It turns out the "standby" mode on your game console sucks energy like it's going out of style:
[It] draws about 33W of power on the Wii U, 92W on the Xbox One, and a whopping 130W on the PS4. Leaving your PS4 sitting on the menu like this all year would waste over $142 in electricity costs.
OK, "turn off your consoles when you're not using them" is kind of an obvious tip. The tricky part is that all three major consoles have two levels of "off" these days; one that's truly off (drawing only about 0.3W to detect a power signal from a controller); and one that puts the system in a power-hogging "standby" mode (like the Xbox One's "instant on" mode).
When idling, at ConEd rates of $0.35/kwh, for 24/7/365 standby that's $101.18/yr for the Wii U, $282.07/yr for the Xbox One, and $398.58/yr for the PS4. You could almost buy yourself a whole new console for that money. Less power hungry standby modes can still cost $30-$45/year or so at those ConEd rates.
Related Stories
We've previously covered how standby mode in game consoles suck. Well, it seems like many devices across the US are sucking a whole lot of power--$19 Billion/yr worth. That is just the US estimation, it is not extrapolated out across the globe.
Approximately $19 billion worth of electricity, equal to the output of 50 large power plants, is devoured annually by U.S. household electronics, appliances, and other equipment when consumers are not actively using them, according to a ground breaking study released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The report, "Home Idle Load: Devices Wasting Huge Amounts of Electricity When Not in Active Use," found most of the devices either plugged in or hard-wired into America's homes consume electricity around-the-clock, even when the owners are not using them or think they are turned off. The annual cost for this vampire energy drain, which provides little benefit to consumers, ranges from $165 per U.S. household on average to as high as $440 under some utilities' top-tier rates.
"One reason for such high idle energy levels is that many previously purely mechanical devices have gone digital: Appliances like washers, dryers, and fridges now have displays, electronic controls, and increasingly even Internet connectivity, for example," says Pierre Delforge, the report's author and NRDC's director of high-tech sector energy efficiency. "In many cases, they are using far more electricity than necessary."
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:33PM
I finally got around to buying one of those simple devices to measure the power that devices draw. Not very accurate, something like +/- 20% iirc, but good enough. It was pretty shocking. While many devices draw under 1W (in accordance with current European regulations), some older devices were over that. The worst were lasers printers, which I assume were keeping their drums warm even in standby mode. I think 45W was the worst, for an older HP printer.
But 130W for a game console? That's not standby mode, all they've done is dim the display.
Interestingly, some supposedly "green" devices were the worst sinners. Just as an example: we have a lot of battery-powered devices around, so we made a big investment in rechargeable batteries. Good for the environment, don't you know? And a top-quality charger as well. I naively assumed that a good quality charger would not only be efficient, but would draw next to nothing when it has no batteries to charge. Surprise, surprise, it draws 10W when empty (and a good bit more when working), meaning that it's actual charging efficiency over the course of an entire year is way, way under 1%. It would have been environmentally better to stick with ordinary batteries.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:44PM
But 130W for a game console? That's not standby mode, all they've done is dim the display.
Is this state labelled 'Standby'? If so, how is this legal in the EU? If not, why are people calling it 'standby'?
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:56PM
In 2001 U.S President George W. Bush signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to "purchase products that use no more than one watt in their standby power consuming mode. And 2010 the European Commission (EC) Regulation No 1275/2008. WIth the same meaning. No more than one watt in standby.
But 130 W.. Someone misunderstood something, it's fraud or Sony engineering department is incompetent. It would be hard to use more than 10 W in standby even with no effort.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday April 01 2015, @01:15AM
or Shoddy "journalism"... just saying.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 01 2015, @01:32AM
Reading the article gives that the PS4 uses 10 W that consists of these parts:
* "Supply Power to USB Ports" 6.3 W
* "Stay Connected to the Internet"/"Enable Turning On of PS4 from Network" 2.4 W
* "Keep Application Suspended" 1.2 W
Seems the article summary doesn't show the whole truth. 10 W standby is way more reasonable than 130 W.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 01 2015, @04:41AM
In 2001 U.S President George W. Bush signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to "purchase products that use no more than one watt in their standby power...
But 130 W.. Someone misunderstood something, it's fraud or Sony engineering department is incompetent.
So just how many game consuls do you suppose the US Government purchases?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday April 01 2015, @01:23PM
That's either a very subtle joke, or a silly spelling mistake. I'm going to assume the former, in which case: LOL! Well played!
[sig redacted]
(Score: 4, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:09PM
Perhaps you connected it wrong. Do not attach to your tongue.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:10PM
There are solar-powered battery rechargers [amazon.com].
Even without that I'd still use rechargeables because I find running out to get disposable batteries annoying; here they're locked up and you cannot get them without chasing down apathetic clerks.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:36PM
There's no excuse for a computer/console to draw that much while idling. All of the new CPUs and GPUs have advanced power saving features, and more appear every year.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:56PM
Sorry, that's not truly off, that's standby. Truly off means that the device is drawing exactly 0.0W. A device that's truly switched off can only be switched on with an actual power button or switch (that is, one that physically cuts power). Unfortunately, true power buttons or switches are rare on modern devices.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:06PM
An obvious problem spotted.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:11PM
one that's truly off (drawing only about 0.3W to detect a power signal from a controller);
Sorry, that's not truly off, that's standby.
I agree. Also the "standby" they talk about in the article is also wrong, we have a term for something that is drawing 130W. That term is "on".
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Redundant) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:20PM
Aren't there power adapters that draw energy even if they aren't connected to anything? In that case, even a physical switch won't work unless it's before the adapter.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:00PM
I read your post and initially agreed, then disagreed. Then I read it again Ultimateley I agree with you first off a device that is off draws zero power. I agree with that completely. I don't think there is a way around it
The point about requiring a button or switch is what tripped me up. A physical button or switch on the device is required to turn the device on (but not off). The on button does not have to be a locking button either. A simple circuits allow a button to latch the power line. So a low travel push to make switch can be used to turn on any sized device.
Again I think what you said is correct. Just took me a couple of passes to see it. Probably says more about my reading comprehension than anything else.
Although using a small battery or a cap could allow a device to be on "zero" power standby and still listen for a remote device. That would not be true zero power because the device would be powered but would not be drawing from the wall (although the device would have to charge when it is back drawing).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:52PM
I remember the older TI83+ calculators used to go years without the need to change the batteries. If I put brand new Alkaline batteries in my much newew TI84 calculator and don't use it for three or four months when I do try to use it the batteries will be dead. The thing drains batteries even when off. The older TI83+ and TI82 didn't. I noticed this with my newer TI89 calculator as well. If I disconnect the battery when I don't plan to use it for a long time the problem goes away. The battery will still be used when used. Newer calculators apparently use battery life even when turned off. I think it maybe partly because they have a built in clock that uses batteries as well? The Ti83+ didn't.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JeanCroix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:02PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by cwix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:11PM
One of the big differences here is this author used some of the highest rates in the US to justify his outrage.
Sure it still is using too much power, but his prices are around 3.5 times what most Americans would pay.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:18PM
Is the **price** of the electricity the only waste to be angry about? After all, money is a renewable resource...
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by cwix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:33PM
I will quote myself.
Sure it still is using too much power
My issue with this is the summary is hyperbolic. I will reiterate, the systems are using way to much power in standby. We agree on that point.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:02PM
I don't think it's just a power-waster in 'standby', though. I was recently given a used PS3, which my kids watch Netflix on. I was amazed and disturbed to see that the fan runs almost constantly, even when only the "home" screen is running. I've checked for dust-clogged ventilation and I admit it's an older machine, but still... I also think it's funny when my wife is complaining about lights being left on in unused rooms, but doesn't say a word about the playstation whirring away in the corner with no one using it!
Anyway, I'm glad that you have considered the environmental cost as well as the financial, but a quick look at the summary and around this comment thread (and really anywhere on the 'net) shows that electricity usage is primarily discussed in terms of monetary costs. Obviously people are self-centered creatures and money is their most pressing resource concern, but I'm pointing out the greater issue that electricity itself is considered an almost infinite resource--by people and by producers of electronic goods. To me, it comes down to an optimization issue: what motivation does Sony, or any other video game system manufacturer, have to optimize power consumption on what is basically a (toy) super computer, at least graphics-wise? I can't see a market force to influence this in a "green" direction, as a gaming system is definitely not a commodity item. So this leaves the decision to a consumer: should i use and enjoy this particular technological gadget, despite the fact that it's incredibly wasteful of a valuable resource? I can safely assume that most consumers will err on the side of the tragedy of the commons, as can Sony, so this leaves the responsibility to the corporation. "$400/yr" in power may seem like a lot for a consumer, but from the higher POV, that's many thousands of kilowatt hours being wasted needlessly through the greedy short-sightedness of a large corporation.
And, I'm maybe ranting too much, and I think the main motivator is the constant recent news discussion/controversy (in the USA) about transport of crude oil by rail. At the end of the day, it's a NIMBY problem--everyone wants plentiful and cheap electricity and gasoline, but nobody wants to shoulder the ecological burden of using this ever-diminishing nonrenewable resource.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:30PM
Yes, ConEd prices are on the upper end of the spectrum. But it is what millions of people in NYC pay; with 8.4 million that's more people than a large swath of the West, including Montana, Idaho, Wyoming South Dakota, and North Dakota (and almost Utah). It is not, however, as much as Hawaiians pay, which is somewhere near $0.45/kwh, I believe.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cwix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:40PM
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a [eia.gov]
Upper end? The highest average price for electricity in any state is Hawaii at 33 cents.
Nothing else even comes close. The next closest numbers are Alaska and the northeast as roughly 20 cents. The summary is hyperbolic and disingenuous. Even if the amount of usage is far and away to high.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 01 2015, @12:03AM
Hyperbolic? $0.35/kwh is what I do pay ConEd for electricity. That's a fact, not hyperbole. The math says .130kwh * 24hr * 365 *.35 = $398.58 for a PS4 if you leave it on "standby" 24/7/365, as I specified in the summary. That is what a person in New York City would pay if they left a PS4 on standby that way. The link to the PS4 for sale on Amazon was $399. Does the $0.42 difference between that sale price and the price of the electricity to keep it on in New York City constitute the main of your impression of hyperbole? Because, quibbling with a price difference of less than $1 and calling it hyperbole is pretty unforgiving.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:45PM
PlayStation 3 in standby cost 1.53 US$ per year and with a specified price at 0.1135 US$/kWh means 13.48 kWh/year. And thus 1.538 W.
Above current standards but quite alright.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by cwix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:08PM
It really isn't an issue here in fly over country. 0.099 $/kWh in the summer, and 0.073 $/kWh in the winter.
So lets say I ran a PS4 in standby 24/7/365, and for the ease of math lets use the summer rate. That comes out to $113.15. Shoot a WiiU would only run you $29.20 for a year of standby.
If anything this math should be done at the average US rate, which looks to be around 0.12 $/kwHr. Which would leave us with $36.50 for the Wii and $135.05 for the PS4.
Using the most expensive rates in the math is a little disingenuous. In fact it looks like the vast majority of rates in the US are between 0.08 and 0.12 $/kWhr. There are only a few outliers that bring the average above 0.12.
Average US rates: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a [eia.gov]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nukkel on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:47PM
Regardless of price, it's still energy wasted for no good reason other than to maximize some mfg's margins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:01PM
My problem with your reasoning is that cable boxes idling at 35W and consoles at 50-100W do add up.
If there's 30 million of each in the US, that's TWO or THREE nuclear reactors, or 4 to 8 coal plants, running full blast! Just because the manufacturers can't be bothered to enable the power-down mode (which they implemented in the chipset, to sell in Europe).
I remember reading about it a year or so back. A spokesman for the cable boxes (manufacturer or distributor, not sure) said that US customers really want instant-on, and that wasted power is not important.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cwix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:31PM
You know perhaps my message got misconstrued here.
My issue is the summary is hyperbolic and disingenuous. 35 cents is not an average price, or even in the high end of the average temps. (If you look at the source I have posted elsewhere.)
They do use too much energy. There are a large number of things we need to tighten down to save energy and game consoles and cable boxes are just one group of that. Exaggerating the financial implications by choosing a price that isn't representative of what it typically costs is counter productive. It sets off peoples BS detectors and they stop listening.
(Score: 5, Informative) by infodragon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:10PM
I flip the off switch on a power strip for my home entertainment system... The only things that are not plugged in are the wifi adapter and cable box for DVR. Solves the problem and we saw a noticeable drop in our monthly energy bill...
TV, Stereo receiver, powered subs, gaming console(s), Blu-ray, ...
We flick it off at night and when somebody wants to use the system it's flipped back on, simple, easy, cost saving, part of our nightly routine...
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 2, Informative) by lonehighway on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:25PM
This is the best solution for eliminating so-called "phantom loads," which continue to proliferate because of soft power controls ( think push button versus actual switch). When you turn everything off at night and turn off the lights, how many LEDs do you see including digital clock displays on microwaves, etc.? Those are all drawing power, not just the light itself but the circuitry behind it. This adds up rapidly as anyone who lives fully off the grid will tell you.
(Score: 2) by infodragon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:32PM
Never underestimate the power of a a switch!
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:16PM
Love your sig dude
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2015, @12:57AM
Made me think of the Muppets Wig Racing [youtube.com] sketch. I don't use shampoo, I use the real thing!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:59PM
Eliminating your phantom load does make a big difference. We're not off-grid because we live in an apartment building in Brooklyn and can't install solar, but after auditing our devices we were encouraged to do what you recommend. It halved our energy usage. Our monthly total dropped from 440kwh to 220kwh, which is $924 in savings at ConEd rates. Prior to that we had gotten down to 440kwh by cutting the cord, trading the CRT TV in for an LED, switching our computers to solid state drives and run-hot chips, our lightbulbs to LEDs, and generally swapped out every appliance for EnergyStar-rated ones.
It's a real pity we can't do solar, because we'd only need 6 of them to supply our needs (Astronergy has 310W panels that wholesale for $315), which would be a crazy fast break-even at the rates we pay, even without the federal and state subsidies.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by broggyr on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:36PM
I wonder if a lot of it is because many people don't want to wait for things to boot up. If it's on, but in stand by, it will come up a lot quicker. Kinda like sleep mode for laptops. I should definitely put a power strip oon my TV and all of the attached goodies, but some folks wouldn't be able to deal with the 'warm up' times...
Taking things out of context since 1972.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by infodragon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:47PM
There are automatic wall timers that will take care of that... Back in the 80s my parents used them to make it look like people were home while we were on vacation.
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:57PM
No, it's cost saving at the manufacturer. Availability of a physical power switch does in no way force you to use it, it just gives you the option.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:37PM
Customer service problems, having to pay a script reader in the phillipines to tell people their remote control isn't broken and the TV isn't broken its the other power switch that's broken.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hojo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:59PM
Get yourself one of these:
http://smile.amazon.com/Smart-Strip-4941-Autoswitching-Technology/dp/B000P1QJXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427828118&sr=8-1&keywords=smartstrip+surge+protector [amazon.com]
(or search for Smart Strip 4941)
I have one hooked up with my TV as the master device and everything else (stereo amplifier, game boxes) as slave devices. This kills the power to all of them if the master device is off. Saves money, saves frustration.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:37PM
There was a recent article [latimes.com] that said cable boxes suck a lot of power, too. 35W. Annualized that's 306.6kwh, or $107.31 at ConEd rates of $0.35/kwh. Your plugging them into a power strip and killing the whole thing at once is a good solution.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:08PM
If manufacturers could actually make ACPI work. And make it work good. Follow standards and specifications. Document! Make it work with major free operating systems.
Of course not needing to reboot is convenient when you work with lots of terminal windows and other software with messy startup (because they are not done yet).
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:43PM
It is even worse than this. These are proprietary game consoles. They should be able to figure out an efficient standby mode even without full ACPI compliance. I think it just goes to show how cheaply these things are put together, and how little the manufacturers care about their customers.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:56PM
My thoughts were predominantly regarding laptops and stationary machines.
Manufacturers have full control over game consoles so there's absolutely no excuse there.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:08PM
You shouldn't be outraged at how much your game station costs to run, you should be outraged at how much you're paying for electricity!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:33PM
And you should lookup the meaning of "double dichotomy".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:05PM
I tried, but I can't find a good definition. Do you have a link?
(Score: 1) by mr_mischief on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:42PM
I think you'll find acceptable results searching instead for "false dichotomy".
Basically, there's a "¿Por que no los dos?" situation here. One should be pissed off about the waste and also about excessive electricity rates.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:09PM
Leaving your PS4 sitting on the menu like this all year would waste over $142 in electricity costs.
(emphasis mine). This isn't Idle this is ready to go just click the button to launch an app. Like a desktop computer that you haven't opened any programs for yet.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Wednesday April 01 2015, @12:48AM
Half of the posts above were talking about how "off" isn't really off, hardware power switch, etc. And all of them missed the point.
TFA ISN'T TALKING ABOUT TURNING OFF THE CONSOLE. IT IS LEAVING IT ON 7x24!
This piece of trash click-bait was no different than saying "leave your car idling 7x24 is going to burn a lot of fuel"! Wow! No shit Sherlock!
I bet the author left all the lights ON at his home 7x24 and leave his car idling through the night also.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:40PM
This is not useless power draw: the consoles are mining BitCoins for Sony and Microsoft devs to supplement their meager salaries!
Seriously though, I've never owned a console, but don't some or all of these respond to voice commands to wake up and do stuff? Listening to the room all the time has got to cost some real energy.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:00PM
Supposedly my phone is a spyphone although it was one of the first things I disabled when I got it, or at least the mfgrs would like us to think it was disabled while its sending an audio stream to the NSA.
Anyway, I guarantee it draws less than 100 watts when not in use.
I am somewhat mystified how it draws so much continuously while doing so little in standby mode.
I suppose you could make all file transfers something vaguely torrent-like and that could burn both BW and watts. And the spying as mentioned. And the other 95 watts, I donno.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:20PM
Well consider that your phone only needs to compress and send audio to the NSA; all the heavy computing happens on the other end, like SIRI but not as helpful ;). But still 130W is pretty extreme. In fact I'm kind of amazed the device would use that much even when playing a game, but I'm pretty out of touch with the requirements of high-performance graphics cards and such.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jimshatt on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:10PM
(Score: 2, Informative) by wantkitteh on Wednesday April 01 2015, @01:27AM
This summary is useless - those power figures are for leaving the console idle while fully powered up. Nicely job of misrepresentation by misquotation there, CoolHand.
The figures as stated further down in the article for standby power consumption and quoted cost are actually:
Wii U: 13.3W ($14.16/yr)
XBox One : 12.9W ($13.73/yr)
PS4: 10W ($10.64/yr)
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday April 01 2015, @01:20PM
As you've all said, 130W isn't 'Off' or even 'Standby' by any reasonable definition.
And it's good to put that into some sort of monetary context. But the direct cost of electricity is only part of that.
Where does that 130W go? It doesn't just vanish; ultimately, it gets converted to heat.
So if you're somewhere cold and running some sort of heating system, then that extra heat means that it doesn't need to work quite so hard. In fact, if it's electric, then the offending device has no net cost at all — it's simply acting as a very complex electric heater! Or if your heating system uses a cheaper form of power, then it's costing you the difference.
But if you're somewhere hot and running air-conditioning or some other sort of cooling system, it has to work slightly harder to fight the extra heat from the device. So you're paying twice — extra electricity to power the device, and a little extra power to your cooling system.
So however cheap your electricity is, this might still be costing you!
(And if it weren't so contentious, I might add that either way, that extra heat is a tiny boost for climate change… <ducks>)
[sig redacted]