Cable boxes and DVRs use more power than refrigerators

It’s no surprise that the use of DVRs is increasing as more and more people become used to time-shifting instead of watching television on the networks’ schedule. DVRs are compared to competitors so that customers can find the best fit for their lives. Now the New York Times is reporting something that may surprise many people: Your set-top boxes consume more energy in a year than your refrigerator.

Initially you might assume that the main culprit is the hard drive spinning in the device, but according to the article, it only accounts for an additional 104 kilowatt-hours a year; a normal HD set-top box generates 171 kilowatt-hours a year compared to 275 kilowatt-hours a year for an HD DVR. The problem is that the electronics run 24x7, even when not being used by the customer. Some of this is related to the fact that providers push software updates in the middle of the night, while another issue is that customers expect their television to be “instant-on.” One of the biggest complaints about HD DVD and Blu-Ray way the fact that it took minutes for the machines to boot up, so having to wait for your set-top box to boot up each time would not be acceptable to most people.

Another issue with a DVR is that it needs to be running so that it knows when to start recording your television shows. Some DVRs, such as TiVo, will even record shows that it thinks you might like based on your previous viewing habits. Although a DVR could be made to spin down the drive and underclock the processor when not in use, a big chunk of power will still be consumed.

Although the article is a little misleading in that it shows two electronic devices taking up more power than a single appliance, with families having multiple set top boxes and DVRs in their house, it is a real concern.

Image Courtesy of New York Times

Another issue with a DVR is that it needs to be running so that it knows when to start recording your television shows.

No. It would be pretty easy to design it so that it takes very little power to just watch the clock and then spin up the hard disk and high speed encoding hardware when it is scheduled to record.

ome of this is related to the fact that providers push software updates in the middle of the night, while another issue is that customers expect their television to be “instant-on.”

Ditto. Checking the network is very low power. Also, it doesn't need to check constantly. Once an hour should be vastly more than enough.

The problem with my old ReplayTV is that even when it is "off" all that happens is the output is shut off. It still is constantly recording what it is tuned to, so I can turn on the box and say "That looks interesting. I think I'll rewind an hour to see how it started." That functionality means it is using 42 watts constantly whether it is "on" or "off". That's 368 kilowatts-hours a year (and the same amount for the downstairs one). Just being able to turn off live recording and a good stand by mode could save a lot of power.

I agree. MY DVR just whirrs and purrs all the time whether I use it or not, probably keeping a ton of data constnatly updated on the hard drive on the odd chance I might turn it on and watch it.

One cable company promotes a box that lets you rewind a show back to the beginning that you weren't watching or recording. That's got to be an energy hog.

I don't honestly believe that they are as energy-hungry as a refrigerator but I do think there must be several ways they could be made to run less when they are turned off. The problem is that customers don't want to wait for a boot-up time with their hard drives or program guides. I wish customers were given the option to be energy-efficient or "instant on".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.