Video Games Shoot Up Energy Bills

  • Playing Sonic on a Wii. The Nintendo Wii uses less energy than Sony's Playstation 3 and the XBox 360. (Photo by Manish Prabhune)

People across the country are firing up one of their favorite gifts they got from the holidays – video games. Mark Brush reports on some surprising results about what home video games can do to your energy bill:

Transcript

People across the country are firing up one of their favorite gifts they got from the holidays – video games. Mark Brush reports on some surprising results about what home video games can do to your energy bill:

Video games are a quick escape into an alternate reality… (snd up) fortunately with multiple lives.

(snd of gunfire)

There’s a war going on in this basement.

Taurus and his partner Walt are using their M-16s, grenades, and knives to fight off the enemy.

(snd)

In real life – Taurus is Will Frey.

He’s a sophomore at Michigan State University.

And he’s been working really hard on his overall ranking:

“So I am currently seven hundred and eleven thousandth”

That sounds really bad.

But actually it’s really good.

He’s better than more than 5 million other people playing Call of Duty 4 on their Xbox consoles.

It’s estimated that forty percent of U-S Households have a video game.

And that number is growing.

The games are played for hours and hours – but they’re also left on – even if nobody’s playing them:

“A lot of sports games – you can’t save in the middle of a game – and the games are like usually a half an hour, so if you’re like twenty minutes and you have to leave, you don’t want to lose that twenty minutes kind of thing you know.”

Frey says he has friends that leave their games on all the time.

They never shut them off.

Some don’t want to lose their progress in a game, and some, he says, are just plain lazy.

The Natural Resources Defense Council says some game designers overlook the energy footprint of these things.

They added up the energy used by all the gamers in the country in a year’s time. And found it roughly equals the juice drawn by a big US city in one year.

The report’s authors compared the energy used by the three most popular gaming consoles.

And the big energy winner was the Nintendo Wii.

It uses about 8 times less energy than Sony’s Playstation 3 or Microsoft’s Xbox 360.

That’s because the Wii doesn’t have the same kind of high end graphics and sound as the Xbox and Playstation – those take a lot more power to run.

Nick Zigelbaum is an energy analyst with the NRDC.

He says the games should be designed better:

“What people don’t realize is that video game consoles, although they’re very similar to laptops and computers in terms of hardware, they don’t go to sleep or go into idle mode like a computer would.”

Zigelbaum says the power hungry XBOX and Playstation games do have an autoshutdown option.

That means the games will automatically turn off if nobody’s using them.

But the games are shipped with the option turned off.

You have to manually set it.

And not all games are equal.

For some games it’s easy to save your progress – for others…
you might lose your spot in that twenty four hour car race.

Zigelbaum says that’s where the industry needs to step in:

“That’s the issue is that it’s not really standardized, it’s not really uniform throughout the whole software industry. So it would be difficult to really implement a strong auto-shutdown feature.”

Zigelbaum says a strong auto-shutdown feature would be the biggest improvement game makers could make.

That would mean no matter what – your game would be saved when the device shuts down.

If the industry did that – homeowners could save more than 100 bucks a year on their energy bills.

A Microsoft spokesperson said they encourage their users to turn the games off when they’re done.

Zigelbaum and the folks at the NRDC are hoping Microsoft and Sony will go farther – and do a better job when designing their next gaming consoles.

(snd)

Will Frey says his friends don’t really think about the energy they use.

How could you when you’ve got other things to worry about?

“Oh my gosh! That’s why the M-4 is the cheapest gun in the game. Next to LMGs.”

(snd)

That stands for “Light Machine Guns.”

Maybe next year’s gaming consoles will shoot holes in the amount of energy they use up.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Trout Used as the ‘Canary’ in a Stream

  • Natural resources workers wade in the Vermillion River, 30 minutes south of Minneapolis. They're sending mild shocks through the water to capture trout and measure them. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

Suburban growth typically degrades
the quality of rivers and lakes. But
developers are finding ways to protect
water quality even as they build housing
developments and malls. Stephanie Hemphill
reports on a stream in a major metropolitan
area that still has trophy-sized native
trout in it – and how people are working
together to protect the trout:

Transcript

Suburban growth typically degrades
the quality of rivers and lakes. But
developers are finding ways to protect
water quality even as they build housing
developments and malls. Stephanie Hemphill
reports on a stream in a major metropolitan
area that still has trophy-sized native
trout in it – and how people are working
together to protect the trout:

A half dozen people in waders stand nearly waist-deep in a bend of
the Vermillion River. They’re getting ready to send electric shocks
through the water.

(sound of gas motor starting)

They’re looking for trout.

They’re stunning the fish so they can catch them in nets. When they
have about ten fish of all sizes in their bucket, they pull their boat to
the side to count and measure them.

“You can see on the one he’s pulling out right now, it’s a male, it’s got
that big hook jaw on the front. 532. These are millimeters; that’s
about 21 inches. ”

Brian Nerbonne is a trout habitat specialist with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, and today he’s a happy man. He’s
collecting a healthy batch of trout on this river just thirty minutes from
downtown Minneapolis. He figures the big ones they’re finding are
about six years old.

“Fish grow really fast in the Vermillion: you saw when we were
shocking there’s a lot of a other fish, suckers, creek chubs, and things
like that they can eat, they grow a lot faster eating those other fish
than if they were just eating bugs.”

Biologists regard trout as a kind of canary in the coal mine. These
trout are healthy, and that’s a sign that this river is healthy for all
kinds of animals, including people.

As you walk along the stream, you can see schools and houses and
roads literally a stone’s throw from the river. Typically, development
like this threatens the trout, because it produces warm, dirty storm
water runoff.

Twenty years ago, a local sportsmen’s group asked the state to
designate parts of the Vermillion River as a trout stream. That would
mean local governments would have to do more to protect the water
quality, and not all of them were happy with the idea.

State planner Michele Hanson had the task of coaxing local officials
to get on board.

She did that by doing what the DNR is doing today – shocking the
river to show local officials there was something there worth
protecting.

“Once everyone believed us that it’s trout stream, then we went out
and met with every community along the river, of the section that we
were going to designate as trout stream, to tell them what it would
mean to them, what changes might happen.”

It would mean every town, every township and county that the river
flowed through would have to make some changes in the way they
developed.

Now, in some sections of the river, builders must leave a buffer to
protect the stream, as much as 150-feet wide.

Also, they need to avoid increasing the amount of runoff. Rainwater
that sheets off roads and driveways and rushes directly into the river
is too warm for the trout.

Builders are learning how to get the water to soak into the ground
instead. They can build narrower streets and shorter driveways.
They can build rain gardens and other landscaping that holds the
runoff long enough that it can soak in.

The state is also building structures in the river to provide better
hiding places and spawning grounds for the trout.

(sound of counting fish)

It’s all aimed at holding onto a rare treasure – a healthy trout stream in
a major metropolitan area.

For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

How Much Help From Offshore Drilling?

  • Oil is a global commodity, so oil drilled in the US would not have to stay here (Photo courtesy of the Minerals Management Service)

There’s been a lot of talk lately
about drilling for more oil off the American
coasts. Rebecca Williams reports that oil
is not required to go to the US markets:

Transcript

There’s been a lot of talk lately
about drilling for more oil off the American
coasts. Rebecca Williams reports that oil
is not required to go to the US markets:

Oil is a global commodity. Oil drilled in the US would not have to stay
here.

But most of it probably would.

Alan Good is with Morningstar. He analyzes the oil and gas industries.

“It would generally go straight to America because it would incur the lowest
transportation costs to get to the United States refineries.”

But Good says it would be at least a decade before that oil would come
online. And even then it’s not clear how much offshore drilling here would
reduce imports from the Middle East.

“It will help somewhat with imports but it’s not likely to make a huge dent.”

And he says it’ll probably have little effect on the price you pay at the pump
because world demand drives oil prices.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

The Fish Are Floundering

  • An endangered holiday darter. Darters are among the most threatened Southeastern fish; they have been likened to aquatic canaries. (Photo by Noel Burkhead, courtesy of USGS)

A new study shows things are getting
worse for fish in North America. Lester
Graham reports water pollution is the problem:

Transcript

A new study shows things are getting
worse for fish in North America. Lester
Graham reports water pollution is the problem:

The U.S. Geological Survey finds nearly twice as many kinds of fish are now listed
as imperiled today than just 20 years ago. 61 types of fish have gone extinct.

Howard Jelks is the lead author of the study.

He says the decline in fish is because most streams, rivers, and lakes are in worse
shape because of sprawling development, farmers’ chemicals, and pollution washed
off parking lots and streets.

Even if you don’t go fishing, or really even care about the fish, Jelks says there’s a
reason you should care.

“You know, at a certain point, it’s a quality of life issue. If it’s not good enough for
some of these fish, it’s probably not good enough for your kids to swim in.”

And the experts say that means we all have to think about what’s going down the
drain and what chemicals we’re putting on lawns, and on farms.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham

Related Links

Offshore Oil Estimates Don’t Add Up

  • The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants Congress to lift its ban. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:

Transcript

President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:

The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.

At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.

“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”

But the President’s numbers don’t add up.

The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Dead Zone Pollution Goes Unchecked?

  • It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the state of Massachusetts (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Environmental groups are
petitioning the government to limit
pollution from farm fields in states
that drain into the Mississippi River
and its tributaries. The pollution
contributes to a so-called ‘Dead Zone’
in the Gulf of Mexico. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups are
petitioning the government to limit
pollution from farm fields in states
that drain into the Mississippi River
and its tributaries. The pollution
contributes to a so-called ‘Dead Zone’
in the Gulf of Mexico. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Nine groups from states bordering the Mississippi River are calling for standards
to limit nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The main source of the chemicals
is runoff from farms.

Attorney Betsy Lawton is with Midwest Environmental Advocates.

She says it’s been ten years since the Environmental Protection Agency said it
would make states in the Mississippi Basin protect and clean up the waters.

“EPA has long held that it would step up and take action when states failed to do.
It has set several deadlines for states to take this type of action and limit this
pollution but has let the states slide from those deadlines.”

The nitrogen and phosphorus flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf Dead Zone
– an oxygen depleted area of about 8,000 square miles – or the size of the state
of Massachusetts.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Interview: Wind Power on the Water

  • Some people find wind turbines unsightly, and would prefer them off-shore (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:

Transcript

There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:

Thijs Westerbeek: “Actually, the public reaction is excellent, because the whole
‘nimby effect’ doesn’t occur. The thing where you like wind energy, as a
principle. You like this big mill turning around and producing clean electricity.
But you just don’t want it in your backyard. You don’t want the noise, you don’t
want the flickering effect of the sun shining through, you don’t want birds to fly
into this, and you certainly don’t want to see it. Now, if the wind turbines are off-
shore, and far enough off-shore, that problem just doesn’t exist.”

Lester Graham: “One of the concerns is that the windmills will be an eyesore.
Can you see them from shore, and does it disrupt the seascape for either folks
on the beach or boaters?”

Westerbeek: “Well, that just depends. The two small-ish windparks, they are in
front of the coast of the Netherlands, are pretty far-off. You can just see the tips
of the blades. So that isn’t really much of a disturbance. The two gigantic
windparks, off the coast of Denmark, are actually a tourist attraction. People go
to see them.”

Graham: “What kind of problems are they for marine animals and sea birds
when they’re off-shore?”

Westerbeek: “This has been tested by scientists in Denmark. And they counted
1.2 million birds passing through, and not one was hit. The birds just see the
turbines. That’s just not a problem.”

Graham: “What kind of problem do they pose for ship navigation?”

Westerbeek: “Until now, and I’ve checked this with the Maron Research Institute
– that’s the maritime research institute here in the Netherlands – there haven’t
been any accidents yet. And that’s mainly because windparks are typically built
on sandbanks where there can’t be any traffic. However, if they would be built in
sea-going routes, and a ship would bang into it, you have a possible disaster on
hand, because the turbine will collapse – hopefully not onto the ship – but if it
does fall onto the ship, that could be possibly disastrous. So the suggestion of
this scientist at Maron that I called was ‘don’t build any windmills in, for instance,
the North Sea, which is just too busy’.”

Graham: “How do they get the power from the windmills off-shore to shore? You
have to have some kind of cable, I assume.”

Westerbeek: “And that’s a problem. Because the further windparks are off-
shore, the more expensive it’s going to be to get that power on-shore. And with
rising prices for copper, that really is a problem. The cable could ultimately be
more expensive than the park itself. Off-shore windparks are definitely much,
much more expensive than on-shore windparks. That is a fact. But they are a
political solution. People who don’t want on-shore parks for the reasons I named
– unsightly things, noisy things – that is just solved, that problem, if you have an
off-shore park. So, yes, they are costly, and maybe too costly, but it’s a political
choice to have them built.”

Related Links

Dead Zone to Reach Record Size

  • It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico could be the largest ever (Photo courtesy of NASA)

A researcher is predicting farm
fertilizers will cause record “Dead Zones”
in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay
this year. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A researcher is predicting farm
fertilizers will cause record “Dead Zones”
in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay
this year. Lester Graham reports:

These dead zones are areas where oxygen is depleted. No oxygen and much of the
marine life leaves or dies. It’s caused by nitrogen-based farm fertilizers that are
washed off the fields and into the water.

Donald Scavia is a researcher at the University of Michigan. Using U.S. Geological
Survey data, he predicts the dead zone in Chesapeake Bay will be the sixth largest
on record.

“The six other ones are also not that much bigger than what we’re predicting for this
year.”

Heavy rains and flooding across the Corn Belt washed nitrogen fertilizers into the
Mississippi River system and then on to the Gulf of Mexico. Scavia predicts the
dead zone in the Gulf could be the largest ever.

“What you put down on the land is what gets flushed in those rainstorms. And we’re
putting too much fertilizer on the land. So,
what’s changed over the last three decades is agricultural practices. What changes
from year-to-year is the weather.”

Scavia says better methods of farming could reduce the dead zones.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

The Buzz on Mosquito Repellants

  • A team is researching the next generation of bug sprays, some that may not be as smelly or as sticky as DEET (Photo by Lester Graham)

It’s summertime – sometimes known as
mosquito and tick season. For decades, bug
sprays with DEET have been the most effective
to keep those disease-carrying pests away.
But there are some new repellants on the
market – and even more to come. Julie Grant
has the buzz on bug sprays:

Transcript

It’s summertime – sometimes known as
mosquito and tick season. For decades, bug
sprays with DEET have been the most effective
to keep those disease-carrying pests away.
But there are some new repellants on the
market – and even more to come. Julie Grant
has the buzz on bug sprays:

Hot summer nights haven’t changed all that much since
1957. Sure, they’re selling sushi at ball parks these days.

(sound of baseball game)

But, for the most part, people are still using the same bug
spray.

DEET was designed in the 1950s for military use.
Stores started selling it soon after. At this kids’ baseball
game in northeast Ohio, there are as many opinions about
DEET and bug sprays as there are people.

Person 1: “I if I did use bug spray, I would use DEET. I heard that’s the
best.”

Person 2: “No, actually, I am concerned about any kind of chemical. I
don’t like to use it. I don’t think it’s necessary.”

Person 3: “I’ve been scratching all week.”

Julie Grant: “Why don’t you use it?”

Person 3: “Stinks.”

Person 4: “Probably looking for something without DEET, of course,
which is pretty much outlawed anyway.”

Child: “I have a bug bite on my neck.”


Person 4: “Yes, you do have a bug bite on your neck, which is why
we need to go look for something.”


Actually, DEET is not even close to being outlawed. It’s used
hundreds of millions of times each year – by backyard
barbeque-ers and soldiers, alike.

In all these years, there have been only fifty reports of skin
problems or seizures – and those were attributed to gross
overuse, and couldn’t be definitely connected to DEET.

But it is a plasticizer. If it touches your watch face, it will
smear the plastic. And that makes people a little nervous.

And while it does drive away a wide array of bugs, including
mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus, DEET does not protect
against mosquitoes that carry malaria, or ticks that carry
lyme disease and rocky mountain spotted fever.

The worst thing about DEET for lots of people is that
stickiness and that evil smell.

Trisha Branden is a health editor with Consumer Reports
magazine. She says lots of people just don’t like using
DEET.

“But I think everyone has their own sensitivity, particularly
when it comes to the smell and feel of DEET. It’s better to
have some protection than none at all.”

Consumer Reports has surveyed bug sprays and crèmes on
the market.

They found that the higher the concentration of
DEET, the longer it protects you from bugs. At the highest
level, 98% DEET, it lasted half a day.
But some products contain as little as 7% DEET because it
smells so bad.

Some people want something else. The EPA recently
approved a new chemical – called Picaridin. It smells better.
Consumer Reports found that Picaridin products kept
mosquitoes away for up to four hours. That’s not too bad.

It’s better than the natural products. If you use soybean or
peppermint oil, Branden says you’ll probably have to reapply
a lot – at least every two hours.

“If you compare that to Picaridin product or the low DEET
products, that is not nearly the protection.”

Chemist Ulrich Burnier is on a team researching the next
generation of bug sprays. He believes there are more
effective chemicals out there. They’ve tested thousands of
chemicals and narrowed it down to seven.

“If we’re successful, the ideal product will give you 24 hours
protection, so you only have to apply once a day, you’ll be
protected around the clock. It’s not a plasticizer. And,
actually, this morning, I spent time trying to pick up odors
from these seven compounds, and none of us participating in this
study could detect any disagreeable odors from any of these
compounds.”

DEET still works pretty well. But mosquitoes and other
invading insects are thriving. As we experience climate
change, levels of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria are
on the rise.

(sound of baseball game)

When you’re at your nephew’s baseball game, and fending
off bugs, you might need to be a little patient. It could take a
few years. But experts say you should be able to find new
products that you like and that work for you.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Testing a Better Bug Spray

  • The USDA is testing a new bug spray to ward off mosquitos and other pests (Photo by Lester Graham)

Researchers are working on new chemicals
to keep mosquitoes from biting. The Environment
Report’s Mark Brush reports they might have found
a better alternative to DEET:

Transcript

Researchers are working on new chemicals
to keep mosquitoes from biting. The Environment
Report’s Mark Brush reports they might have found
a better alternative to DEET:

The EPA says DEET is safe to use on your skin. But the repellent’s smell and stickiness
turns some people off. And spraying DEET on your skin won’t protect you from all types
of mosquitoes.

So researchers are working on alternatives.

Uli Bernier is research chemist with the USDA. He says their research team is looking
for a compound that will work against some of the most dangerous mosquitoes.

“DEET works against a great variety of insects, but not against all of them. And in
particular some of the malaria transmitting mosquitoes will bite through DEET without
difficulty.”

Bernier says their research has turned up some chemicals that do a better job than DEET.
The chemicals keep mosquitoes from biting for up to three times longer. Bernier says their
next step will be to test the chemicals for possible human health effects and for their
effectiveness on other insects.

(mosquito buzzing sound)

For The Environment Report (sound of swat) – gotcha – I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links