unrelated topic, the seven-digit verification code I got for this post was the phone number for the place I used to work.)
I can see, even after my time away, you two are still at a stand-off over the same subjects as before.
I rarely agree with Antony on most any subject and I am not going to start now!
However, DON, as I age, I have discovered that it doesn't matter how we live our life. Conserve, don't conserve, be stingy, don't be stingy, coz in the end it doesn't matter.
You die and leave the planet, and other people take over, doing probably worse things than you did.
If you have stuff when you die or don't have stuff, it is irrelevant.
Go for it while you can, do it if you want, don't if it bothers you.
Antony often says I am a stingy fellow, I will have to practice what I preach!
Wise words, Rev. Dr.
Personally I'd rather die having known I tried to make a difference. I don't really consider what I do to be "stingy," but that's opinion, after all.
If you are interested to know. Jessica is the one bought my Power Mac G4. After she saw my iPhone 3G, she and Nerida bought an iPhone 3G each (with Virgin). She also upgraded her coffee machine to a Nespresso machine (after tasted my Nespresso coffee, if you want to know).
Back to the topic, using a bit more than absolutely minimum is definitely not considered as ‘wasteful’.
Again, you were the one that always tried to tell me that rich mingles with rich. Lots of iPhones in one place typically means rich.
Unfortunately, that is the reality. Just like the fact you mingle with other high class upstanding citizens.
Well, only three of us in Jessica's place. It just happened that all of us have an iPhone 3G each. We were playing WiFi games over the iPhone if you want to know. (See, unlike the very advanced Don, we don't have superfast laptops to play LAN games or Halo.)
When did "Lots of iPhones in one place" link to "rich"?
Gadgets like iPhones and PS3s are generally regarded as rich people's toys. Halo LAN is for geeks and nerds, typically not rich people.
And Xbox 360, the best platform for Halo 3, is not regarded as rich people's toys?
Just remember this: Antony is poor.
Also, there are people agree with me that not switching off lights, turning off TV/radio etc when not in the room is NOT considered as being wasteful.
I don't have an Xbox 360; I can't afford one. I couldn't afford an Xbox 1 either, that's why I ended up getting mine free, once it was already seven years old.
That's their opinion. My opinion is that doing so is wasteful, so I wouldn't do it.
But having the Xbox 360 itself would not be considered as rich people's toys, am I right on this? (For some unknown reason, iPhone and PS3 are.)
The problem is that you not only consider leaving the light/devices on as wasteful, you also consider that using a bit more than absolutely minimum is wrong which I am very surprised about that.
The initial price of the PS3 and iPhone, in regards to their competitors, solidified them as "rich people's toys". Of course, I can't afford a PS3, a 360, or an iPhone right now anyway.
Why is that surprising? I just don't feel that I should be using more than I need to, so I take some measures to decrease my consumption habits. There's nothing wrong with that.
The initial price of Microsoft Xbox 360 isn't that cheap either.
I still don't know why using a bit more than absolutely minimum is a waste or even wrong.
Cheaper, though definitely not cheap, I will agree on that.
I just didn't think that I should be using it. What's wrong with being more conservative on energy?
But you have been saying that using more than necessary is wasteful, and wasteful is wrong.
Which I believe. What's wrong with that?
It is wrong to say using more than absolutely necessary is wasteful, and also incorrect to say wasteful is wrong, because using more than absolutely necessary is not wasteful, and wasteful is not really wrong.
How is being wasteful also not being wrong? It's using resources with no real purpose.
How would using a bit more than absolutely minimum be wrong? Or you are saying that living ‘comfortably and generously’ is simply wrong because there are people in poverty?
There's nothing wrong with using a bit more than necessary. (We are not talking about using up all other people's resources.)
The disparity in standard of living is an entirely different matter, though much more important.
Living "comfortably" and "generously" are two different things. Why do you need to live "generously" at all? Sometimes it's good to have self-control, and realize that you don't need every little thing.
Well, "comfortably" and "generously" are closely related. Living "stingily" is certainly NOT comfortable at all. "Generously" is not necessary "wasteful".
You don't need me to remind you that you are an American, a white American.
I don't find living without some of your "comforts" to be a bad thing. I am perfectly content with living with less. You would save a lot of money if you did the same.
My life here is nowhere as comfort as yours or any average American's.
Just being American does not automatically make my standard of living higher than yours. You live with all sorts of comforts that I would never even bother spending hard-earned money on.
You missed the point. The living standard of Americans is a lot higher than most non-Americans. Which in comparison, American's lives are comfort in general.
Remember: Antony is poor.
That's a given, and I do not support the whole idea of a comfortable throwaway society where all wants are satisfied. Self-control is an important thing.
You are not poor; you have a PS3 and an iPhone, the two rich person gadgets of this half of the decade!
What do you mean by "two rich person gadgets of this half of the decade"?
You hate Apple and Sony. Had the similar phone or video gaming consoles been from Microsoft, you would have stated differently.
Those are two gadgets typically purchased by rich people.
Again, I do NOT frequently buy Microsoft products. You simply refuse to acknowledge that my copy of Vista was free, my Xbox was free, my copy of Office was obtained at a 90+% discount, and I don't even want anything like a Zune or a Windows Mobile-powered phone.
Brand loyalties are a terrible thing; I am surprised you don't realize something as important as that.
Well, but the fact remains: Antony is poor.