Here's the press release that was the source for Clark Howard's report. If you read it, you'll find that it wasn't specific to DVRs but rather applies to set-top boxes in general; i.e. cable boxes and satellite receivers, whether or not they contain DVRs. The press release does mention that DVRs use around 40% more electricity than non-DVR STBs, but they're hardly the sole culprit. You'll have to ask Clark Howard why he chose to blame DVRs and let other STBs off the hook. More info here.
I think the lesson here is to click through and read the actual source material. Not that I'm blaming anyone; I've been bitten by distorted news reports myself. The NRDC certainly has an "agenda" - reducing energy use - but it's just silly to argue that they want to "force us all back to the 18th century." All laptops and most desktop PCs have the ability to dramatically reduce their energy consumption when not in use; so should cable boxes and satellite receivers. Cable/satellite service is already expensive enough without their cheap-ass equipment costing an extra $15-$20/month that we didn't even know about!
I think the lesson here is to click through and read the actual source material. Not that I'm blaming anyone; I've been bitten by distorted news reports myself. The NRDC certainly has an "agenda" - reducing energy use - but it's just silly to argue that they want to "force us all back to the 18th century." All laptops and most desktop PCs have the ability to dramatically reduce their energy consumption when not in use; so should cable boxes and satellite receivers. Cable/satellite service is already expensive enough without their cheap-ass equipment costing an extra $15-$20/month that we didn't even know about!
