As I'm sure you understand, Barney, it's all part of the "business as usual" aimed (and seemingly succeeding) at keeping the plebs in their place.

You see, the Lower Orders (aka the Great Majority) need to be kept anxious, on the back foot, and made to feel guilty about having the temerity to exist. Nanny is most efficient when the campers (happy or not, but preferably not) are compliant. After all, we can't have them thinking for themselves now, can we?

If it's not "global warming", it "carbon debts". And if it's not "carbon debts" it's something else to worry about:- terrorism, the poor polar bears, too many magpies (now that's a real problem), racism, the starving kids in Africa, the next "super-bug" ... you name it. It's all our fault, you know. Your's and mine.

So please forgo your food this week, and give generously to ... ... ...

Meanwhile the NWO types in charge continue to live the High Life, snouts firmly in the trough, whilst we're all scared [censored] about what's ahead in the New Year. But we needn't worry, because (as I say) it's all going according to The Plan, and there's sweet FA that any of us can do about it! Happy Days.

You've hit on one of my conspiracy theories Geoff. I believe that people in the West have moved away from conventional religion and need something beyond their understanding to worship/ fear. No one can say how our planet works so we can make up any dogma that fits certain events: tsunami, floods earthquakes etc. and blame ourselves for it.
The real driving force behind all of this climate change malarkey are the power generating companies and the governments that subsidise them. In most of the developed world power stations are generally old and inefficient and require replacement. This combined with the need to increase capacity means that they need to spend a huge amount to upgrade their stock. Obviously their shareholders will not tolerate a drop in profits and governments will only subsidise them so far, so the short term solution is to invent a way of reducing the amount of energy we use. As for Al Gore being the stalwart of green energy it should be noted that he was director of a major US nuclear energy company and has a vested interest in promoting nuclear power.
On a global scale about 20% of the earth is land mass and we occupy less than 10% of that. Do we really believe that the actions of 2% can really affect the weather of the entire planet?
Perhaps instead of being in awe of the planet we are deluded enough to believe that we have the godlike power to control nature?

Back on track(ish) some idiots at our hospital take great pleasure in switching off lights in the belief that they are saving the planet. There is a corridor in our building which is part of the fire escape route where certain people turn the lights off. I hope for their sakes that they are not trampled underfoot trying to get out of a burning building in the dark!
And another thing, why is Carbon getting all the bad press? After all isn’t it Carbon Dioxide that the scientists are beating us up with? I love Carbon, in fact I couldn’t live without it!!

... furthermore, the Good News is (according to what I have read recently) that the One World Government Gang (the Bilderbergers ... NWO, or whatever you want to call them) have suggested that they need to reduce World Population to around 500 million or so. The likely method of achieving that aim being the "accidental" release of a Super Bug.

Not sure how they're going to ensure the selectivity of the bug ... but there you go. No doubt they're working on that little problem even as we speak.

Meanwhile, back to the Do-Gooders. To my mind, part of the problem these days is we have increasingly fewer (what we might call) practical people around ... and more and more hand-wringing *Wallies, Jobsworths, busy-bodies and miscellaneous prats ... who, although probably acting with what they believe are the Best of Intentions, are in fact Part of the Problem. Big Time!

* Apologies in advance to the few remaining folk out there blessed with the good old English name of Walter!

If I may throw my two bob into the hat:

The problem I see here is that power consumption alone is not sufficient to get a valid "carbon footprint".

Something like a boiler, a fridge, a lightbulb, will probably have a fairly regular duty cycle. A medical device, by its nature, may have a very irregular duty cycle.

Added to that, power consumption in certain devices can vary quite a bit. An infusion device, for example, draws significantly more current at say 500ml/hr than it does at 5ml/hr. The light above my head, by contrast, probably draws roughly the same current all the time it's on.

Trying to get anything like a valid figure seems like it would be rather involved, and very time (and energy!) consuming, to be honest.

If they're not already aware of the Electricity Bill, then I guess that they, too, are part of the problem!

I would advise our friend TSS to seek out another horse to flog.

I would suggest something aimed at improving efficiency in delivering healthcare, rather than simply "saving money" per se.

Folk need to realise that large government funded healthcare organisations are not about "saving" money ... but rather about spending it:- but hopefully in the most cost-effective, outcomes-driven ways possible.

Any penny that is not directly aimed at the delivery of healthcare needs to be justified to those who are handing those pennies over. And if the tax-payer disagrees with that expenditure (eg, obscenely high "executive" salaries), then that funding should be discontinued.

This is somewhat complicated subject. Location information as you want to change.
First of all, how much of a deviation to make generalizations have identical coefficients.
For example, the energy consumption for a complex CT machine and the same technology. As a standard value, the manufacturer said, you could base the maximum values. Device to collect a lot of the technical document, a table of statistical results by making yourself as possible. still a work in this business will take some time. In this regard I am sure that if you have a working machine park are taken into account the share of total energy. May be a clinical or total issued.

Radiology clinic.

CT
MR
xray
Mammogrphy
U.S.
Anjiography
ETC ...

need more power for same time using ...

Oh well, that clears that up, then.

Meanwhile if folk working for the NHS are really keen to make a difference (save the planet, whatever) they could make a start by seeing what can be done about the extortionate amounts shelled out for having simple maintenance work done under botched PFI contracts (as reported in the news today, yet again).

I agree and respect most comments BUT it doesnt help to stick your head in the ground and wait for things to pass. Energy effeciency is everyones responsibility and it takes a norrow minded society to think otherwise. Certain ecomonies dont give a sh&t about the planet and hopfully they will see their backsides when all their natural resources are used up. They know this and thats why they are buying up chunks of 3rd world countries and poaching off coast lines because theirs is depleted through gross mismanagemet and greed.
Now , thats an entirely different discussion for another day.
As far as medical device comsumption is concerned, I still think you are missing the bus on this one. Power comsumption and energy efficiency should be taken into consideration before employing a new technology or device into our hospitals or business's for that matter.Nothing to do with charging it out or making anyone pay more. More energy efficient big thursty devices means less power and therefore a longterm saving for everyone.

Now go and hug that tree....LOL

TSS

Our Trust is looking at a voltage optimisation system which would see our mains ac voltage reduced from 240+ to 220V at end point. This will reduce costs to the Trust.

Have any other Trusts implemented such a system and have any adverse effects been noted? My particular concern is in regard to medical devices but all comments would be welcome

Welcome to the forum Lee.

Your namesake has been there before.