Unplugging These 6 Gadgets Will Cut Your Electricity Bill

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/declanjewell/3009680156/sizes/z/in/photostream/" target="_blank">DeclanTM</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

We all know we’re supposed to unplug our technological gadgets when we’re not using them, and back in the days when we only had a few home electronics—a TV here, a stereo there—that wasn’t so hard to do. But as our devices proliferate (see chart below), this formerly simple task has become increasingly annoying. Who wants to spend an extra 10 minutes every morning stalking around the house and finding phone chargers and cable boxes to unplug like we’re on some kind of weird easter egg hunt? And furthermore, would the energy savings from unplugging really be enough to make it worth the effort? I asked a few experts to weigh in.

According to Bruce Nordman, an energy efficiency researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as a general rule of thumb, the bigger—and older—the device, the more power it sucks up while it’s off. So it’s much more effective to unplug the decade-old TV in your guest bedroom than the phone charger that you bought last year. Another tip: “When you put your hand on the adaptor, if it’s hot, it’s using energy. If it’s not hot, it’s probably not using very much energy.”

In general, though, Nordman doesn’t believe that unplugging modern appliances is really worthwhile, and he looks forward to the day when “smart” outlets and power strips (which are becoming more widely available) will do the thinking for us. In the meantime, “there’s probably better things to do with your time than unplugging things,” he said. “You could be changing out your lightbulbs or putting in insulation. That has a much higher return on investment.”

But an EPA spokeswoman I spoke to disagreed. She told me that the average household spends $100 a year on plugged-in devices even when they’re not being used directly. Nationwide, our idle gadgets and appliances suck up 100 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity—enough to power nearly 8.7 million homes—at a cost to consumers of about $11 billion. In addition to reminding me to choose only Energy Star-approved products, she singled out a few of the most power-hungry devices:

  1. Cable boxes: The New York Times recently reported that our little cable boxes have an outsized energy footprint. Indeed, the EPA estimates that your box setups use about 500 kilowatt-hours per year, as much electricity as your fridge. If you have more than one TV, you can request a multi-room box, which allows you to ditch all but one of your DVR devices.
     
  2. Computers: According to the EPA, computers account for 2 percent to 3 percent of overall household and office energy use in the US. As I’ve said before, sleep mode is good, but not as good as unplugging entirely. Laptops are more energy efficient, and screensavers save nothing.
     
  3. Televisions: As a general rule of thumb, the more giant and awesome your TV, the more power it sucks, and the more diligent you should be about unplugging it. Flat-screen TVs use about twice as much power as their smaller cathode-ray counterparts.
     
  4. Audio/video: All those iPod docking stations, home theaters, DVD players, and Blu-ray players add up. Cluster these devices on a smart power strip when you can. Many Energy Star-approved devices maintain their clock settings even when they’re powered off.
     
  5. Game consoles: People tend to leave game consoles on all the time. A recent Carnegie Mellon University study (PDF) estimated that power use by home game systems in the US grew by 50 percent between 2007 and 2010 and now accounts for about 1 percent of total household energy use. Interestingly, the same study found that the Nintendo Wii uses significantly less energy than other popular systems (Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation). Although many consoles now automatically switch to a power-saving idle mode after a period of inactivity, even “sleeping” games use some energy. 
     
  6. Digital picture frames. Who woulda thunk it? But since their purpose is to sit there and look pretty all day long like a normal framed photo, their energy use is significant. Find an Energy Star version or just use the old-fashioned kind.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate