Printable View
http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/n...549302_57.html
Specifically, read the last sentence of the 5th paragraph in the article.
What kind of crap is that?
In my area, this thing would cost $.71/day to operate it, almost $260 a year.
I wonder if the software in the unit automatically deducts that .4KW that it uses.
There are several typo's in that article - writer probably meant 0.4W. If you go to the manufacturers website, they claim it will cost you about 8 cents/month to run.
Interestingly, there were some recent studies on the West Coast (USA) that showed when people were given monitors, those whose energy usage was above average reduced consumption but those who whose usage was below average increased consumption. Giving them monitors which merely changed color to indicate usage led to reductions all around.
Oh....I know they're typo's, you know they're typo's, the majority of the people that frequent these types of forums know they're typo's...
I'm just trying to imagine the sheep that are following the flock here...
And besides...you'd figure there would be at least ONE editor that would realize that magnitude of mistake. I mean that's being wrong by a factor of 1000.