I got back from Railsconf yesterday and at some point picked up the latest Time magazine. It has Al Gore on the cover. There’s a picture of Mr. Gore working in his office. Did you notice the rig he’s working on? The GoreRig™. What struck me was the number of displays turned on. And the power they must consume. I like Mr. Gore. I was moved when I saw “An Inconvenient Truth”. I have biked more, taken the bus a few times, etc. because of the message of the film. But there’s something ironic about that picture.
Doing some back of the envelope calculations, I figure Mr. Gore is spending nearly $988 per year to power his three 30 inch HD Cinema displays, Power Mac, and the 32” inch (guess) LCD television (he’s not watching). I don’t have a television in my office. Just a 15 inch MacBook Pro, and a 20 inch Cinema Display. My rig costs $196 per year to power. Assuming each set up is on all the time, etc. etc. Like I said, back of the envelope. But that’s nearly an $800 per year difference. Seems significant. Especially if we all worked with the GoreRig™.
Here’s how I calculated:
I live in California where power is expensive. We pay roughly $0.15 per kW hour.
GoreRig™
- Computer: Mac Pro 170W, ~5.9 hours (to consume a kW), $223 year. Source.
- Displays (3): 30 inch HD Cinema Display 150W, ~6.6 hours, $598 year. Source.
- TV: (guess) 32 inch Panasonic LCD 126W, ~7.9 hours, $167 year. Source.
Total: $988 year.
Young Rig
- Laptop: MacBook Pro 85W (when plugged in), ~11.8 hours, $111 year. Source.
- Display: 20 inch Cinema Display 65W, ~15.4 hours, $85 year. Source.
Total: $196 year.
24 Comments
Yes, but his time is being spent to further educate millions of people about energy conservation. So $988 is an investment in tools to keep him efficient. Sure, other people use less, but he’s found a way to keep himself at peak performance, and I can’t knock personal preference.
As for the irony, his work over the course of one year will result in people doing just as you said, “bike more, take the bus a few times” as well as utilize CFL bulbs, car pool, install low flow faucets, buy Energy Star appliances, etc. At the end of one year, his $988 investment will have saved far more energy than if he himself had saved in a spartan fashion.
I live in California where power is expensive. We pay roughly $0.15 per kW hour.
Expensive?
Lucky you. We (State of North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany) pay roughly 0.19 €/kWh. About 0.26 US$.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Gore gets his power from the Tennesee Valley Authority. Which is extremely clean energy if you compare to many energy providers. I think they do hydroelectric dams and such to provide power. I believe it’s more expensive than your traditional energy, but is much cleaner so he pays the difference.
Found more info on that.
here
as well as
here
Do as I say, not as I do.
Yes, but his time is being spent to further educate millions of people about energy conservation. So $988 is an investment in tools to keep him efficient.
Thanks to this post, David has the chance to educate thousands of people regarding computers and power conservation. Maybe one of this people could be Mr. Gore. In perspective, Mr. Gore could spread the word to other millions of people. The impact would be MASSIVE!
I think the more important point is “What happens during the 60% to 90% of the time when the monitors not in active use?” Do they still draw power?
I agree that there is virtue in restraint, but Gore is not campaigning for restraint. He’s campaigning for awareness of the problem and solutions based upon efficiencies.
You are careful to not actually judge him, but you infer that he is a hypocrite and I disagree with that.
How often do you edit video with the Young Rig?
Quite a few discrepancies in the cost of electricity (even in Europe, where France sells some to Germany, hello Sebastian, you should move West
. For the sake of comparisons, here in France a kWh costs me $0.06 at night and $0.10 at peak hours (9am to 11pm).
I personally think that since Al Gore lost the election he decided that if he can’t be President than everybody’s gonna die!
Maybe he decided that if he couldn’t be president at least he could have a sweet rig. Besides, his office organization skills looks about the same as mine, so I instantly took a liking to this photo.
I bet W has a clean desk, an empty mind, and no idea what a Mac is. W’s more of a Packard Bell kinda guy.
I live in brooklyn and have elected (through con edison) to receive all of my power from hydro and wind sources. My energy cost is higher because of this. I’m also considering upgrading to 100% wind for an additional 1.5 cents per kw hour.
Remember: the goal is not for everyone to use as little energy as possible. The goal is to ensure that the financial cost of energy reflects the true cost to society, not just the cost of production and distribution. Once that is in place economics will work the rest of it out.
It’s a bit like the Prisoner’s Dilema in some senses (except not exactly). Currently it is worthwile to act in self interest. Some people are voluntarily joining a game with different rules by buying green energy vouchers and selecting green energy from providers that offer it. I would have no problem with these people using as much energy as they can afford since society as a whole is being fairly compensated for it. The only reason you think it’s hypocritical for Gore to use energy is because you think the goal is for everyone to reduce as much as possible.
Geoff-W’s an avid Mac user. I hope this doesn’t force you to switch to Linux or something.
@Paul: that’s not my argument. I didn’t say Mr. Gore is hypocritical. I said he was using lots of power to do his computing and television watching. I showed that’s true. I’ll let others draw conclusions.
And that’s a pretty large printer under that desk as well. Ha!
You can be a hypocryte and save the earth. You can get $400 hair cut and empathize with the poor. You can scale rails apps by listening to Jason Hoffman. If you have your cake, you might as well eat it too.
evariste, my sources say Dell.
As some people mentioned, it’s not necessarily how much electricity we consume that is the issue, it’s how we generate it. If Gore is getting it from clean and renewable sources, who cares?
We’re going to consume electricity. In fact the ability to consume huge amounts of electricity, in economic terms, is a competitive advantage for a nation. So the question cannot be “How can we reduce our consumption?” It must be “How can we consume the same amount (or more) without being environmentally destructive.
As someone who is very pro-green technology, but also highly skeptical of Al Gore, it’s refreshing to see criticisms coming from supporters about his own personal power consumption.
For people who are pushing the type of drastic changes that Gore is promoting, energy conservation is important, especially when the current technology is not able to support the type of infrastructure that we require without pollutive emissions. For Gore to excuse his lifestyle because he invests (a portion of which is stocks in his own company) in carbon offsets is especially off-putting from a person who is attempting to force changes that are going to be expensive for all of us.
Here’s a great statement I found buried in a forum which was openly anti-gore which I think is very pertinent to your observation. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118874.html#648206
His excessive private usage (not his office, his private home) doesn’t invalidate his arguments, but it does call into question his perspective on the issue and that calls into question the value of his policy prescriptions. If he thinks that it’s okay for him to buy off his own personal excessive usage, but that others who can’t afford to do so need to curb their usage, that suggests that either he’s not being realistic or sincere or some other disconnect from reality. The elevated CO2 levels may be causing a dangerous global warming, but his personal habits (again not his office) suggest that we shouldn’t trust Al Gore’s motives in addressing that concern.
Jeez, ryan and others are making a huge leap of presumption and coming to conclusions based on complete conjecture.
Let’s just give Al the benefit and assume that he (or a manager) turned on the monitors, computers, etc, so this photo could be taken. Is it possible to believe that a sleep or hibernate mode kicks in when the gear isn’t being used? Most of us who use computers have that mode of operation, and a few might even power down when not in use.
In which case, just a small trickle of power is being consumed. So, revise your calculations…
Even if Gore is a hypocrite that has no bearing on the validity of his message.
Other than that, isn’t it well established that he buys carbon credits etc, to offset the energy costs he can’t reasonably avoid.
The pro- and anti-Gore posters who implicitly assume that conservation means we should freeze in the dark completely miss the point.
If energy and environmental costs are fully priced into the costs of electricity (e.g. with carbon taxes, etc), then each person can rationally decide whether the benefit created by an activity exceeds the total costs (including to the environment). If being more productive as a writer/film-maker exceeds the additional total costs of running the monitors, then that’s a good trade off for both Gore and society. Buying “clean” energy and carbon offsets is one way to help get the prices right, including the impact on the environment.
Unfortunately, our current energy prices don’t fully reflect these costs, so that creates a moral imperative to conserve more than the (inaccurate) current prices would normally lead to. But it doesn’t mean avoiding productive uses of electricity altogether.
Here’s a more accurate estimate of the electricity usage. The Apple equipment is all Energy Star certified and goes into sleep mode when not used. Assuming Gore works 40/hrs a week at his desk (unlikely, since we know he’s off giving lectures all the time, but let’s be conservative), then the full usage is less than 1/4 the quoted figure (40hrs/176hrs in week) assuming Gore never takes any vacations and the equipment is used at the top rated power consumption whenever he’s working.
In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority reports that their costs about 4.11 cents/kwh according to their 2003 annual report (the most recent I could find: http://www.tva.gov/finance/reports/annualreport_03/summary_analysis.htm). That less than 1/3 what David Young guesstimated.
So overall, the electrical costs are probably closer to $80/yr, for the GoreRig, not $988. That seems like a worthwhile investment if it makes Gore even 1% more productive than he’d be without it.
Give me a break — we’re talking office equipment here, not a factory.
What’s next? Stringing up users of Bic pens because using expensive, wooden-barreled pens with squid ink would have a lower impact?