
All energy consumption values in this tool are measured in watt-hours (Wh), which is the amount of energy consumed over time. The basic formula for calculating energy consumption is: Energy (Wh) =…
All energy consumption values in this tool are measured in watt-hours (Wh), which is the amount of energy consumed over time. The basic formula for calculating energy consumption is:
Energy (Wh) = Power (Watts) × Time (Hours)
For example, a 100-watt light bulb used for 2 hours would consume 200 watt-hours of energy.
Most products on this list are electrical, but energy use for non-electric products (such as petrol car or gas heating) are converted into watt-hour equivalents.
Energy costs are available for a small selection of countries based on their national energy prices (electricity, gas and petrol). This price data is sourced from Eurostat, Ofgem, and the US EIA (based on prices for 2025 or early 2026, depending on availability). Costs reflect average household prices, and don't reflect dynamic, off-peak or smart tariffs.
Below, I list the assumptions and sources for each product or activity. Again, the actual level of energy consumption will depend on factors such as the specific efficiency of the product, user settings, and climate so these should be interpreted as approximations to give a sense of magnitude.
Traditional incandescent bulbs typically range from 25 to 100 watts, with 60 watts being relatively standard for a household bulb. One hour of use would consume 60 Watt-hours (Wh).
LED bulbs use around 80% less energy than incandescent bulbs for the same amount of light output. A standard LED bulb has an energy rating of around 10 W. Using it for one hour would consume 10 Wh.
Modern smartphones have battery capacities of 3,000-5,000 mAh at approximately 3.7-4.2V, resulting in batteries around 15-20 watt-hours. If we assume there is around 10% to 20% loss due to charging efficiencies, a full charge likely requires around 20 Wh.
Medium-efficiency TVs (for example, 40-50 inch LED TVs) consume approximately 60 watts during active viewing.
Larger modern TVs (55-60 inches with 4K capability) typically consume 80-100 watts. I've gone with 90 watts as a reasonable average.
The power consumption of Apple MacBooks vary depending on the model and what applications users are running.
When doing everyday tasks such as writing emails, word documents, or browsing the internet, they consume around 5 to 15 watts. Streaming video is more like 15 to 20 watts. When doing intensive tasks such as editing photos or video, or gaming a MacBook Pro can reach 80 to 100 watts.
Here I have assumed an average of 20 watts.
Desktop computers vary widely, but more efficient models consume approximately 50 watts. When doing light tasks, this can be a bit lower. Gaming computers can use far more, especially during peak usage (often several hundred watts).
The power consumption of game consoles can vary a lot, depending on the model. The Xbox Series S typically consumes around 70 watts during active gameplay. The Xbox Series X consumes around twice as much: 150 watts.
Game consoles use much less when streaming TV or film, or when in menu mode.
The marginal increase in energy consumption for one hour of streaming is around 0.2 Wh. This comprises of just 0.028 Wh from Netflix's servers themselves, and another 0.18 Wh from transmission and distribution.
To stream video, you need an internet connection, hence a bar for the electricity consumption for Home WiFi is also shown. Note that, for most people, this isn't actually the marginal increase in energy use for streaming. Most people have their internet running 24/7 regardless; the increase in energy use for streaming is very small by comparison. However, it is shown for completeness.
This does not include the electricity usage of the device (the laptop or TV itself). To get the total for that hour of viewing, combine it with the power usage of whatever device you're watching it on.
h/t to Chris Preist (University of Bristol) for guidance on this.
YouTube figures are likely similar to Netflix (see above), although they may be slightly higher due to typical streaming patterns and ad delivery. Again, you need to add the power consumption of the device you're watching on, separately.
WiFi routers typically consume between 10 and 20 watts continuously. Here I've assumed 15 watts as a reasonable average.
Recent research estimates that the median ChatGPT query using GPT-4o consumes approximately 0.3 watt-hours of electricity.
Actual electricity consumption varies a lot depending on the length of query and response. More detailed queries — such as Deep Research — will consume more (but there is insufficient public data to confirm how much).
If improved data becomes available on more complex queries, image generation and video, I would like to add them.
E-readers like the Kindle use e-ink displays that consume power primarily when refreshing the page. A typical Kindle device has a battery of around 1000–1700 mAh at ~3.7 V, which is 3.7 to 6 Wh. People report it lasting weeks on a full charge with moderate (30 minute per day) reading frequency.
That works out to less than 1 Wh per hour. Here I've been conservative and have rounded it up to 1 Wh.
Electric kettles typically have power rating between 1500 and 2000 watts. Boiling a full kettle (1.5-1.7 litres) takes around 3 to 4 minutes.
A 2000-watt kettle that takes 3 minutes to boil will consume around 100 watt-hours.
Microwaves typically have a power rating between 800 and 1,200 watts. If we assume 1000 watts, five minutes of use would consume 83 Wh (1000 * 0.08).
Electric ovens can have a power rating ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 watts. A typical one is around 2500 watts.
Once an oven is on and has reached the desired temperature, it typically cycles and runs at around 50% to 60% capacity. I've therefore calculated energy consumption as [2,500W × time × 0.55].
Gas ovens consume natural gas for heating but also use electricity for ignition and controls (approximately 300-400 watts). When converting the thermal energy from gas combustion to electrical equivalents for comparison purposes, gas ovens typically use slightly more total energy than electric ovens due to combustion inefficiency.
Similar to electric ovens, I have assumed that gas ovens cycle on and off once they've reached the desired temperature.
Small air fryers typically operate at 800W to 1500W. Larger models (especially with two trays) can be as much as 2500W. I've assumed 1500 watts in these calculations. Once an air fryer is on, it typically cycles and only runs at around 50% to 60% of capacity. Averaged over a cycle, 1000W is likely more realistic.
Ten minutes of use would consume 167 Wh (1000W * 0.17 hours = 167 Wh).
Induction hobs are efficient, and tend to have a power rating of 1,000W to 2,000W per ring. I've assumed 1,500 watts in these calculations. Like air fryers, they're often not operating at maximum power draw for the full cooking session. 50% is more typical. That means the average power usage is closer to 750W.
Most cooking activities take less time; typically 5 to 10 minutes, which reduces electricity consumption.
Gas hobs convert natural gas to heat. They tend to consume 2 to 2.5-times as much energy as induction hobs to achieve the same heat output. This is because they typically operate at around 40% efficiency, compared to 85% for an electric hob.
If an induction hob has an average rating of 750W over a cooking cycle, the useful heat delivered is 638W (750W * 85% efficiency). To get that useful heat from a gas hob with 40% efficiency would need 1595W (638W / 0.4). Here I've assumed an equivalent power input of 1600W.
A small-to-medium refrigerator (around 130 litres) typically consumes around 100 kWh per year, which equals approximately 275 Wh per day on average.
Standard refrigerator-freezer combinations consume anywhere between 200 and 500 kWh per year. Some very efficient models can achieve less than 200 kWh. Here, I have assumed one consumes 300 kWh per year. That is approximately 822 Wh per day.
Vacuum cleaners typically use 500W to over 1,500W. Popular models in the UK use around 620W or 750W. Here, I have assumed a power rating of 750W. Ten minutes of usage would consume 125 Wh.
Washing machine energy usage varies a lot depending on load size, cycle type and water temperature. An average load in an efficient, modern machine might use 600 Wh to 1,000 Wh per cycle. A large load could be use than 1,500 Wh. Here I have assumed 800 Wh, which is typical for a medium load.
Electric tumble dryers are among the highest energy consumers in the home. Heat pump models are much more efficient than condenser or vented models. A condenser or vented model might consume between 4000 and 5000 Wh per cycle. A heat pump model, around half as much.
Here, I have assumed 4500 Wh for condenser or vented cycles, and 2000 Wh for a heat pump cycle. Actual energy consumption will depend on factors such as load size and user settings.
Most energy in a dishwasher is used for heating the water. They typically use between 1,000 and 1,500 Wh per cycle. Very efficient models can use closer to 500 Wh per cycle. Operating on eco modes will also consume less than 1,000 Wh.
Here, I have assumed 1,250 Wh per cycle, which is fairly average for most users.
Clothes irons typically have an energy rating between 1500W and 3000W. Steam irons are towards the higher end of the range. Here, I have assumed 2500W, which is fairly standard for a steam iron.
Using one for 10 minutes would consume 417 Wh of power.
Dehumidifiers can range from as small as a few 100 watts, up to several thousand for large whole-house units.
Here I've assumed a medium, portable one with an energy rating of 500W. And a large unit of 1000W.
In humid conditions, or if they're being used to dry clothes, they will be running at or close to maximum power draw for a long period of time. In fairly low-humidity conditions, they might cycle on and off after a few hours, meaning their energy use drops to 50% to 70% of the maximum.
Hairdryers typically range from 1,000 to 2,000 watts. I have assumed a power rating of 1,750W. Five minutes of use would consume 146 Wh.
Electric showers are high-power appliances, rated between 7,500W to 11,500W. Specific models of 7.2 kW, 7.5 kW, 8.5 kW, 9.5 kW, 10.5 kW, and 11.5 kW are typical.
I have assumed a 9,500W model here. A 10-minute shower at 9,500 watts would consume 1,583 Wh.
An electric shower with hot water sourced from a heat pump will use less electricity.
If we assume a heat pump with a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 3, producing the same heat output would use around 3,000 Wh per hour. Some very efficient models can achieve less than this; often closer to 2,000 Wh.
If we take the gas equivalent of an electric shower (rated at 9500W) and assume a boiler efficiency of 90%, we get around 10,500W in energy input equivalents. A 10-minute shower would consume 1,759 Wh.
Standard fans typically use 30-75 watts, with 50 watts being a reasonable average.
Small portable electric heaters typically range from 400 to 1,000 watts. Here I've assumed a wattage of 750W. Using this for one hour would consume 750 Wh.
A medium space heater typically operates at around 1,500 watts (ranging from 1,000 to as much as 3,000 for large ones). That means using one for an hour would consume 1,500 Wh.
Modern air-source heat pumps for single rooms (mini-splits) typically consume 600 to 1000 watts of electricity per hour of heating. This would be converted into around 1,800 to 3,000 Wh of heat.
Here we are assuming a Coefficient of Performance (CoP) value of around 3, which means 3 units of heat are generated per unit of electricity input.
These calculations are very sensitive to weather conditions, temperature settings, and the insulation of the house. These values might be typical for a moderate climate (such as the UK) in winter. In slightly warmer conditions, energy usage will be lower. In colder conditions, it would be higher.
The power draw can also be a bit lower than this once the heat pump is running.
Here, I've assumed they consume 800Wh of electricity per hour. That would supply 2,400Wh of heat.
We will assume our gas heating needs to supply the same amount of heat as our heat pump: 2,400 Wh.
A gas boiler is around 90% efficient, so the energy input needed would be 2,700 Wh (2,400 * 90%).
Again, this is very sensitive to the specific boiler system, climate and heating requirements.
We can't get a whole house figure by simply multiplying by the number of rooms. Energy consumption will depend a lot on the heat loss and fabric of the house.
In the UK, a 3-bedroom house has an area of around 90m². A building of this size might have a heat loss of around 50 to 100 W/m². We'll say 75 W/m². That would mean 6,750W of heat is required (90m² * 75 W/m²).
Getting this from a heat pump with a CoP of 3 would consume 2,250Wh of electricity per hour (6750 / 3). This is what I've assumed in our calculations. In reality, the consumption is probably lower as energy draw reduces once the heat pump is up and running.
We'll use the same assumptions as above for a heat pump. We need to supply 6,750W of heat for the house.
Getting this from a 90% efficient boiler would consume 7,500Wh of gas per hour.
The average household in the UK uses around 31,000Wh of gas per day. That's equivalent to 4–5 hours of heating (a bit less if their daily total includes a gas shower etc.). In winter, these heating hours will likely be higher, and during the summer, close to zero.
I think 7,500Wh of gas per hour therefore seems reasonable (but very sensitive to a specific household's circumstances).
Air conditioning units for single rooms typically use 800 to 1,500 watts. I've assumed 1,000W in these calculations.
The actual energy usage will be very sensitive to climate conditions. Warmer, and especially humid climates make AC units much less efficient. Running one in a moderate, drier climate would use much less.
They can also consume less energy once they're up-and-running, so they're not always going at maximum power draw.
Electric bicycles typically consume between 10 to 30 watt-hours per mile depending on speed, the cycling conditions, and how high the level of electric assist is. For light assist on flat terrain, it's around 8 to 12 Wh; for moderate, around 12 to 18 Wh; and for heavy assist on hilly terrain it can reach 30 Wh per mile.
I've assumed a value of 15 Wh per mile.
Electric scooters typically consume 15-30 watt-hours per mile depending on the model and conditions. Here, I've assumed a usage of 25 Wh per mile.
Electric motorbikes typically consume 100 to 250 watt-hours per mile depending on the model, driver weight and conditions. Real-world tests of motorbike efficiency find efficiencies of around 100 Wh per mile for moderate urban driving. People report higher usage when driving at higher speeds or motorway driving.
Here I've assumed around 150 Wh per mile.
Petrol motorbikes can consume between 50 and 100 miles per gallon. Let's take an average of 75mpg. A gallon is around 4.5 litres, so 75mpg is equivalent to 0.06 litres per mile.
The energy content of petrol is around 32 MJ per litre (or 8.9 kWh per litre). That equates to 0.53 kWh per mile (8.9kWh per litre * 0.06 litres per mile). Driving one mile uses around 530 Wh per mile.
In terms of energy inputs, this means an electric motorbike is 3 to 4 times as efficient as a petrol one.
Electric vehicles average approximately 0.3 kWh (300 Wh) per mile. However, this can range from 200 to 400 Wh per mile depending on the type of vehicle, driving conditions and speed.
Petrol cars average around 40 miles per gallon (ranging from around 25 to 50).
Taking an energy density of ~40 kWh per UK gallon for petrol, there are around 40.5 kWh in a UK gallon (there are 4.546 litres in a gallon * 8.9kWh per litre).
This means a petrol car uses around 1kWh (1,000 Wh) per mile. This means an electric car is around 3 to 4 times more efficient, since it has far less energy losses from the engine, heat production, and braking.
Most corded electric lawnmowers have an energy rating between 1000W and 2000W. Here I have assumed 1500W.
Petrol lawnmowers are much less efficient than their electric equivalents, as much less input energy is converted into turning the blades.
A standard petrol lawnmower uses around 1 litre of petrol an hour (slightly less in more efficient models). Since the energy content of petrol is 8.9kWh per litre, they therefore use 8,000 to 10,000 Wh per hour. Here I have assumed 9,000 Wh.
Standard power strimmers range from around 250 watts to 700 watts. Smaller models will only be suitable for short grass.
Here I've assumed 500 watts.
Gas power strimmers are less efficient than electric models.
Data on this was hard to find, but a standard one probably consumes around 0.4 litres of petrol per hour. Since the energy content of petrol is 8.9kWh per litre, they therefore use around 3,500 Wh per hour in energy equivalents.
Pressure washers typically have a power rating between 1,500 and 3,000 watts. For this tool, I've assumed 2,000 watts as standard.
Per hour, they will use 2,000 Wh when used continuously. Most people will take breaks and pauses during this time, so you should take that into account. If you break half the time, and use one for an hour, then the energy use is equivalent to half an hour (1,000 Wh).
I appreciate all of the feedback and comments from users. I continue to implement fixes and updates based on these suggestions.
Here is a log of changes and improvements.
I attached a generator with some supercaps and an inverter to a stationary bicycle a few years ago, and even though I mostly use it as a way to feel less guilty watching Youtube videos, it does give me a quite literal feel for some of the items on the lower end of the scale.
- Anything even even halfway approaching a toaster or something with a heater in it is essentially impossible (yes, I know about that one video).
- A vacuum cleaner can be run for about 30 seconds every couple minutes.
- LED lights are really good, you can charge up the caps for a minute and then get some minutes of light without pedaling.
- Maybe I could keep pace with a fridge, but not for a whole day.
- I can do a 3D printer with the heated bed turned off, but you have to keep pedaling for the entire print duration, so you probably wouldn't want to do a 4 hour print. I have a benchy made on 100% human power.
- A laptop and a medium sized floor fan is what I typically run most days.
- A modern laptop alone, with the battery removed and playing a video is "too easy", as is a few LED bulbs or a CFL. An incandescent isn't difficult but why would you?
- A cellphone you could probably run in your sleep
Also gives a good perspective on how much better power plants are at this than me. All I've made in 4 years could be made by my local one in about 10 seconds, and cost a few dollars.
Where I am at least, people using less power because power because power need to profit more, is wild.
They literally had record profits the last few years, rather than being forced to lay down solar. I think power should be a global endeavor, not some local for profit business with complete regulatory capture that makes competition illegal.
Yes I'm angry, because I pay more in electric than most anywhere in the world. If I charge my care with LEVEL 2 using city provided charges, during the day, it's more expensive than gas.
Energy security is national security.
Cheap electricity means you can do things that made "no sense" with expensive electricity. (e.g. smelt aluminum)
Cheap electricity means you can underbid regions that have expensive electricity...
As Technology Connections said, "Panels that cover your electrical needs for the next 25+ years? In the Midwest, we call that a good deal!"
I love Technology Connections, but he has no idea what discounting is in economics. Or at least he writes his videos as if he doesn't.
What discount rate are you using?
Solar has one of the lowest capital costs [1] so the discounting works in it's favor. And then the non-discountable operating costs also works in its favor since the fuel supply (light) is free.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
Yup. It's why even in fairly red states like my own (Idaho) solar, wind, and battery are going up everywhere. Even without significant subsidies the economics are really good for renewables.
They'd be even better if we didn't have extreme tariffs on China.
That's actually what's convinced me that renewables are a better choice than nuclear. I still like nuclear, but renewables are just so much easier and faster to deploy while being a lot cheaper. To make nuclear competitive requires regulatory changes along with a government that's simply willing to tell it's NIMBY citizens YIMBY.
Government literally has to get in the way of renewable deployments at this point to stop them.
Yes, the tariffs on Chinese PV and EV are really crazy.
Well, at least we don't believe in tariffs where I chose to live.
No, the problem is he speaks like he doesn't understand discounting at all. He treats a recurring revenue (or energy) as fundamentally different from a one time gain, as opposed to something you funge via discounting rates.
You are one level ahead: I'm more than happy to debate what discounting rates you should be using!
Oops it’s actually 0.6 TW.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
Convert TWh to TW for a year average.
Huh! I'm kind of stunned that we only use ~30x the power that we did back then. If I'd been asked to guess I would have added another 0 or even two of them.
Yeah we had an exponential jump when we discovered oil but we maxed that out and the growth has been linear since (and paying for it environmentally too).
I’m waiting for the next big major discovery in energy generation.
We’re always on the verge of fusion… fusion will be like the discovery of oil. Humanity will jump forward… well, technologically at least.
You're trying to converse with a LLM. It's made up.
Nope it’s 100% legit and I even remembered it wrong. It’s actually 0.6 TW.
You can get the number of TW from this report https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
Convert TWh to TW for a year average.
I don't know, but HN in particular has an AI-sycophancy problem where I see this most common versus other link aggregator sites.
is that a sustained 20TW? Absolutely crazy that we're generating 60kwh per person daily. Where does it all go?
Lots of it is lost to heat with legacy fossil generation.
You have pretty much the same heat losses with nuclear, or anything else where you heat water to turn a turbine.
Nuclear is low carbon, it’s fine we lose heat to extract that energy versus stationary and mobile combustion generation, as there is no other effective way to extract that energy at this time.
Quantification of global waste heat and its environmental effects - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062... - Applied Energy Volume 235, 1 February 2019, Pages 1314-1334
* 49.3–51.5% of global energy use would end up as waste heat in 2030.
* Transport sector accounts for the largest (43%) recoverable waste heat in 2030.
I made no claims about carbon.
To note, we are almost at installing 1TW of solar PV every year globally.
Most of those technologies also need uninterrupted power supplies. Something wind, solar and batteries for the next 50 years aren't.
Ember Energy: Solar electricity every hour of every day is here and it changes everything - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... - June 21st, 2025
> Batteries are now cheap enough to unleash solar’s full potential, getting as close as 97% of the way to delivering constant electricity supply 24 hours across 365 days cost-effectively in the sunniest places.
What does this mean? It means we are most of the way there with solar and batteries alone, even if we need a bit of carbon based generation to bridge the gap while solar and battery deployments scale globally. Solar and batteries will only continue to get less expensive and better.
Our World In Data: Installed solar energy capacity - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...
Solar PV go brrr.
Pumped hydro is one solution. You bank the excess wind/solar using gravitational potential energy and then draw on that whenever you need to.
Pumped hydro energy storage relies on the cheapness of water and existing geology. If you have to build the chambers instead of damming a river it's too expensive. Most of the good spots to have a reservoir are already used. If you have to manufacture the bulk media instead of just using water it's too expensive.
Pumped hydro doesn't need a river, "just"* rock which isn't water porous and some nearby body of water (lake, sea, whatever).
The economics works out even if you were lifting concrete blocks rather than water, hence why you get pictures like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_Vault_Test_Tower_2...
The argument against lifting concrete is that you can dig a hole in the ground an pump water in/out of it for more reliability and lower cost than having a crane lift and lower concrete, and it's easy to make it much bigger both horizontally and vertically, so why bother.
But it does appear to be economical even with that, and water is cheaper.
We make lots of holes in the ground on a regular basis, including for extracting fossil fuels. Here's two, note scale bar, though I have no idea what the rock around it is like regarding water losses: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9063171,6.4418046,17655m/dat...
* it's never "just" with things on this scale
There are exactly zero economically viable pumped water storage systems where water towers are involved. If you do the math for the amount of a mass of water, you'll see why! It's not feasible.
Indeed, you can get a sense of the scale on the Dinorwig wikipedia page and the pages it links to.
It has a storage capacity of about 9.1GWh.
The upper reservoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchlyn_Mawr) holds 9.2 million cubic meters of water.
So 1 million cubic meters of water provides ~1GWh.
We can see how that compares in terms of raw GPE (Gravitational Potential Energy):
1 million cubic meters of water = 1E6 * 1E3 kg = 1E9 kg
There's roughly a 500m vertical drop between the upper and lower takes at Dinorwig so:
1E9 kg * 500 m * 9.8 m/(s^2) = 4.9E12 J =~ 1.36GWh
As for water towers, if you look at something like the Roihuvuori tower in Helsinki (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_tower) which is one of the largest:
Height: 52m, Capacity: 12000 cubic meters
If we are generous and say that all of the water is stored at the maximum height then:
12000 * 1E3 kg * 52m * 9.8 m/(s^2) =~ 1.7MWh
You'd need over 5000 of them to match what Dinorwig can provide.
> Something wind, solar and batteries for the next 50 years aren't.
False. If you'd stopped before the "and" you would have been correct, though.
Batteries are really cheap now, and supply of batteries is growing basically as fast as people can get the investments and permissions for the inputs and the factories.
Have you heard of batteries?
> They literally had record profits the last few years, rather than being forced to lay down solar. I think power should be a global endeavor, not some local for profit business with complete regulatory capture that makes competition illegal.
Sounds more like you guys should be lowering barriers to entry, not setting up a global non-profit cartel.
True. I suggested global because it allows for scale with copy/paste designs, where things like nuclear could actually become viable.
Where I am, we have a solidly aligned state government. There's no concept of consequences for anyone in power. They're paid by the local companies to pass laws to make competition legal. Some are investors. All corrupt. That's what you get with a solid political alignment.
Vote with your feet (and wallet), and support anything that makes people voting with their feet easier.
It's the McDonald's theory of policy: you don't vote on their burgers at the ballot box, you just go to Burger King or get a doner kebab, if you don't like it.
Australia I assume?
Did you try charging an e-bike with your contraption?
I don't know what you can take of this, maybe you can see it as advance pedaling, or to get a feel for energy conversion losses. Anyways, it is the kind of harmlessly stupid idea that I would want to try just because I could.
What a ridiculous idea, I love it.
Once I did a little bike training and looking at my power curve, I was incredibly impressed by how cheap energy is. 100W is an all day number, 200W less so, 300W is exactly 20 minutes when I do an FTP test. 400W is 4x Tour de France winner Tadej Pogačar for an hour and he's a mutant. 1 horsepower is under a minute iirc, definitely under 2. 1kW is maybe 10 seconds. So I could keep my laptop and phone charged probably indefinitely as long as I have food, but not a ton more than that.
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-racing/tour-de-fran...
Amazing stuff, have you written up a blog post? I could see a video being a fun format for this as well. Might help people develop the intuition for watts/power consumption in a different way
Kind of, it's in bits and pieces here:
https://hackaday.io/project/191731-practical-power-cycling
and is also a few years out of date.
I did do a video back then going against the infamous "bicycle toaster challenge" video (in which I determined it was probably less real than they made it out to be). I'm nowhere as fit as those guys, so in my attempt I was only able to turn a bagel into a dry crouton over the course of an hour.
Any sense what the efficiency ratio was for your setup?
I'm as curious as you to be honest - putting a strain gauge on the pedals for measuring mechanical power has been on my list for quite a while. My own (probably inaccurate) measurements right after the generator says I can get 60-70Wh in an hour, but I can get to 100Wh if I try harder. I have reason to believe my setup underestimates power because my ammeter clamps at 5A and I know I can peak over that on the down stroke of the pedal.
I've seen numbers like 250W mechanical power for an average trained cyclist, so either my setup is rather inefficient, my measurements are off, or I'm going to find out that I'm nowhere near as strong as a real cyclist.
On the other hand, the stationary bike I got originally had a rubber belt, which it would chew excessively and I eventually swapped it for a chain because it kept slipping in spite of tensioning it more, suggesting I'm hitting the thing harder than it was originally designed for (how that translates into power I'm not sure).
> I've seen numbers like 250W mechanical power for an average trained cyclist, so either my setup is rather inefficient, my measurements are off, or I'm going to find out that I'm nowhere near as strong as a real cyclist.
Cyclists' power output is sometimes reported as a 'power curve' - a chart with power on the vertical axis, and duration-of-that-power on the horizontal axis.
For example, a cyclist might be be able to produce 500W for 15 seconds; 350W for 1 minute; 270W for 10 minutes; 200W for 1 hour; and 150W for 5 hours.
Oh don’t sell yourself short. It can certainly be both! (:
Thanks for sharing the details.
All in good fun of course, it has to be healthier than watching Youtube just sitting around normally.
The author Hannah Ritchie works on Our World In Data and also publishes the fantastic Sustainability by Numbers substack. It's in the same vein as the late, great David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.
This tool has its own recent substack post. See the comments too, especially the one by Chris Preist that contextualizes the energy usage of streaming video (a topic that has also been discussed on HN before).
Yep. It's a very good book and well worth a read.
It's interesting to see how upset people are on Goodreads about that book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/145624737-not-the-end-of...
The top reviews are mostly people angry with Ritchie for not being a catastrophist.
Who pays for their research?
She's employed by Our World In Data. She is also a published author of printed books. Her substack does not have paid subscriptions enabled (or at least it did not as of last summer; see this post [1]). Our World In Data is funded by donations:
https://ourworldindata.org/funding
[1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/reflections-on-substack
What narratives and framings does a blog post or “visualization tool” serve? What does their overall work? What’s their recurring ideological slant?
Could be wholesome and altruistic. Or it could be something else.
Someone can be an honest ideologue (useful idiot) without being directly funded by someone shady.
I think stuff like this really crystalises how people misunderstand how much energy stuff uses.
My parents for example sweat the small stuff and go around the house turning LED driven lights off to "save electricity" even though it would barely make a dent in their bill.
Granted, they come from a time of incadescants burning 60-100w at a time so I can see why that habit might be deeply ingrained.
The ridiculously dramatic drop in power we dedicate to lighting is one that is just tough for folks to internalize. As you said, used to, you could have ~10 lights in your house that would add to upwards of 1kw. Nowadays, you can have 50 lights and barely hit 500w. Just mind blowing how far we dropped energy on those.
Same goes for televisions. Your modern TV is probably closer to the basic light bulbs before LEDs.
I'm assuming the general trend is true for all things solid state. That said, lighting is by far the biggest drop for most houses. Remarkably so.
> I'm assuming the general trend is true for all things solid state. That said, lighting is by far the biggest drop for most houses. Remarkably so.
For commercial and industrial installations, VFDs have probably been the biggest efficiency gain, even moreso than lighting. Half of all electricity consumed is used by motors. Thank goodness for solid state power electronics!
I turn LED lights off because of the difference in operational life, and I don't like changing bulbs. M GE bulbs say they have a rated lifetime of 13 years......at 3 hours of usage per day. So if they don't get turned off, then that 3 hours can very easily become 12, and now you are at a rated lifetime of ~4 years instead.
A ‘standard’ (A19 shape, E26 base) 8W 800 lumen LED lamp costs around $5 and will use about $20 of energy over a 15,000 hour lifespan, assuming $0.15/kWh.
That works out to around $0.035 per day for the lifespan of the lamp if you run it constantly for 24 hours a day, I wouldn’t waste time thinking about it. It’s an extra $10 over 12 years, you’re still using the energy.
Investing in occupancy or vacancy sensor wall switches at $25 a piece would be the best option, then you don’t need to remember to turn the lights off!
It's not a cost thing, I just don't like changing bulbs. I find it annoying, and with enough bulbs, when the lifetime is down to 4 years, you are doing one every few months on average.
But yes, I have thought about presence sensors. I'd really only need 3-4 to cover the primary areas where lights get turned on and not off (if I don't do it). I just haven't gotten around to it
But now you’re using up switch cycles!!!
Yup. In my experience, average non-nerd folk very very little feel for this stuff. I suspect some believe energy consumption of phone vs car is basically a toss up.