Re: [Fsfe-uk] ZDNet Carbon-neutral PC runs Vista (not Free software)

[Jon Grant]

Hi Chris,

On 13/09/2007, Chris Croughton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:46:52PM +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > [...]
> > > Which won't work because people can't distinguish the effect of
> > > running a computer from all the other things which affect their energy
> > > consumption!
> >
> > If the tax is on the purchase price consumer can "see the
> > environmental cost" without the need to laboriously measure the actual
> > energy usage of the PC after they've already purchased it.
>
> Who is going to assess the energy cost in advance, and how can they do
> so with no idea of how the machine will be used?

Like always (the company), the companies will have to put their AC
power devices through tests and get rated for estimated lifetime
usage.

> > A label like this on a Vista Tower PC ??999 would suffice:
> > "This product will release XXXX of CO2 over it's lifetime which
> > inflated the above price by ??200".
>
> What's the lifetime?  How much will it be on (and at what power level)
> over that lifetime?  A PC using an average of 300W for 8 hours a day for
> a year will use around 850kWh in electricity, whereas one which is only
> used for the occasional email and writing a letter will be a lot less
> (an order of magnitude), and if it is used for high-powered gaming 12
> hours a day it will be more.

Agreed, but there is no effective and reliable tech to measure and
charge, so an estimated usage would have to be used. Just like road
tax, i may only do 10% of the travel a salesman does, but i still pay
the same road tax despite my vehicle wearing away less of the road.

> You can do it with things like refrigerators, because everyone runs
> those 24/7 and they are pretty much predictable use (unless someone
> leaves the door open).  You can't do it with PCs and televisions because
> the use is very variable and different for every user.  Or rather, you
> can do it but it becomes just another arbitrary tax, and people ignore
> those because it's just part of the price.

I wouldn't say it was arbitrary, I'd call it "estimated energy usage
tax". Also no one can ignore it, if an energy efficient 2Ghz PC costs
£500 and an inefficient 2Ghz Vista PC costs £700.

> > Each hardware component can have its price inflated by the energy
> > usage, and also the OS software by it's anticipated energy usage.
>
> Which means that Linux users will be penalised to cater for Windows ones
> (typically Linux is better on power saving than Windows).  And again,
> what is the 'lifetime' of the component?  I have some graphics cards
> which are still going after 10 years (and perfectly usable for what I
> want), a lot of people change them every year to play the latest games.

Assuming an energy efficient PC is sold with kubuntu preinstalled,
there wouldn't be a need to average in the cost of if it had been
running Vista for its lifetime.  Likewise, a clunky Vista PC shouldn't
get any of the energy efficient PC energy tax reduction because it is
preinstalled with Vista.

I'd say it is estimated energy usage over lifetime rather than just
lifetime, and those who change gfx card and annually and sell on will
see the product retains a higher value because it cost more initially
if it was more power hungry.

Its not perfectly metered taxing like water, but an estimation is easy
enough to do, and doesn't require massive infrastructure or so much
extra costs administrating it.

Will be interesting to see what politicians come up with, probably
some free-market system, where we pay for CO2 output rather than for
KWH like at present?

Jon