Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Panasonic TV standby power
781 views
Skip to first unread message
Malcolm H
Apr 27, 2012, 3:19:30 AM4/27/12
to
My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
states it should be 0.4W (without monitor out recording).
What is 'monitor out recording' and how can it be disabled? There is no
reference to this in the manual.
Same comments apply to my other TV Panasonic TX-L32D26BA.
I have submitted this question to Panasonic Support but (so far) have
received no response!
states it should be 0.4W (without monitor out recording).
What is 'monitor out recording' and how can it be disabled? There is no
reference to this in the manual.
Same comments apply to my other TV Panasonic TX-L32D26BA.
I have submitted this question to Panasonic Support but (so far) have
received no response!
David Woolley
Apr 27, 2012, 3:48:59 AM4/27/12
to
Malcolm H wrote:
> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
> states it should be 0.4W (without monitor out recording).
According to Google, the full power down is delayed by a few minutes.
> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
> states it should be 0.4W (without monitor out recording).
How long did you wait?
> What is 'monitor out recording' and how can it be disabled? There is no
> reference to this in the manual.
Brian Gaff
Apr 27, 2012, 4:23:05 AM4/27/12
to
Maybe they got the decimal point in the wrong place in the manual?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Malcolm H" <malc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4Mrmr.2152$Bx1....@fx11.am4...
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Malcolm H" <malc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4Mrmr.2152$Bx1....@fx11.am4...
Mark Carver
Apr 27, 2012, 5:46:59 AM4/27/12
to
David Woolley wrote:
> Malcolm H wrote:
>> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the
>> manual states it should be 0.4W (without monitor out recording).
>
> According to Google, the full power down is delayed by a few minutes.
Yes, some receivers stay active for 5 to 10 mins extra, to perform
> Malcolm H wrote:
>> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the
>> manual states it should be 0.4W (without monitor out recording).
>
> According to Google, the full power down is delayed by a few minutes.
housekeeping and also look for any new services, or software updates.
Leave it 15 mins, then measure.
Malcolm H
Apr 27, 2012, 6:08:44 AM4/27/12
to
"David Woolley" wrote in message news:jndj1g$lpl$1...@dont-email.me...
Thank you David for your input, which triggered me to investigate further.
There is indeed a time delay. After powering down to STANDBY the power
consumption drops to 16W then, 4 minutes later, drops to less than 1W. This
applies to both Panasonic TVs.
What did you Google to get this info?
There is indeed a time delay. After powering down to STANDBY the power
consumption drops to 16W then, 4 minutes later, drops to less than 1W. This
applies to both Panasonic TVs.
What did you Google to get this info?
Jeff Layman
Apr 27, 2012, 6:26:31 AM4/27/12
to
has a much greater "standby" consumption than is stated in the manual.
This is because it regularly turns itself on (silently) to check for
updates. As you have noticed, this consumes a lot more power. In true
standby the consumption is only 0.3W, but it most certainly is not as
low as that in "check for updates" mode.
What I have not been able to find out is how often it does this.
However, it is not just soon after turning it off that I notice clicks
from the internal relay(s) which I assume are changes to the power it is
using.
Fitting an energy meter between the set and the power supply, and
checking it when the TV is in standby" mode, will give you a better idea
of the true power consumption over time. Note, however, that energy
meters may give misleading readings where switched-mode power supplies
are concerned.
--
Jeff
David Woolley
Apr 27, 2012, 5:04:00 PM4/27/12
to
Malcolm H wrote:
>
> What did you Google to get this info?
"monitor out recording"
>
> What did you Google to get this info?
larkim
May 2, 2012, 11:06:38 AM5/2/12
to
Matt
Bill Wright
May 2, 2012, 12:17:51 PM5/2/12
to
larkim wrote:
> My sisters boyfriend (a professor in the field of climate change)
There's a good example of a useless made-up occupation. I nearly said
> My sisters boyfriend (a professor in the field of climate change)
'job', but of course that wouldn't be accurate. Has he got a beard by
the way?
Bill
Message has been deleted
Java Jive
May 2, 2012, 2:03:46 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 18:18:43 +0100, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <jnrmnc$4r7$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > Has he got a beard by
> > the way?
Even worse
> Sandals too, probably.
Beards and sandals didn't seem to do the Roman emperors from Hadrian
until Constantine (but not including the latter) much harm.
At times, the level of so-called debate in this ng really is
desperately childish.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <jnrmnc$4r7$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > larkim wrote:
> > > My sisters boyfriend (a professor in the field of climate change)
> >
> > There's a good example of a useless made-up occupation. I nearly said
> > 'job', but of course that wouldn't be accurate.
There's a good example mindless bigotry
>
> > larkim wrote:
> > > My sisters boyfriend (a professor in the field of climate change)
> >
> > There's a good example of a useless made-up occupation. I nearly said
> > 'job', but of course that wouldn't be accurate.
> > Has he got a beard by
> > the way?
> Sandals too, probably.
Beards and sandals didn't seem to do the Roman emperors from Hadrian
until Constantine (but not including the latter) much harm.
At times, the level of so-called debate in this ng really is
desperately childish.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Richard Tobin
May 2, 2012, 3:04:54 PM5/2/12
to
In article <5ps2q7tn2jeghghpv...@4ax.com>,
-- Richard
Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > There's a good example of a useless made-up occupation. I nearly said
>> > 'job', but of course that wouldn't be accurate.
>There's a good example mindless bigotry
No need to feed the troll.
>> > There's a good example of a useless made-up occupation. I nearly said
>> > 'job', but of course that wouldn't be accurate.
>There's a good example mindless bigotry
-- Richard
Peter Duncanson
May 2, 2012, 3:21:34 PM5/2/12
to
Quick definition: power is the rate of using energy.
Electrical power is measured in watts or kilowatts and energy in watt
hours or kilowatt hours. (The "units" of consumption measured by
electricity meters in homes, etc. are kilowatt hours.)
If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
"worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
for an hour each day.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Message has been deleted
Paul Ratcliffe
May 2, 2012, 4:30:37 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 20:21:34 +0100, Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
> Newspaper reports tend to confuse power with energy.
So do lots of people in this group.
> Quick definition: power is the rate of using energy.
You will now get a load of people telling you they believe it's something
else in common usage.
You can't educate pork. I've tried. It's a lost cause.
wrote:
> Newspaper reports tend to confuse power with energy.
> Quick definition: power is the rate of using energy.
else in common usage.
You can't educate pork. I've tried. It's a lost cause.
Paul Ratcliffe
May 2, 2012, 4:23:34 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 20:25:13 +0100, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> Feel free to take a hike, Mr Jive. BTW, did your parents really name you
> Java?
No, they called him Charlie Farley. And a right charlie he is too.
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> Feel free to take a hike, Mr Jive. BTW, did your parents really name you
> Java?
No, they called him Charlie Farley. And a right charlie he is too.
PeterC
May 2, 2012, 5:16:21 PM5/2/12
to
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
Bill Wright
May 2, 2012, 9:45:07 PM5/2/12
to
Peter Duncanson wrote:
> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>
> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
> hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
> the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
> be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
> for an hour each day.
Who cares a monkey's bollock? These amounts are minuscule compared to
> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>
> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
> hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
> the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
> be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
> for an hour each day.
the power used in industry. The greenies attack domestic use because
it's a soft target, and because they can work on the idiotic guilt of
simple minded middle class females.
Bill
Bill Wright
May 2, 2012, 9:47:27 PM5/2/12
to
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> You can't educate pork. I've tried. It's a lost cause.
OK Mr Ratcliffe, in that case how do you explain dancing pigs?
> You can't educate pork. I've tried. It's a lost cause.
Bill
Andy Burns
May 3, 2012, 2:25:47 AM5/3/12
to
Peter Duncanson wrote:
> Malcolm H wrote:
>
>> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
>> states it should be 0.4W
>
> Malcolm H wrote:
>
>> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
>> states it should be 0.4W
>
> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
Why choose made-up numbers to illustrate your point?
> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
The average "on" power for the set is rated as 207W, so it can remain in
standby for over 21 DAYS for the same energy cost as 1 hour of viewing,
rather than remaining in standby for 23 HOURS as you suggest.
Message has been deleted
Peter Duncanson
May 3, 2012, 9:54:24 AM5/3/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:25:47 +0100, Andy Burns
<usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> Malcolm H wrote:
>>
>>> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
>>> states it should be 0.4W
>>
>> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
>> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
>> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
>> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>
>Why choose made-up numbers to illustrate your point?
>
Because I was too lazy to look for actual figures, and I wanted figures
<usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> Malcolm H wrote:
>>
>>> My Panasonic TV TX-P46G10B consumes approx 30W on standby but the manual
>>> states it should be 0.4W
>>
>> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
>> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
>> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
>> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>
>Why choose made-up numbers to illustrate your point?
>
that did not involve fractions from the get-go. I was just trying to
illustrate a principle. That's all.
>The average "on" power for the set is rated as 207W, so it can remain in
>standby for over 21 DAYS for the same energy cost as 1 hour of viewing,
>rather than remaining in standby for 23 HOURS as you suggest.
Steve Terry
May 3, 2012, 6:50:36 PM5/3/12
to
Bill Wright wrote:
wasteful industry.
Some office blocks don't have switches for each floor to switch off their
lights!
Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
>> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5
>> watt hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than
>> double the amount used when on each day. Of course the total
>> consumption will be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt
>> hours total when used for an hour each day.
>
> Who cares a monkey's bollock? These amounts are minuscule compared to
> the power used in industry. The greenies attack domestic use because
> it's a soft target, and because they can work on the idiotic guilt of
> simple minded middle class females.
> Bill
>
and they pay a fraction of the residential rate, so we're subsidising
>> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
>> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5
>> watt hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than
>> double the amount used when on each day. Of course the total
>> consumption will be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt
>> hours total when used for an hour each day.
>
> Who cares a monkey's bollock? These amounts are minuscule compared to
> the power used in industry. The greenies attack domestic use because
> it's a soft target, and because they can work on the idiotic guilt of
> simple minded middle class females.
> Bill
>
wasteful industry.
Some office blocks don't have switches for each floor to switch off their
lights!
Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk
roybai...@gmail.com
May 15, 2018, 12:07:59 PM5/15/18
to
Andy Burns
May 15, 2018, 1:12:19 PM5/15/18
to
roybai...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> Quick definition: power is the rate of using energy.
>>
>> Electrical power is measured in watts or kilowatts and energy in watt
>> hours or kilowatt hours. (The "units" of consumption measured by
>> electricity meters in homes, etc. are kilowatt hours.)
>>
>> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
>> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
>> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
>> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>>
>> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
>> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
>> hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
>> the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
>> be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
>> for an hour each day.
>
replied to is correct.
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> Quick definition: power is the rate of using energy.
>>
>> Electrical power is measured in watts or kilowatts and energy in watt
>> hours or kilowatt hours. (The "units" of consumption measured by
>> electricity meters in homes, etc. are kilowatt hours.)
>>
>> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
>> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
>> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
>> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>>
>> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
>> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
>> hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
>> the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
>> be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
>> for an hour each day.
>
> This is just utter misunderstanding of electrical power!
From what I see, it must be you who is confused, as the post you
replied to is correct.
Peter Duncanson
May 15, 2018, 1:14:02 PM5/15/18
to
And thank you for reviving this thread after six years!
NY
May 15, 2018, 1:29:34 PM5/15/18
to
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:g95mfdh12ufhnb8t0...@4ax.com...
the TV uses more energy *per day* in standby rather than in use, but it is
true, nevertheless.
It doesn't help that electricity meters read in units of watt-hours, because
most people see "watt" and assume it is a power that is being talked about.
If meters registered in joules or kilojoules (multiply kWhr by 3.6 to give
kJ) then there wouldn't be the misleading (to non-scientists) "watt" in what
(*) is actually a measurement of energy.
(*) I *knew* the watt/what confusion would (unintentionally) rear its ugly
head sooner of later :-)
news:g95mfdh12ufhnb8t0...@4ax.com...
>>> Quick definition: power is the rate of using energy.
>>>
>>> Electrical power is measured in watts or kilowatts and energy in watt
>>> hours or kilowatt hours. (The "units" of consumption measured by
>>> electricity meters in homes, etc. are kilowatt hours.)
>>>
>>> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
>>> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
>>> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
>>> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>>>
>>> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
>>> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
>>> hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
>>> the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
>>> be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
>>> for an hour each day.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Duncanson
>>> (in uk.tech.digital-tv)
>>
>>This is just utter misunderstanding of electrical power!
>
> Please explain.
Yes I think the explanation makes absolute sense. It is rather alarming that
>>>
>>> Electrical power is measured in watts or kilowatts and energy in watt
>>> hours or kilowatt hours. (The "units" of consumption measured by
>>> electricity meters in homes, etc. are kilowatt hours.)
>>>
>>> If a TV uses 1 watt when in standby and 23 watts when on, and is on for
>>> one hour each day, it will consume 23 watt hours per day in standby and
>>> 23 watt hours per day when on. So it will consume the same amount *each
>>> day* when in standby as it does *each day* when on.
>>>
>>> If that TV is used for only half an hour each day the ratio gets
>>> "worse". It will consume 23.5 watt hours in standby and only 11.5 watt
>>> hours when on. So in standby it will consume slightly more than double
>>> the amount used when on each day. Of course the total consumption will
>>> be only 35 watt hours compared with the 46 watt hours total when used
>>> for an hour each day.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Duncanson
>>> (in uk.tech.digital-tv)
>>
>>This is just utter misunderstanding of electrical power!
>
> Please explain.
the TV uses more energy *per day* in standby rather than in use, but it is
true, nevertheless.
It doesn't help that electricity meters read in units of watt-hours, because
most people see "watt" and assume it is a power that is being talked about.
If meters registered in joules or kilojoules (multiply kWhr by 3.6 to give
kJ) then there wouldn't be the misleading (to non-scientists) "watt" in what
(*) is actually a measurement of energy.
(*) I *knew* the watt/what confusion would (unintentionally) rear its ugly
head sooner of later :-)
Jeff Layman
May 15, 2018, 3:35:32 PM5/15/18
to
at 3am to check for updates. If there aren't any, it will go back into
standby, but if there are, it will partially "wake up" to download them.
It won't use much energy as the screen remains dark, but it is an
additional load.
--
Jeff
Norman Wells
May 15, 2018, 5:11:07 PM5/15/18
to
to use 1 kWh, which costs about 10p.
Big deal!
Chris Green
May 16, 2018, 3:33:04 AM5/16/18
to
Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
> In any case, even if a TV uses 25 watt-hours a day, it will take 40 days
> to use 1 kWh, which costs about 10p.
>
> Big deal!
Yes! My rule of thumb is that it costs about £1 per watt-year. I.e.
>
> In any case, even if a TV uses 25 watt-hours a day, it will take 40 days
> to use 1 kWh, which costs about 10p.
>
> Big deal!
something that consumes one watt will cost about £1/year to run. It's
probably a bit more than that now but it gives a ball-park figure at
least.
--
Chris Green
·
Brian Gaff
May 16, 2018, 8:01:49 AM5/16/18
to
Has this argument really been going on since 2012?
Anyway, my old Goodmans box seems to run just as warm in standby as when
its actually running. In theory, if devices were really efficient they
should not waste power heating stuff up.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<roybai...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d461288e-be9b-4f61...@googlegroups.com...
Anyway, my old Goodmans box seems to run just as warm in standby as when
its actually running. In theory, if devices were really efficient they
should not waste power heating stuff up.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<roybai...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d461288e-be9b-4f61...@googlegroups.com...
Phi
May 16, 2018, 9:39:35 AM5/16/18
to
It's the 807s in the output.
"Brian Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pdh6jc$b2b$1...@news.albasani.net...
"Brian Gaff" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pdh6jc$b2b$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Has this argument really been going on since 2012?
> Anyway, my old Goodmans box seems to run just as warm in standby as when
> its actually running. In theory, if devices were really efficient they
> should not waste power heating stuff up.
> Brian
>
> --
> ----- -
> This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
> The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
> bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
> Blind user, so no pictures please!
> <roybai...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d461288e-be9b-4f61...@googlegroups.com...
> Anyway, my old Goodmans box seems to run just as warm in standby as when
> its actually running. In theory, if devices were really efficient they
> should not waste power heating stuff up.
> Brian
>
> --
> ----- -
> This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
> The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
> bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
> Blind user, so no pictures please!
> <roybai...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d461288e-be9b-4f61...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 20:21:34 UTC, Peter Duncanson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:06:38 -0700 (PDT), larkim
>> <matthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:06:38 -0700 (PDT), larkim
>> <matthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
Andy Burns
May 16, 2018, 11:27:59 AM5/16/18
to
Chris Green wrote:
> My rule of thumb is that it costs about £1 per watt-year.
Surprised someone hasn't been back to claim it's kilowatts/hour
> My rule of thumb is that it costs about £1 per watt-year.
0 new messages