US States Banning Gaming PCs? Here's What's Going On(youtube.com)
youtube.com
US States Banning Gaming PCs? Here's What's Going On
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5fc5ZX6Kzk
46 comments
There's nothing reasonable about these regulations. If we want people to use less electricity then raise taxes on electricity and the free market will sort it out. Power is fungible.
If people want to use less electricity, they need to have reasonable options to do so in the marketplace without needing a computer engineering degree to figure what sleep states their motherboard supports. That's one purpose of these regulatory mandates: to make the market more transparent and efficient.
Consumers shouldn't have to waste time sorting through products that are broken from day 1 in non-obvious ways.
Consumers shouldn't have to waste time sorting through products that are broken from day 1 in non-obvious ways.
Taking a step back, I don't see how we got from a government's role is to protect citizens from foreign invasion to determining what kind of computers gamers can buy through some byzantine energy scoring system. If you mentioned this as a possibility ten or twenty years ago as a slippery slope argument, most people would have thought you're crazy.
That's exactly the point - sleep states and efficiency is indeed 'byzantine' and I don't see how you expect individual purchasers to understand it. 'Byzantine' complicated things are exactly where regulation is needed to help.
> sleep states and efficiency is indeed 'byzantine' and I don't see how you expect individual purchasers to understand it
You charge people a lot of money for electricity, and then this motivates them to learn it. A lot of 'byzantine' things are routine. A lot of the rituals we do with computers today would seem incredibly bizarre, and difficult to a person from 200 years ago. For example, on PCs, I hit the 'return' key to make a new line. Or on most computers, Cmd/Ctrl-V is often used to paste things. What does the letter V have to do with pasting anything? It's completely arbitrary and byzantine and the knowledge is frankly rarely mentioned and it's unclear to me how anyone learns it other than by mentorship. And yet, the entire population is more than happy to engage.
You charge people a lot of money for electricity, and then this motivates them to learn it. A lot of 'byzantine' things are routine. A lot of the rituals we do with computers today would seem incredibly bizarre, and difficult to a person from 200 years ago. For example, on PCs, I hit the 'return' key to make a new line. Or on most computers, Cmd/Ctrl-V is often used to paste things. What does the letter V have to do with pasting anything? It's completely arbitrary and byzantine and the knowledge is frankly rarely mentioned and it's unclear to me how anyone learns it other than by mentorship. And yet, the entire population is more than happy to engage.
> You charge people a lot of money for electricity, and then this motivates them to learn it.
I challenge you to understand that, while this may seem reasonable to you, is not how humans operate. Especially in a household of multiple humans over which you have little/no direct control over, and multiple changes within a given month (the typical billing period for electricity). If you, your partner, your son, and your daughter have all gotten new, power hungry devices, and it's now also winter/snowing outside/aka the bill is expected to be high due to seasonal heating costs, and the a new, punitive rate plan has been put into effect, how could a non-technical consumer even start to address the change in electrical cost? Other than pay the now-exorbitant bill.
Regulations are the answer for the real world where people live. We can debate what the regulations themselves should say, but expecting human nature to suddenly change and that everyone should want to get an EE degree in their free time, just because their electricity bill is mysteriously higher, is not how I would approach trying to effect large sweeping cultural changes. Not when we can't even get a quorum of people vaccinated.
I challenge you to understand that, while this may seem reasonable to you, is not how humans operate. Especially in a household of multiple humans over which you have little/no direct control over, and multiple changes within a given month (the typical billing period for electricity). If you, your partner, your son, and your daughter have all gotten new, power hungry devices, and it's now also winter/snowing outside/aka the bill is expected to be high due to seasonal heating costs, and the a new, punitive rate plan has been put into effect, how could a non-technical consumer even start to address the change in electrical cost? Other than pay the now-exorbitant bill.
Regulations are the answer for the real world where people live. We can debate what the regulations themselves should say, but expecting human nature to suddenly change and that everyone should want to get an EE degree in their free time, just because their electricity bill is mysteriously higher, is not how I would approach trying to effect large sweeping cultural changes. Not when we can't even get a quorum of people vaccinated.
CAFE standards for automobile gas mileage have been around since 1975. Perhaps less a slippery slope and more the reality that America isn't a libertarian state?
How do you know which computer you need to buy to lower your energy consumption, if there's no transparency around which ones use lower energy? The point of regulations like this is to make this clear, and to force companies to compete on features they'd otherwise not care about.
The biggest problem with libertarian solutions is that they're regressive taxes, politically presented as "freedom".
The biggest problem with libertarian solutions is that they're regressive taxes, politically presented as "freedom".
Libertarians acknowledge the need for regulations. The importance is that they are stable and apply to everyone equally. Labels for food that list ingredients is great because it has been fair and stable as an example.
The regulation being discussed is fair and stable and applies to everyone equally. Most appliances in your house are energy regulated; it's actually odd that computers are not. So, if anything you're arguing for the regulations discussed.
"Letting the market decide" is not a form of regulation.
"Letting the market decide" is not a form of regulation.
Maybe, I’m not am expert on this computer topic. I just wanted to highlight the libertarian opinion on regulations.
The main goal of libertarians is to get prices to work. The alternative that i fear we are heading towards is price controls then mandated requirements for output. E.g produce 100 loafs of bread today that will sell for $1.00 or off to jail you go.
The main goal of libertarians is to get prices to work. The alternative that i fear we are heading towards is price controls then mandated requirements for output. E.g produce 100 loafs of bread today that will sell for $1.00 or off to jail you go.
Oh, just let The Free Market Fairy, solve our problems, eh? https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
How is using taxes to get an outcome you want an example of the "free market"?
Parent comment explicitly invoked it:
> raise taxes on electricity and the free market will sort it out.
> raise taxes on electricity and the free market will sort it out.
They probably wasted more energy while drafting these laws than they’re going to save.
This explains the definitions and gives example calculations:
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revi...
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revi...
I really wish the government would just let me make my own decisions about how I spend my money... If I want to buy a car that gets bad mileage and an inefficient computer, let me do that. Just make me pay for the negative externalities of that. Maybe make some optional "energy efficient" certification so if people want to, they can buy a more efficient computer.
It might be your money but it’s not your planet-
we have to share an atmosphere after all. The negative externalities effect us all, and you can’t really buy a spare ozone layer.
That's why I think people should pay for their negative externalities - it doesn't matter if someone emits a tonne of CO2 if they pay enough to fund more clean energy (for example).
Some kind of cap and trade system would allow us to specify exactly how much emissions we are OK with each year, and let's people who want to emit more do so if they pay for it.
Some kind of cap and trade system would allow us to specify exactly how much emissions we are OK with each year, and let's people who want to emit more do so if they pay for it.
Unfortunately it's never that easy.
Should you be able to blast music at high volume outdoors if you pay a nuisance tax? If your wood burning stove heater makes the nearby aqi shoot up, is that ok if you pay for someone else to upgrade to a efficient furnace?
What about embedded manufacturing energy? Should the government not only tax CO2 within it's borders but also somehow audit CO2 for the entire supply chain? If not, some nation will make the call that fossil fuel burning is an externality that they can avoid paying.
Let's also admit that none of us can build an computer or a car from raw materials. Even if you would pay a premium for an efficient machine, most consumers don't understand what the future energy costs to them are going to be, will not demand efficiency, and thus suppliers will not build it. Apartments are rarely well insulated because the renters are rarely willing to pay more in rent to save more on energy costs.
As much as we'd like everyone to make rational decisions about complex transactions, most people will not. Im not arguing for stupidity even. At the level of the individual, the savings available by analyzing the options are smaller than the cost of the analysis. Its not worth much of my research time save $1 / yr in extra power efficiency. But across an industry it is.
Should you be able to blast music at high volume outdoors if you pay a nuisance tax? If your wood burning stove heater makes the nearby aqi shoot up, is that ok if you pay for someone else to upgrade to a efficient furnace?
What about embedded manufacturing energy? Should the government not only tax CO2 within it's borders but also somehow audit CO2 for the entire supply chain? If not, some nation will make the call that fossil fuel burning is an externality that they can avoid paying.
Let's also admit that none of us can build an computer or a car from raw materials. Even if you would pay a premium for an efficient machine, most consumers don't understand what the future energy costs to them are going to be, will not demand efficiency, and thus suppliers will not build it. Apartments are rarely well insulated because the renters are rarely willing to pay more in rent to save more on energy costs.
As much as we'd like everyone to make rational decisions about complex transactions, most people will not. Im not arguing for stupidity even. At the level of the individual, the savings available by analyzing the options are smaller than the cost of the analysis. Its not worth much of my research time save $1 / yr in extra power efficiency. But across an industry it is.
I have seen many different factories, running many processes. The main thought I always have is, how much power is being consumed here? They have 100s of 500w to 1000w lights alone.
It is not the end consumer running consumer grade PCs who is killing the planet. How much energy, toxic byproducts, and external third party impacts are being produced to make any electronics?
Micro$oft preeches about the planet, yet just made so much hardware obsolete with the Draconian Win11 plan.
List goes on and on..
It is not the end consumer running consumer grade PCs who is killing the planet. How much energy, toxic byproducts, and external third party impacts are being produced to make any electronics?
Micro$oft preeches about the planet, yet just made so much hardware obsolete with the Draconian Win11 plan.
List goes on and on..
> just let me make my own decisions about how I spend my money
So, only people with money get to make their own decisions? Poor people have no self-determination? Why is that?
So, only people with money get to make their own decisions? Poor people have no self-determination? Why is that?
Generally government regulations like this are going to make things more expensive, not less. So these types of regulations actually give poor people fewer options.
For example, the Dodge Journey was not available in California in 2020 due to emissions regulations. This is objectively worse for poor people, since it gives them fewer options.
If taxing negative externalities causes significant cost to people who can't afford it, I'm all for subsidizing some amount of that though.
For example, the Dodge Journey was not available in California in 2020 due to emissions regulations. This is objectively worse for poor people, since it gives them fewer options.
If taxing negative externalities causes significant cost to people who can't afford it, I'm all for subsidizing some amount of that though.
Tax externalities and then return that money averaged out over everyone as a dividend, see [0] for an example.
Therefore instituting the tax will lead to an immediate boost to those who already use less electricity, like poor people. But everyone has the same incentive for using less.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend
Therefore instituting the tax will lead to an immediate boost to those who already use less electricity, like poor people. But everyone has the same incentive for using less.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend
What? Poor people are free their spend the money the way they like too.
For actual numbers motivating this change, refer to [0]:
> Systems used for computer gaming in California consumed 4.1 terawatt-hours/year in 2016 or $700 million in energy bills, with emissions of 1.5 million tons carbon dioxide-equivalent allocated 66 percent to consoles, 31 percent to desktop personal computers, 3 percent to laptops, and less than 1 percent to emerging media streaming devices.
[0] https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2019/plug-loads-game-...
> Systems used for computer gaming in California consumed 4.1 terawatt-hours/year in 2016 or $700 million in energy bills, with emissions of 1.5 million tons carbon dioxide-equivalent allocated 66 percent to consoles, 31 percent to desktop personal computers, 3 percent to laptops, and less than 1 percent to emerging media streaming devices.
[0] https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2019/plug-loads-game-...
What's interesting is that, depending on how a house is heated and how power is generated in an area, having a low power PC might be worse for the environment.
I'm thinking older houses heated with natural gas but where electricity is mostly supplied by renewables. In this case, it's better to heat less and have the PC act as a heater, that performs computations as a side effect!
I'm thinking older houses heated with natural gas but where electricity is mostly supplied by renewables. In this case, it's better to heat less and have the PC act as a heater, that performs computations as a side effect!
But better still to get a more efficient pc and a heat pump
Here's some perspective:
If every single person in the US ran a computer consuming 100W on idle for an entire year, that would add up to around 300 terawatt hours, or about one tenth of the US' electricity consumption that year.
If every single person in the US ran a computer consuming 100W on idle for an entire year, that would add up to around 300 terawatt hours, or about one tenth of the US' electricity consumption that year.
Is that perspective? Refrigerators use like 200-300W an hour, and every family has one of those. And computers sleep when not in use. Should we prohibit more than one fridge per household?
Refrigerators had this kind of regulation applied to them decades ago, which is why they only use a restively necessary amount of power instead of the nightmare of waste that they used to be.
*relatively
You're using the wrong units and you're off by more than an order of magnitude. A decent large fridge will use like 500Wh/day.
This budget-brand fridge averages 17W over a year of use, and it only manages an "F" rating for energy use.
The EU regulated refrigerator power use decades ago.
https://www.beko.co.uk/tall-larder-fridge-lsp3671d-black-sil...
The EU regulated refrigerator power use decades ago.
https://www.beko.co.uk/tall-larder-fridge-lsp3671d-black-sil...
Our house uses about 4-5 kWh/day (excl. heating). Other than making sure we replace broken appliances with power efficient ones, we have not made any particular effort.
[deleted]
That is an exaggeration. Computers sleeping with 11.5w of power draw are banned (100kw/y depending on configuration), not 100w. That is more or less pushing a high end graphics card for 20 minutes. So a drop in the bucket for a workstation or gaming pc.
But regardless I agree these regulations are a good thing. These computers should be shipped in a low power configuration.
But regardless I agree these regulations are a good thing. These computers should be shipped in a low power configuration.
> Computers sleeping with 11.5w
"Sleeping" is not the same as idle.
> Computers sleeping with 11.5w of power draw are banned (100kw/y depending on configuration), not 100w. That is more or less pushing a high end graphics card for 20 minutes. So a drop in the bucket for a workstation or gaming pc.
Even assuming those units are watt hours, I have no idea where you're going with this. Specifically the second sentence. What is a drop in the bucket for a workstation or gaming pc? Is what the power draw during sleep compared to total power draw, or are you comparing some of the other quantities you brought up?
> But regardless I agree these regulations are a good thing.
That's not what I was trying to say or did say. My post was supposed to give people an idea of the general magnitude we're dealing with.
"Sleeping" is not the same as idle.
> Computers sleeping with 11.5w of power draw are banned (100kw/y depending on configuration), not 100w. That is more or less pushing a high end graphics card for 20 minutes. So a drop in the bucket for a workstation or gaming pc.
Even assuming those units are watt hours, I have no idea where you're going with this. Specifically the second sentence. What is a drop in the bucket for a workstation or gaming pc? Is what the power draw during sleep compared to total power draw, or are you comparing some of the other quantities you brought up?
> But regardless I agree these regulations are a good thing.
That's not what I was trying to say or did say. My post was supposed to give people an idea of the general magnitude we're dealing with.
[deleted]
It's not like all the banned computers are barely over the threshold of ~10 watts. A lot of them using 50-100 watts to idle.
The regulations seem reasonable. They are limited to regulating the amount of power used while desktop systems are at idle, not while "in use". They take into account the potential for accessories to be added by the end user, the "Expandability Score". This means "bigger" computers can consume more power at idle. The CEC defines 4 idle states; short-idle, long-idle, sleep and off. Each state is well defined -
* Short Idle is system in S0 state, display on, no applications loaded or running, after a fresh re-boot.
* Long Idle is the same as Short Idle except the screen is off.
* Sleep is Power State S3 (or equivalent if the system doesn't directly implement S3).
The regulations also specify the required default timeouts for transitioning between idle states, e.g. the screen should be turned off after 10 minutes without user input, it should enter S3 after 15, etc. These don't apply if the system ships without an OS installed, they explicitly say that an end-user is free to change the defaults.