# Should you unplug chargers when you're not using them - tested



## The_Traveler

Tested: Should You Unplug Chargers When You’re Not Using Them?


----------



## JacaRanda

Very very useful and informative.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

I leave my phone charger plugged in next to the bed. aside from that, everything else gets unplugged or turned off when we aren't home. Typical electric bill is 120 during the summer/winter and 80 during spring/fall.


----------



## waday

Get ready, I'm going to poo-poo this story. Sorry for being a Debbie Downer.

I understand from one person's perspective, it doesn't seem like all that much. It's only $0.34 per person per year. Not bad, right?

Assuming the author's numbers are accurate... now take that 2.628 kilowatt hours (kWh) and multiply it by approximately 275,000,000 adults (over the age 18) in the US (source: Kids Count Data Center). (Although, I should probably include kids, because they have so many electronics nowadays.) I'm assuming all adults would have similar vampire power demand as the author.

So, now we have 722,700,000 kWh being used by chargers that are not in use. Multiply that by the author's $0.1298 per kWh, and we have a cool $94 million dollars being wasted a year. Ouch.

Not only is that money wasted, power is wasted. Power has quite the negative effect on the environment. We waste a heck of a lot more than just $0.34 a year per person. Billions of gallons of water are withdrawn EVERY DAY here in PA for power plants. Now include the rest of the US. Oof.

Not only that, other natural resources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and plutonium have to be mined and transported to the facilities. Where does all the waste go? Back into the earth as waste. Water withdrawn can impinge/entrain aquatic communities in the intake systesm. Heated wastewater has negative impacts on the aquatic community downstream of the facility.

I read a similar article from someone in California a few months ago that essentially said it was ok to leave the water running while brushing/etc, because 'so little water' is used. Yes, by one single faucet, not a lot is used. For the population as a whole, it's another story. A bad story.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't always unplug when I should, but I think articles such as this give a false impression of our impact on the environment. They pull a very tiny piece of the entire process and say its ok. We need to look from cradle to grave.. look at the process holistically. 

These articles try to justify our laziness. IMO, that's not right.

End rant.


----------



## tirediron

^^Agree^^  In addition, I'd be curious to know just how accurate their $24.00, Amazon purchased consumption meter is.  With consumption rates that low (at the individual level), it would not surprise me at all to learn that it was 25, 50, or even 100% inaccurate (and most probably on the low side).


----------



## waday

tirediron said:


> ^^Agree^^  In addition, I'd be curious to know just how accurate their $24.00, Amazon purchased consumption meter is.  With consumption rates that low (at the individual level), it would not surprise me at all to learn that it was 25, 50, or even 100% inaccurate (and most probably on the low side).


Totally agree. The error range on this is likely very high, probably in the 50-100% range.

That's not to say it _isn't_ a good device to get an overall generalization of how much energy is being used by different devices. It's absolutely good for that purpose. But, if we're going to start calculating costs and energy usage for the explicit purpose of trying to dissuade people from trying to be environmentally and financially conscious, I want to be more accurate than using that meter.


----------



## runnah

I always do regardless of power use. Force of habit.


----------



## The_Traveler

perhaps we should stay off the Internet?


----------



## 480sparky

Istead of worrying about 34¢ of electricity being used by a plugged-in phone charger, why not offset that by installing just *ONE* single CFL or LED lamp in your house or office?


----------



## Designer

I'm working on getting them all replaced.  Got quite a lot replaced already.


----------



## tirediron

480sparky said:


> Istead of worrying about 34¢ of electricity being used by a plugged-in phone charger, why not offset that by installing just *ONE* single CFL or LED lamp in your house or office?


Why offset, why not save?  Is it really that difficult to unplug a wall-wart when you're done with it?  LEDs? Perhaps, but I don't see any benefit to CFLs when you considered all the energy needed to deal with the HAZMAT aspect.


----------



## 480sparky

tirediron said:


> .......  Is it really that difficult to unplug a wall-wart when you're done with it? ..........



No, not really.  If you only do it once.  But I plug in my phone to three different chargers scattered throughout the house.  So I'd be unplugging three times a day, and plugging in three times a day.  Six times a day, times 365........

Yeah, that would be a freekin' big hassle.



tirediron said:


> ..............Perhaps, but I don't see any benefit to CFLs when you considered all the energy needed to deal with the HAZMAT aspect.



What about the HAZMAT aspect of that_ computer_ you're using?  No, not the electricity it's sucking out of the wall..... the hazardous materials that went into it?


----------



## Scatterbrained

tirediron said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Istead of worrying about 34¢ of electricity being used by a plugged-in phone charger, why not offset that by installing just *ONE* single CFL or LED lamp in your house or office?
> 
> 
> 
> Why offset, why not save?  Is it really that difficult to unplug a wall-wart when you're done with it?  LEDs? Perhaps, but I don't see any benefit to CFLs when you considered all the energy needed to deal with the HAZMAT aspect.
Click to expand...

In my home it's a pain in the but.  Beyond that, I can charge most of my portable electronics from one of the 6 USB ports on my tower so. . . . . . 
Beyond that, we more than offset by replacing every light in the home with an LED, we have a roof that is covered in solar panels, and we use fans, swamp coolers, and well timed opening and closing of windows to avoid running the A/C.  Granted, were I live electricity costs $.31kwh so it's not a "save the planet thing", "it's a save the wallet thing".


----------



## KmH

I wanna know how much it costs to charge the devices that plug into the chargers 1 time each.


----------



## Buckster

I worked extensively in power plants and their associated sub-stations throughout Iowa and Minnesota while working on their communications systems.

One thing I learned from the folks that run those places is that it's a bit of a myth out here in power-consumption land that power is generated in a power plant at the level needed to meet demand.  So, folks think that the more power that's needed out here in "vampire plug-ins" land, the more the power plant makes, and to do so it uses more raw materials, be it coal or whatever, to convert into that energy.

In reality, power plants consume raw materials and put out more than enough energy than is needed at all times, or they'd get caught short when demand suddenly goes up.  The energy that's not used doesn't get stored for later use either.  It's just gone, along with the raw materials it used to generate that lost power.

So, even if 300 million vampire plug-ins were unplugged, it wouldn't affect the amount of raw materials consumed by power plants, nor the amount of power they'd generate.

Just F.Y.I.


----------



## waday

I agree and disagree.

Definitely, the baseload power plants continuously run so that we always have power.. whenever we want for however long we want. The peaker plants will continue to operate 'on-demand'. No issues there.

However, if we increase the demand (needlessly, IMO), we need more power running all the time. If we decrease our demand, we can decrease the amount needed to be running constantly.

Why would you want to run the faucet all the time in the event you may need to wash your hands? You wouldn't, because it's a waste. Why not just turn the water off when you don't need it and turn it on when you do? That's what we do. So why don't we do the same with electricity? We can 'see' water running, but we can't 'see' electricity. We know when we're wasting water, but we don't know when we're wasting electricity.

Why not just unplug the charger and plug it in when you need to? We're a lazy society... we have chargers all over the house and car in the event our battery gets too low and we need an electricity fix immediately.


----------



## astroNikon

I unplug everything that I can before I leave the house, and make sure lights are off if they are not needed.  I don't have any LEDs right now due to their cost but do use CFLs as I have a few left before I replace them with some LEDs.  Yes, it may not save much but it all adds up.  And I'm happy with my monthly bills from $46 to $166 (alot of A/C) usage this past year with 4 kids in my house.

I'd rather have the cash in my pocket rather than someone else's.


----------



## Buckster

I'm not saying it's the most efficient way to do it.  It's just the way it's done at present.

Think about your car.  It has an alternator.  As long as the car is running, the alternator is turning and making electricity.  Along with supplying all the electrical power needed to operate the various electrical devices in the car, if the battery needs topped off again after using some of its energy to start the vehicle, it does that.

But once the battery is topped off again, does turning the lights, radio, AC and other non-essential equipment on or off affect how much the alternator is putting out?  No, it just keeps putting out what it puts out, whether you need it or not.  If you don't use it, it's just gone.

The generators in a power plant work essentially the same way.  They don't know or care how much the system needs - they just keep putting out the amount of energy that they're designed to put out.

Why don't we unplug chargers when not in use?  We should, no doubt.  But the truth is that we don't honestly care that much about the pocket change we'd save anyway.  Spread 34 cents out over a year's time and it's a tenth of a penny per day.  A penny on the ground is ten times that value, but the reality is that we can step right past it without even a second thought.

A society that's willing to pay dollars for coffee or a bottle of water doesn't care that much about a little pocket change.


----------



## waday

Buckster said:


> A society that's willing to pay dollars for coffee or a bottle of water doesn't care that much about a little pocket change.


The unfortunate truth. 

People don't care until they have to.


----------



## 480sparky

Here y'all are discussing teeny little wall warts when there's much bigger sources of power-usage black holes.

Your computer.  Your printer.  Your monitor.  Your wireless router.  Your flatbed scanner.  Your microwave.  Your washer & dryer.  Your refrigerator.  Your stove.  Your oven.

Even when 'off', the electronics in most of our consumer goods these days are sucking up electrons.

Heck, even the freekin' cash register your local electric utility has plastered on the side of your house uses power even if you turn your main breaker off.

What's next?  Taking bumper stickers off your car increases gas mileage?
































Let's talk about something sensible.




Like bacon.


----------



## waday

I don't think any of us disagree with you. Of course there are larger sources of power consumption in our homes and workplaces that constantly draw from the system. Our society would crumble without power.

But that doesn't mean we should ignore smaller, easier fixes to reduce power consumption and demand. Unplugging your charger is a lot easier than unplugging your appliances. And it only takes a second. That won't impact anyone's daily routine.


----------



## runnah

I'm going to leave two battery chargers plugged in just to counter act anyone who unplugs theirs!


----------



## runnah

Buckster said:


> I worked extensively in power plants and their associated sub-stations throughout Iowa and Minnesota while working on their communications systems.
> 
> One thing I learned from the folks that run those places is that it's a bit of a myth out here in power-consumption land that power is generated in a power plant at the level needed to meet demand.  So, folks think that the more power that's needed out here in "vampire plug-ins" land, the more the power plant makes, and to do so it uses more raw materials, be it coal or whatever, to convert into that energy.
> 
> In reality, power plants consume raw materials and put out more than enough energy than is needed at all times, or they'd get caught short when demand suddenly goes up.  The energy that's not used doesn't get stored for later use either.  It's just gone, along with the raw materials it used to generate that lost power.
> 
> So, even if 300 million vampire plug-ins were unplugged, it wouldn't affect the amount of raw materials consumed by power plants, nor the amount of power they'd generate.
> 
> Just F.Y.I.



Yeah it's funny how few people actually understand how the power grid works or electricity for that matter.

"Oh no the electricity tank is getting low! Better fill it back up!"


----------



## tirediron

Buckster said:


> I'm not saying it's the most efficient way to do it.  It's just the way it's done at present.
> 
> Think about your car.  It has an alternator.  As long as the car is running, the alternator is turning and making electricity.  Along with supplying all the electrical power needed to operate the various electrical devices in the car, if the battery needs topped off again after using some of its energy to start the vehicle, it does that.
> 
> But once the battery is topped off again, does turning the lights, radio, AC and other non-essential equipment on or off affect how much the alternator is putting out?  No, it just keeps putting out what it puts out, whether you need it or not.  If you don't use it, it's just gone...


 Noooooo... not quite.  The car's voltage regulator (or PCM/EMU equivalent in new vehicles) controls the alternator output based on demand.  The greater the demand, the greater the output.  The greater the output, the greater the rotative resistance of the alternator due to the increased strength of the EM field.  Thus, it is a fact that the more electrical load you place on your car's alternator, the lower your fuel economy. 

This was one of the arguments used by people who were against the mandatory use of headlights during the day and/or daytime running lights. While it's true that using your headlights (or super-duper stereo, or whatever) will reduce fuel economy, the loss is very, very, very small, BUT...  there is no "lost" electricity.  Un-needed power is simply not there as it's never produced in the first place.


----------



## runnah

I can only hope that someday science will finally truly understand how electricity works.


----------



## runnah

tirediron said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's the most efficient way to do it.  It's just the way it's done at present.
> 
> Think about your car.  It has an alternator.  As long as the car is running, the alternator is turning and making electricity.  Along with supplying all the electrical power needed to operate the various electrical devices in the car, if the battery needs topped off again after using some of its energy to start the vehicle, it does that.
> 
> But once the battery is topped off again, does turning the lights, radio, AC and other non-essential equipment on or off affect how much the alternator is putting out?  No, it just keeps putting out what it puts out, whether you need it or not.  If you don't use it, it's just gone...
> 
> 
> 
> Noooooo... not quite.  The car's voltage regulator (or PCM/EMU equivalent in new vehicles) controls the alternator output based on demand.  The greater the demand, the greater the output.  The greater the output, the greater the rotative resistance of the alternator due to the increased strength of the EM field.  Thus, it is a fact that the more electrical load you place on your car's alternator, the lower your fuel economy.
> 
> This was one of the arguments used by people who were against the mandatory use of headlights during the day and/or daytime running lights. While it's true that using your headlights (or super-duper stereo, or whatever) will reduce fuel economy, the loss is very, very, very small, BUT...  there is no "lost" electricity.  Un-needed power is simply not there as it's never produced in the first place.
Click to expand...


Noooooo... not quite.

The regulator turns the alternator on or off based on the voltage coming out of the battery. All the electronics run off the battery, hence why you turn the batter on and use the radio while the car is off. The regulator's jobs is to "sense" when the voltage coming out of the battery dips below a certain amount, normally under 13.5 volts. When it dips below the regulator say "oh ****, we need more magic pixies to refill the battery!" and it turns on the alternator and recharges the battery to the 14.5 or so volts. The alternator generates the same amount of AC current any time it's on. 

No different than a shop air compressor. Set it to xyz PSI, do some wrenching, drop the pressure and the motor kicks on to fill up the tank again. The air gets filled up at the same rate no matter how empty or full the tank is.


----------



## Buckster

After starting, you can remove the battery from the car, and everything will keep working, including the radio.

That said, whether my car analogy stands or fails, the point remains that power plants don't generate less power because people unplug their chargers.


----------



## AlanKlein

waday said:


> Get ready, I'm going to poo-poo this story. Sorry for being a Debbie Downer.
> 
> I understand from one person's perspective, it doesn't seem like all that much. It's only $0.34 per person per year. Not bad, right?
> 
> Assuming the author's numbers are accurate... now take that 2.628 kilowatt hours (kWh) and multiply it by approximately 275,000,000 adults (over the age 18) in the US (source: Kids Count Data Center). (Although, I should probably include kids, because they have so many electronics nowadays.) I'm assuming all adults would have similar vampire power demand as the author.
> 
> So, now we have 722,700,000 kWh being used by chargers that are not in use. Multiply that by the author's $0.1298 per kWh, and we have a cool $94 million dollars being wasted a year. Ouch.
> 
> Not only is that money wasted, power is wasted. Power has quite the negative effect on the environment. We waste a heck of a lot more than just $0.34 a year per person. Billions of gallons of water are withdrawn EVERY DAY here in PA for power plants. Now include the rest of the US. Oof.
> 
> Not only that, other natural resources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and plutonium have to be mined and transported to the facilities. Where does all the waste go? Back into the earth as waste. Water withdrawn can impinge/entrain aquatic communities in the intake systesm. Heated wastewater has negative impacts on the aquatic community downstream of the facility.
> 
> I read a similar article from someone in California a few months ago that essentially said it was ok to leave the water running while brushing/etc, because 'so little water' is used. Yes, by one single faucet, not a lot is used. For the population as a whole, it's another story. A bad story.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that I don't always unplug when I should, but I think articles such as this give a false impression of our impact on the environment. They pull a very tiny piece of the entire process and say its ok. We need to look from cradle to grave.. look at the process holistically.
> 
> These articles try to justify our laziness. IMO, that's not right.
> 
> End rant.



I agree.  Shut off _your_ faucets and unplug _your_ chargers.


----------



## astroNikon

When I turn on my car A/C my mpg drops like a rock, acceleration suffers etc.  I actually turn it off before I start at a red light so I can get going normally.
so .. how ever that works.


----------



## tirediron

runnah said:


> Noooooo... not quite.
> 
> The regulator turns the alternator on or off based on the voltage coming out of the battery. All the electronics run off the battery, hence why you turn the batter on and use the radio while the car is off. The regulator's jobs is to "sense" when the voltage coming out of the battery dips below a certain amount, normally under 13.5 volts. When it dips below the regulator say "oh ****, we need more magic pixies to refill the battery!" and it turns on the alternator and recharges the battery to the 14.5 or so volts. The alternator generates the same amount of AC current any time it's on.
> 
> No different than a shop air compressor. Set it to xyz PSI, do some wrenching, drop the pressure and the motor kicks on to fill up the tank again. The air gets filled up at the same rate no matter how empty or full the tank is.


Okay, I freely admit that while I'm a decent shade-tree mechanic, the electrical system is very definitely my weak area.  That said, based on my understanding, I think you might be confusing voltage and current.  Yes, the voltage is constant (more or less), but the current varies according to demand.  Voltage is analgous to pressure, current to volume, in your air compressor analogy, it always produces 100psi, but will vary between 10 and 20 CFM, depending on load.

The primary functions of the battery in a car are (1) to provide initial power for the starter motor; and (2) to provide the initial excitier or field voltage necessary for the alternator to work.  Once the engine is running normally, the alternator becomes self-sustaining.  Yes, you can run all of your accessories off of the battery, but that's a result of the parallel circuit design of the battery installation.

If your car is running during the day, with no lights, heater, AC, stereo, etc, then the load is pretty much only that required by the ignition system, let's say 5 amps (just picking a number out of the air).  To produce that 5 amp output the alternator requires a 1 amp exciter current.  This is all done at (about) 13.5 volts, but if all of a sudden you turn on the lights, the AC, and the 8,000,000 watt bass-boosted stereo in the trunk, the demand might jump from 5 to 85 amps.  That 85 amp output requires, let's say a 10 amp exciter current, as the exciter and output currents rise, the strength of the EM field in the alternator increases and with it, the resistance in the alternator, hence the reduction in fuel economy as load/demand increases.  <--  As I said, that's my understanding.  I was wrong once before, it _could_ happen again...


----------



## jcdeboever

runnah said:


> I can only hope that someday science will finally truly understand how electricity works.


Can't see it

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

runnah said:


> I can only hope that someday science will finally truly understand how electricity works.



Here's how it works : 

Person either has an electrical problem, wishes to modify their existing system or have the need for an entirely new installation.  They call me. I do the work.  When I'm done, they write a check or whip out the plastic.  I put money into bank and we're both happy.

That's good 'nuff fer me.


----------



## runnah

480sparky said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only hope that someday science will finally truly understand how electricity works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how it works :
> 
> Person either has an electrical problem, wishes to modify their existing system or have the need for an entirely new installation.  They call me. I do the work.  When I'm done, they write a check or whip out the plastic.  I put money into bank and we're both happy.
> 
> That's good 'nuff fer me.
Click to expand...


I hail to thee o mighty wizard!


----------



## astroNikon

runnah said:


> I hail to thee o mighty wizard!


Mighty "Electrical" Wizard !!

yeah, shocking eh ?

pun intended


----------



## Scatterbrained

tirediron said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's the most efficient way to do it.  It's just the way it's done at present.
> 
> Think about your car.  It has an alternator.  As long as the car is running, the alternator is turning and making electricity.  Along with supplying all the electrical power needed to operate the various electrical devices in the car, if the battery needs topped off again after using some of its energy to start the vehicle, it does that.
> 
> But once the battery is topped off again, does turning the lights, radio, AC and other non-essential equipment on or off affect how much the alternator is putting out?  No, it just keeps putting out what it puts out, whether you need it or not.  If you don't use it, it's just gone...
> 
> 
> 
> Noooooo... not quite.  The car's voltage regulator (or PCM/EMU equivalent in new vehicles) controls the alternator output based on demand.  The greater the demand, the greater the output.  The greater the output, the greater the rotative resistance of the alternator due to the increased strength of the EM field.  Thus, it is a fact that the more electrical load you place on your car's alternator, the lower your fuel economy.
> 
> This was one of the arguments used by people who were against the mandatory use of headlights during the day and/or daytime running lights. While it's true that using your headlights (or super-duper stereo, or whatever) will reduce fuel economy, the loss is very, very, very small, BUT...  there is no "lost" electricity.  Un-needed power is simply not there as it's never produced in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually, the voltage regulator maintains a constant 14v DC output from the alternator (yes, most modern 12v systems run around 13.8v).  The point of ECM controlled alternators isn't to control amperage output, it's to control voltage level and ramp up.   Modern automotive computer systems are robust in some ways, but rather delicate in others.   The ECM gradually ramps up the field current from the battery to the alternator to slowly bring it up to it's proper working output, thus preventing a surge through the system.   It also maintains a much closer control of the voltage level at the alternator.  Modern alternators also have "clutches" on the alternator pulleys to keep the alternator spinning smoothly between "hits" from the engine.  (each time a set of cylinders fire it creates a hit, or surge that is felt in the alternator).   These things are done to control voltage however, not amperage.


----------



## Scatterbrained

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's the most efficient way to do it.  It's just the way it's done at present.
> 
> Think about your car.  It has an alternator.  As long as the car is running, the alternator is turning and making electricity.  Along with supplying all the electrical power needed to operate the various electrical devices in the car, if the battery needs topped off again after using some of its energy to start the vehicle, it does that.
> 
> But once the battery is topped off again, does turning the lights, radio, AC and other non-essential equipment on or off affect how much the alternator is putting out?  No, it just keeps putting out what it puts out, whether you need it or not.  If you don't use it, it's just gone...
> 
> 
> 
> Noooooo... not quite.  The car's voltage regulator (or PCM/EMU equivalent in new vehicles) controls the alternator output based on demand.  The greater the demand, the greater the output.  The greater the output, the greater the rotative resistance of the alternator due to the increased strength of the EM field.  Thus, it is a fact that the more electrical load you place on your car's alternator, the lower your fuel economy.
> 
> This was one of the arguments used by people who were against the mandatory use of headlights during the day and/or daytime running lights. While it's true that using your headlights (or super-duper stereo, or whatever) will reduce fuel economy, the loss is very, very, very small, BUT...  there is no "lost" electricity.  Un-needed power is simply not there as it's never produced in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noooooo... not quite.
> 
> The regulator turns the alternator on or off based on the voltage coming out of the battery. All the electronics run off the battery, hence why you turn the batter on and use the radio while the car is off. The regulator's jobs is to "sense" when the voltage coming out of the battery dips below a certain amount, normally under 13.5 volts. When it dips below the regulator say "oh ****, we need more magic pixies to refill the battery!" and it turns on the alternator and recharges the battery to the 14.5 or so volts. The alternator generates the same amount of AC current any time it's on.
> 
> No different than a shop air compressor. Set it to xyz PSI, do some wrenching, drop the pressure and the motor kicks on to fill up the tank again. The air gets filled up at the same rate no matter how empty or full the tank is.
Click to expand...

The alternator never "shuts off".   It's on whenever the car is running.   As Buckster pointed out, you don't need a battery for anything but to start your car.   If you'r drawing down the battery while driving you've got an issue somewhere (or you've installed more additional electronics than your alternator is rated for).   You turn the ignition key to the Acc. position to listen to the radio when the car isn't on yes.  Of course it's pulling from the battery.  When the engine isn't turning the alternator isn't turning either, meaning there is no way for it to generate electricity.   This makes the cars battery the only source of power.


----------



## runnah

tirediron said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noooooo... not quite.
> 
> The regulator turns the alternator on or off based on the voltage coming out of the battery. All the electronics run off the battery, hence why you turn the batter on and use the radio while the car is off. The regulator's jobs is to "sense" when the voltage coming out of the battery dips below a certain amount, normally under 13.5 volts. When it dips below the regulator say "oh ****, we need more magic pixies to refill the battery!" and it turns on the alternator and recharges the battery to the 14.5 or so volts. The alternator generates the same amount of AC current any time it's on.
> 
> No different than a shop air compressor. Set it to xyz PSI, do some wrenching, drop the pressure and the motor kicks on to fill up the tank again. The air gets filled up at the same rate no matter how empty or full the tank is.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I freely admit that while I'm a decent shade-tree mechanic, the electrical system is very definitely my weak area.  That said, based on my understanding, I think you might be confusing voltage and current.  Yes, the voltage is constant (more or less), but the current varies according to demand.  Voltage is analgous to pressure, current to volume, in your air compressor analogy, it always produces 100psi, but will vary between 10 and 20 CFM, depending on load.
> 
> The primary functions of the battery in a car are (1) to provide initial power for the starter motor; and (2) to provide the initial excitier or field voltage necessary for the alternator to work.  Once the engine is running normally, the alternator becomes self-sustaining.  Yes, you can run all of your accessories off of the battery, but that's a result of the parallel circuit design of the battery installation.
> 
> If your car is running during the day, with no lights, heater, AC, stereo, etc, then the load is pretty much only that required by the ignition system, let's say 5 amps (just picking a number out of the air).  To produce that 5 amp output the alternator requires a 1 amp exciter current.  This is all done at (about) 13.5 volts, but if all of a sudden you turn on the lights, the AC, and the 8,000,000 watt bass-boosted stereo in the trunk, the demand might jump from 5 to 85 amps.  That 85 amp output requires, let's say a 10 amp exciter current, as the exciter and output currents rise, the strength of the EM field in the alternator increases and with it, the resistance in the alternator, hence the reduction in fuel economy as load/demand increases.  <--  As I said, that's my understanding.  I was wrong once before, it _could_ happen again...
Click to expand...


No you're right, not sure where I got voltage from.


----------



## Ricguch

Ok, i have been lurking the forum and for this i have to signup finally, 

power plants produce way more power than is used, but if we start consuming more they have a power level limit,if we get close to that limit they start producing more, also the otehr way around if suddenly we drop the power we are using a lot they can start dropping the power production. So if all of us save power it makes a difference, just one person it does not

Now, car alternator, if its spinning is producing power, i dont know if newer cars can disangage the alternator, as far as i know, it can control how much goes into the battery, so it doesnt overcharge.

Sorry for broken english


----------



## KmH

runnah said:


> I can only hope that someday science will finally truly understand how electricity works.


Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## waday

KmH said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only hope that someday science will finally truly understand how electricity works.
> 
> 
> 
> Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Not sure about anyone else, but I seem to be governed by Murphy's Laws.


----------



## Didereaux

Personally I unplug all chargers and unnecessary devices when I am done with them  Why?  Because they are all plugged into 120AC, and any device can short out causing a fire.  Why take the chance?


----------



## RitchieE24

480sparky said:


> Istead of worrying about 34¢ of electricity being used by a plugged-in phone charger, why not offset that by installing just *ONE* single CFL or LED lamp in your house or office?


That's what I am in the middle of doing.  I recently purchased 5 Sylvania LED bulbs from Canadian Tire for $2 a piece.  They were in a clearance bin for $7.00 but I used the "SaveOnEnergy" coupon for $5 off each bulb.  Thanks Ontario Provincial government!


----------



## Didereaux

Didereaux said:


> Personally I unplug all chargers and unnecessary devices when I am done with them  Why?  Because they are all plugged into 120AC, and any device can short out causing a fire.  Why take the chance?


 

Someone disagreed, but gave no reason.  I wonder if he disagreed that they plugged into 120AC, or that any such device can short out.   Either one is provably true, and so the disagreeing person looks rather ridiculous.


----------



## tirediron

Didereaux said:


> Someone disagreed, but gave no reason.  I wonder if he disagreed that they plugged into 120AC, or that any such device can short out.   Either one is provably true, and so the disagreeing person looks rather ridiculous.


 Let's try and remember that the 'Disagree' button is no different in concept than the 'Agree' button; simply an expression of concurrence or non-concurrence of a statement made by someone else.  Please do not take it personally, and like agreements where there is often no reason given, there is none required for a disagreement.


----------



## charchri4

Considering the millions of street lights pointlessly lighting empty streets and the yard of light every farm house in the country lighting an empty yard, I have a hard time getting excited about this.


----------



## Didereaux

tirediron said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone disagreed, but gave no reason.  I wonder if he disagreed that they plugged into 120AC, or that any such device can short out.   Either one is provably true, and so the disagreeing person looks rather ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and remember that the 'Disagree' button is no different in concept than the 'Agree' button; simply an expression of concurrence or non-concurrence of a statement made by someone else.  Please do not take it personally, and like agreements where there is often no reason given, there is none required for a disagreement.
Click to expand...


I totally agree ...when the issue is opinion.  What I stated were two absolute facts.  To disagree with a provable fact requires an explanation.  So although I agree with the agree/disagree policy, in this instance I totally disagree with its application.


----------



## astroNikon

charchri4 said:


> Considering the millions of street lights pointlessly lighting empty streets and the yard of light every farm house in the country lighting an empty yard, I have a hard time getting excited about this.


maybe they will make long range motion sensors for instant-on LED street lights.


----------



## BananaRepublic

I admit now that I read the article and then skipped right to the end to make my point so if I'm repeating something tuff.

Chargers by there nature act like an alternator in a vehicle, what they do is change AC current from the mains to DC current which the batteries use so even when nothing is being charged there is something churning in there yes it may be small but there is a  resistance therefore money is being burned. If you want proof of this take a scissors to the cable that is coming from the idle charger but do expect to be electrocuted.


----------



## soufiej

The article stated it was not intended to be "scientific".  Then goes about proving it was anything but.

No control devices, no idea of what was actually being measured, no tolerances on anything.  No high school sophomore chemistry student would set up such an "experiment".

The vast majority of small appliance chargers today are of the "floating" variety.  This terminology applies to a charging device which does not constantly try to charge a fully charged battery.

Older chargers would feed a constant Voltage/Amperage to the battery which, when full, had reached its physical limits.  Trying to cram more "charge" into an already full container does exactly what you would expect should you try to put ten pounds of potatoes into a five pound potato sack.  Unfortunately, there is no "over run" capacity in a battery.

Heat builds up in fully charged batteries during the charging process which eventually weakens the electrical circuit which is the storage tank of the battery.  At some point the heat build can be such that the battery risks exploding as more and more Amperage is stuffed into it.

The users of these non-floating type chargers were warned they should immediately unplug the charger once full charge was indicated or risk damage to the device being charged and possibly to the charger itself.  This was a bit of a PITA and meant the user must sit by waiting for the charger to complete its task or risk a small but potentially dangerous explosion.

This problem with constant charge devices led to the development of the floating style charger.  When the battery has reached its maximum charge, the charging device shuts down and does not continue to supply Voltage/Amperage therefore preventing over charging which could lead to damage to the battery.

Depending on the design and construction of the battery, the fully charged battery can be maintained  at a fully charged level indefinitely if it is left installed in the charging device.  However, over time any battery will lose some amount of charge simply sitting in a drawer under no load.  If the battery were still installed in a charging device, the charging circuit would be cycled on once the low charge status was confirmed and the battery would be topped off and then the cycle of non-charging/charging would replay until the battery was removed from the charger.

If the Voltage measured by the author was simply that which powered the LED within the charger, then this spec could have been calculated more easily and more accurately than the techniques employed by the author.  Voltage, as tirediron said, is more or less consistent in value.  The meter on your home does not measure Voltage as it is relatively steady at a plus or minus value relative to 120 Volts.

Voltage in theory and explanation is simply the potential for work to be done.  Alone Voltage can achieve no work.

Amperage is what does the work.  This is what needed to be measured by the author though this would still have resulted in an incomplete experiment.

The higher the Amperage (or current) draw, the more electricity is being "used".  Obviously, when your refrigerator, HVAC or washing machine kicks in, your electrical draw/usage is higher than when you use your coffee grinder or a USB charger.  All of these devices run on 120 VAC if they are being used in the USA.  A step down/step up transformer adjusts the incoming Voltage to a usable  value for the type of device being powered.  Each of these transformers has a certain amount of power loss.

Switching type power supplies use substantially less "power" than do the older analog devices due to the way they operate.  Most wall warts are consider switching types which feed "digital" components.

Measuring Voltage draw from the 120 VAC extension cable alone is no more informative than telling me your meter on your home reads electrical usage when you are using electricity.  We have no idea of the Voltage or Amperage being used by the chargers measured in this article.  Or the state of charge/fully charged devices they are plugged into.

Voltage or Amperage ("electricity") cannot flow if there is no load to complete the circuit.  Simply plugging a charger into an outlet does not allow for the flow of "electricity" unless the cumulative load of the LED's alone is what is being measured.  Spec'ing the LED's would have been much more informative than the measurement techniques used by the author which actually tell us nothing.

Science is further offended by the author but it is fair to say a scientific research article does not exist here.  It is, in fact, pure BS.



The conclusion made by the author is to say the measured (?) Voltage draw is so minimal that you could make much greater gains in power reduction by looking elsewhere in your home.

Indeed!

Power losses occur in all electrical circuits and devices.  What goes in is never what comes out.  Until you insert "device loss" into the equation, you cannot even begin to accurately predict consumption.  Until you insert a time value you cannot predict consumption.  Many electrical devices have large power draws at start up and then quickly settle into a lower and more constant draw.
Yet, it simply stands to reason a HVAC system will have greater loss at any time than will a 5VDC/2.4 Amp USB type wall wart charger.

The point of this article should be, IMO, if I assume each of us makes an average of $20 per hour, it has just cost us approximately $5.45 to read this stuff.  The doctors, lawyers and IT tech folks out there blow that figure well out of the water.


----------



## bogeyguy

waday said:


> Get ready, I'm going to poo-poo this story. Sorry for being a Debbie Downer.
> 
> I understand from one person's perspective, it doesn't seem like all that much. It's only $0.34 per person per year. Not bad, right?
> 
> Assuming the author's numbers are accurate... now take that 2.628 kilowatt hours (kWh) and multiply it by approximately 275,000,000 adults (over the age 18) in the US (source: Kids Count Data Center). (Although, I should probably include kids, because they have so many electronics nowadays.) I'm assuming all adults would have similar vampire power demand as the author.
> 
> So, now we have 722,700,000 kWh being used by chargers that are not in use. Multiply that by the author's $0.1298 per kWh, and we have a cool $94 million dollars being wasted a year. Ouch.
> 
> Not only is that money wasted, power is wasted. Power has quite the negative effect on the environment. We waste a heck of a lot more than just $0.34 a year per person. Billions of gallons of water are withdrawn EVERY DAY here in PA for power plants. Now include the rest of the US. Oof.
> 
> Not only that, other natural resources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and plutonium have to be mined and transported to the facilities. Where does all the waste go? Back into the earth as waste. Water withdrawn can impinge/entrain aquatic communities in the intake systesm. Heated wastewater has negative impacts on the aquatic community downstream of the facility.
> 
> I read a similar article from someone in California a few months ago that essentially said it was ok to leave the water running while brushing/etc, because 'so little water' is used. Yes, by one single faucet, not a lot is used. For the population as a whole, it's another story. A bad story.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that I don't always unplug when I should, but I think articles such as this give a false impression of our impact on the environment. They pull a very tiny piece of the entire process and say its ok. We need to look from cradle to grave.. look at the process holistically.
> 
> These articles try to justify our laziness. IMO, that's not right.
> 
> End rant.


Your assuming that all those chargers are really plugged in. You have no idea how many chargers are plugged in. It's a moot point.


----------



## Mattis

Of course a single charger doesn't waste a lot of power. You have to look at the bigger picture.
There are MILLIONS of smartdevices out there. Personally I own a smartphone, a tablet, a smartwatch and my Nikon charger is also always plugged into the wall.
So 6 chargers use about 0.3W. That means a single charger uses 0.05W. That's not a lot, but now imagine a big city. If one million people leave their charger permanently plugged in that's roughly 50.000W! That is a LOT of wasted energy and not a far fetched scenario for a bigger city.
Not to mention that there are actually roughly 2 BILLION smartphones currently in use.


----------



## petrochemist

480sparky said:


> Istead of worrying about 34¢ of electricity being used by a plugged-in phone charger, why not offset that by installing just *ONE* single CFL or LED lamp in your house or office?



I think nearly all the bulbs in our house are either LED or CFL types. The few that aren't were not available in the bulb type.


----------



## petrochemist

tirediron said:


> Let's try and remember that the 'Disagree' button is no different in concept than the 'Agree' button; simply an expression of concurrence or non-concurrence of a statement made by someone else.  Please do not take it personally, and like agreements where there is often no reason given, there is none required for a disagreement.


Where more than 1 point is being made agree suggests you agree with all of them, or at least the overall feeling of the post. Disagree however might be just regarding one of the points so some clarification is helpful IMO.

One of Didereaux's two 'facts' is actually not the case here in the UK at all. Any chargers plugged in will have~240V applied to them not 120V.
The risk of fire is pretty minuscule due to contact breakers/fuses which are designed to cut the power in the event of a failure that otherwise could start a fire.
I rather suspect the disagree was due to this second factor as I think Buckster is based in the US and would have 120V mains


----------

