Startling figures when you total them up. I suppose the moral of this tale is; don't hide mains sockets behind furniture, and don't install them in awkward to reach places. Of course modern style demands the uncluttered look, so how can you win? High standby power is bad design, however, do bear in mind that 'standby heat' is only a waste when the inside temp is higher than you would want - otherwise it's just heating the house. You could argue that the gas would be better burned in your own house [when you are in it], but who says their domestic gas boiler wastes less heat than the electricity supply? I have no idea which is better. You don't see independent reviews of grid efficiency, and you don't see them of gas boilers either! I switch off standby stuff if it's not in regular use, except in winter. There are plenty of useful things which could help, but you just don't see, or are very unusual. I will give you some suggestions.

We could use those remote control power switches for hard to reach sockets [Lidl supermarket had a cheap '4 from one remote' a few months ago] or for trickier setups like Hifi, IT, AV stuff you can buy sequential start power strips:

http://www.olson.co.uk/sequential.htm

that would control the order of powerup allowing a single on/off point.

Many people would be MUCH better off with 2 small chest freezers instead of 1 large upright, because:

You have safety for failure of one freezer

You can clean one at a time.

You can rotate stuff by date easier

You waste less electric with a lid versus door

and - the BIG point..

You could clean one outside, then leave it out the house in summer [out of the rain, naturally] so the waste heat was left outside. Your house would be cooler, the freezer would run less, less consumption.

I have never understood why fridges in general are not designed to use a vent pipe to the outside for losing warm air. A simple lever/gate could retain the heat indoors in winter months. In commercial situations this could save a fortune in air-conditioning etc.

Unfotunately I cant see anyone trying to make this stuff easy or popular and, as you say, more gadgets = more standby power[unless you are diligent].

Hi,

it's a good area to think about.  

I've got a Killawatt meter and checked out consumption of systems an standby.  Similar, in fact higher numbers to Chris'.  

I then got hold of remote control sockets from MAplins which allow the TV, VCR, DVD and computers to be contolled easlity even  though the outlets are 'behind the setee'.  Using these and I definitely saw a fall in consumption.  Main waste now is from my son (budding rock star) who leaves a 400watt studio he built in the attic on quite often.  I check every evening and  turn it off when I find it flaring power...

On the gas boilers, older ones tend to be around 78% efficent, the newest ones 93%. So there could be savings there - new boiler costs about a grand though.   I saved 45% of gas consumption by inslating the atic properly and turning down thermostats - easy and no real sacrifices needed.

If you want to check your own boilers efficiency (UK) there is a very extensive database of boiler types right here.  
http://www.sedbuk.com/

Next for me - solar hot water.

I also have got hold of a kw Honda generator (400 pounds off eBay), for when the lights start to flicker this coming winter or next....

If this goverment wants to realy help
energy security of the UK IT SHOULD
BAN THE SALE OF GOOD WITH STANDBUY
BUTTONS.In the long term it would save
everybody money,and cut greenhouse gases.
If you could only buy low energy lightbulbs
as well. Electrical consumption would be
significantly reduced

I have gone through a similar exercise in stripping standby energy use. I bought a power meter from Maplin and went through the house. We were consuming around 500 'standby' watts. I changed an old PC that I was using as a file server for a compact network storage device (saving over 100 watts), bought a couple of switched extension sockets and a remote control switch to make it easy to switch off things completely. I also changed the multi-plug adaptor for my desktop to one that switches off the power supply to all the PC's peripherals (monitor, printer etc). I also replaced most of the non-standard (shape/fitting) bulbs with compact florescents. The result has been that I have nearly halved my electricity bill (also with Ecotricity for the same reasons Chris mentions.) It is worth using the powermeter, as it helps identify the worst offenders. One example in our place: four IKEA halogen task lamps with integral transformer/plugs that together used 40 watts when switched off, compared with 64 when on. Our place is more gadget-filled than many households but I have repeated the exercise in my mother's considerably less gadget infested house. There a 1990 vintage Sony 14" TV used 21 watts on standby, compared to 10 watts for a mid-90s vintage 25" model, also Sony.

I also bought a meter from Maplin, and started testing appliances.  
(Background - family of four including two young kids in a medium sized,
middle-aged semi that I have tried to peak-proof in the last two years).

My total consumption is similar, 750 KWh in 3 months, but details are
different in one or two areas.

All the items I tested on stand-by barely registered on the meter - 1 or 2
watts at the most.  This surprised me, but most of them are only a few years
old.   A lot of gadgets have separate plug in transformers, and these also
use only 1-2 watts when the appliance is switched off.  Clearly, the industry has got a lot better, but I suspect most people leave set-top boxes running and don't even press the stand-by
button most of the time.  That is certainly true in my family (apart from me)!

My big energy burners are the ones you would expect - tumble dryer
(used once a week in cold, wet weather only), large fridge-freezer
(doors constantly being opened by hungry little fingers), kettle
(caffiene-addicted wife) and wireless router (only 23 watts but left on 24/7
in a shut drawer to keep out of range of little fingers...)

We have two bedside lamps rated at 20 Watts DC (but actually consume
40W each - obviously very inefficient transformers!) No, I don't know why we
bought them.

The meter provided no big shocks, but it did confirm we have been on the
right lines in reducing (or not increasing) our consumption.   My bills
have gone up considerably after my household went from one to two to
four people, and I have found it a constant struggle to educate my family and
organise and re-organise the household to make it easy and convenient
 NOT to waste energy.

The major item I have not tested is teh washing machine, also the oldest
applience in the house.  If anyone knows any way of teaching toddlers how
to eat and play without getting all their clothes covered in jam, yoghurt and
mud I would be very pleased to know!

For the lazy reader: 1 kWh/day = 41.7 Watts

Chris, a most timely post on a subject about which we will doubtless hear a lot more of in future.  Today's Daily Telegraph has an article detailing the potential impact of the rising ownership of household electronic equipment on UK power consumption, in particular the consequences of the switch from analogue to digital TV: Analogue swtich-off blamed for energy crisis

Here's an extract:

Household electricity use is rising, with the share used by electronic goods -televisions, digital boxes and chargers - expected to double by 2010, according to a report published today....The main reason for the rising electricity demand from electronic goods identified by the report is the Government's decision to switch off analogue TV signals by 2012, requiring everyone to fit digital set-top boxes or find sets obsolete..

The real concern I have is the virtual absence of regulatory action which has allowed the sale (or more accurately 'give away' upon taking out a 12 month Sky TV contract) of digi-boxes with such a poor standby power specification.  While it's technically feasible to produce equipment with (say) a 1 watt standby power consumption corners have effectively been cut with result that standby power demand is some 10 or 20 times what is achievable.  To compound the situation consumers have been replacing more traditional TV's with plasma screen models (and with much larger screens) with the net result that such TV's consume up to 4x power of earlier models.

UK plc and consumers are going to pay an extremely heavy price for such lax consideration of domestic energy consumption.  As we have discussed on other threads the lead time for power stations is such that most of the extra energy required to drive all this extra household equipment will have to be imported....and at prices which may well reach $100/boe.  The ongoing march of UK N Sea oil and gas declines could well increase UK's annual import bill by £16m per day from now thru 2014; the only real question here is 'how soon will the (economic) music stop?'

I'm going to weigh in on the elec vs. gas debate here.
I've recently bought a house which has no gas connection.  Due to the insane capital cost of connecting to the gas main (just outside in the street) plus installing Gas central heating we're quite happy to run all electric heating/cooking.  Plus we've recently added air conditioning as south west England gets quite hot these days.

First I'd like to take to task all those that wish to remove the so-called perverse pricing incentives for increased consumption.  We have cheaper electricity at certain times of the day and night to allow us to economically run off peak heating systems in the winter and air con during the summer.  This is simply demand led pricing, we get cheaper power off peak because the power companies are trying to stimulate demand (or push some of the variable demand to off peak times eg washing machines/tumble driers).
In our situation we certainly don't get cheaper power if magically double our consumption.  The cost benefits are there to incentivise us to help balance the load on the grid and allow us to heat our home affordably.  Even at 4.5p/kWh the power co are still making money.  
The suggestion of allowing each house cheap power up to a certain value for heating/cooking lighting and then increased power thereafter has merit, but who gets to decide what a reasonable level is.  It would vary massively for different values of insulation/efficiency.  Lets not forget that here in the UK we're cursed with a huge amount of 100+ year old housing stock, which isn't about to disappear anytime soon.  Laughably much of our very recent housing stock is just as inefficient as the stuff built just pre and post WW2.   I should know, my house is but 20 years old and is draughtier and less well insulated than my parents 1930's semi detached.  Where I live it seems modern housing is built down to a price, not up to a standard.

So how do you decide what is required for a given house for its base load heating/cooking.  What about size?  Would you get a bigger allowance for more sq meters?  You'd certainly need it for a large family home vs. a small starter flat.

The whole scheme is just ripe for political interference, with extra "base" allowance being granted if you're "poor", on benefits, an asylum seeker, labour voter etc etc.  Soon those who can be squeezed for extra cash will end up subsidizing those voted in a certain way.  Don't think this will happen?  It already is with council tax.  More central govt. cash making its way to "favoured" areas, with other areas having to increase council tax to cover costs.  Unsurprisingly favoured areas happen to be mainly Labour controlled.  I would not be surprised in the slightest if the opposite happened under a Conservative govt.  Both sides are as bad as each other.

No, if anything the energy markets should remain free of this kind of political interference.  Price should be set by the open market.  The Govt. role should be limited to long term strategic policy making to encourage efficiency and encourage new gen. capacity to be built in a way which will not leave the UK venerable either economically or socially.  We will not be able to compete with other economies in the next 30 to 50 years if we make the wrong decisions now.  Further power outages will make UK plc a very unattractive place for business if allowed to occur, so to say that we will have to curb demand is slightly naive.  Sure, efficiency can help, but to expect industry to simply switch off to help reduce carbon emissions/reduce fuel consumption is not going to happen.  Industry will simply relocate elsewhere.

If we're not careful that elsewhere will be France, with its nice stable nuclear capacity.

A thought has struck me and I would be interested in your comments.

Would reducing our standby consumption really reduce the number of power stations we need? My point is that we are talking about standby consumption:- when people get home in the evening and turn on their TVs, HiFis, PCs etc much of this standby consumption turns into full load consumption. Hence reducing standby consumption may reduce our overall energy use, but have little effect on peak energy requirement. As the total number of power stations is governed more by peak energy demand, reducing standby consumption may not remove the need for replacing our aging fleet of nuclear power stations (complete with cracking cores http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5149650.stm ).