Slashdot Mirror
New Energy Efficiency Rules For TVs Sold In California
petehead writes "The LA Times reports on regulations expected to pass in 2009 that will not allow energy-inefficient TVs to be sold in the state. 'State regulators are getting ready to curb the growing power gluttony of TV sets by drafting the nation's first rules requiring retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models, starting in 2011... The regulations would be phased in over two years, with a first tier taking effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and a more stringent, second tier on Jan. 1, 2013.'" According to the Energy Commission's estimates, purchasers of Tier 1-compliant TVs would shave an average of $18.48 off their residential electric bill in the first year of ownership.
Great, more government intervention in both the market and our lives; the net result will just be less choice and higher prices for TVs everywhere.
I don't think the average consumer would care too much about the power consumption of a TV or gaming console. After all, the American Dream is keeping up with the Jonses, not saving money!
I have a bad feeling about this...
In California we already pay an Electronic Waste Disposal Fee whenever we purchase a new TV that varies based on the price of the TV, but was $20-30 last time I purchased one. Yet another example of the state trying to control its citizens, and those of other US states given that California is such a large segment of the US economy, and manufacturers will be less likley to export units that meet environmental standards in other states. When I lived back in Ohio I always got a card in the package when I purcased solder that said "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.", and often see links on websites for "Your California Privicy Rights."
All it really does is hurt retailers whom are going to loose out on sales in border cities where consumers have more choice in other states (such as Nevada, Oregon or Arizona), and making life difficult for online sellers to keep track of what units they can/can not sell to CA residents. All the while, most Californians are probably watching TV on their old CRTs that are burning up energy and are probably going to be dumped in the desert somewhere when they quit working. Southern California (where energy is hardest to come by) has literally millions of square miles of desert and lots of folks moving there to find affordable housing but still commute to the LA area to find reasonable paying jobs. If they built a power plant or two up there and some manufacturing they could cut down on transportation costs, improve the quality of life of residents in the desert and the valley and not be so desperate to save power that they're going to restrict tvs and non CFL lightbulbs (wish I still had the URL for that nonsense someone was proposing about a year ago).
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Too late, CFLs are already mandated. LEDs aren't mature enough for general lighting*.
1 Yes, they exist; no they're not even close to economical even if you gave them away for free. The number of fixtures required to produce the desired general illumination levels in a typical large room (family/living) would still cost more than even the best CFLs at full retail. And there's no $/lumen savings.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That's not exactly the reason that a dimmer doesn't save money. The dimmer is just hooked up to a resister behind the wall, which gobbles up the remaining current. Full Brightness on a normal circuit = any brightness on a dimmed circuit.
:-)
Sorry to nitpic
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
I know I've been out of college for a little while now, but do people actually blow through TVs that fast these days? At the risk of sounding old, that just seems wasteful.
A classic CRT tv lasted people 10-20 years.
The more recent TVs however are pretty much disposable. The early generation plasmas lose half their brightness within 5 years, and pretty much have to be replaced. Newer plasmas apparently are much better.
And the various front and rear projection technologies (DLP, LCD) all have rather expensive bulbs that need to be replaced within 3-5 years. And the money for a new bulb for your old TV is a big chunk of the price of a new TV ... and the new TV will be 1080p instead of 1080i/720p have more hdmi inputs, less latency, run at a 120Hz, etc etc etc... so buying a new TV might seem like a better deal. Sort of like buying a new cellphone or ipod is usually deemed better value than buying new batteries for your 3 year old one.
California already does it with other products (Cars, for example)
California is the only state in the union that I know of that has maintained a steady energy consumption per capita since the 1970s. That means that even with the expansion of silicon valley the amount of energy used per person has stayed the same for over 30 years. Take a look at the rest of the US, it has steadily grown. So maybe people should shut up about how Californians are just a bunch of hippies and start wising up to the fact that maybe you're just jealous that California has succeeded at both economic expansion and energy efficiency.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
We're getting there.
STI and Barrett (both gun companies) now refuse to sell to any law enforcement or government agency in California.
They do it with other appliances as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
...its on the back and its measured in watts. Shocking no?
A simple rule of thumb is that a unit consuming 1W if left on for a full year would cost $1 in electricity bill (with the present rates in US).
1W x 24 Hr = 24Wh
24Wh x 365 days = 8.76 KWh
11 cents/KWh x 8.76 Kwh ~ 97 cents
Face your daemons!
Let us not forget we now pay the lovely new 16.00 Fee for any monitor over 15"
More than four inches, less than 15 inches $8
15 inches or more, less than 35 inches $16
35 inches or more $25
I just love the ass raping we get in this state.
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
Actually Volkswagen and Mercedes have developed better catalysts that allow 2008 and 2009 diesel cars to be sold in California and the New England states.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Nearly anything you plug into the wall has a power consumption rating on. However instead of a big yellow sticker on the front saying it will save you $5 a year on your electric bill its on the back and its measured in watts. Shocking no?
The sticker on the back doesn't tell you how much it uses in practice, it tells you the maximum it will ever use. It's useful for sizing circuits and picking fuses, but not for estimating running costs. The label on the back doesn't tell you if it uses 80W or 1W in standby. It doesn't tell you if the maximum rating applies during normal viewing, or only for two seconds at startup.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
While resistive dimmers were used at one stage in the theatre industry I don't think they were ever used in homes. If they were you would notice it because of the heat output.
All modern dimmers (both domestic and theatrical) for incandescent lighting are phase cutters. That is they reduce the average power to the filiment by only allowing current through for part of the waveform. This means very little power is dissipated in the dimmer.
The issue with efficiancy when dimming incandescents is as the GP says that light output goes down far quicker than power disipation.
Of course none of this has any relavence to dimming TVs since those use totally different technologies for producing light.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Check this graph out for your enjoyment. Here. Notice how both growth in per capita energy consumption and energy/GDP is lower in california compared to the rest of the US. I'd suggest getting some data before claiming horrific falsehood. I'm sorry I couldn't take the time to comb through the EIA and other such resources but if you take the time you'll find the same information.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
That's mostly because the US finally went to ultra low sulfur diesel, without it the catalysts would have been polluted in weeks at most. California was right to ban diesels until we switched, sulfur is a massive contributor to the detrimental health effects of smog.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Working on it. See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.settop_box_spec STB OEMs who don't power down will have a tough time making the tier 2 spec. As it is, in tier 1, DVRs and other ancillary functions need to get shut down to make the grade. We designed it that way.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Saturated fats and Cholesterol clog arteries, unsaturated fats don't and have even been shown to help clean them. Your brain is also about 60% fat, healthy fats like those from nuts, fish, olive oil, etc... are very good for a healthy brain. Refined sugar on the other hand, gets converted to fat and has been shown to be a contributing factor in many things, including heart disease, diabetes, immune deficiencies, and new studies are showing that refined sugars may be a contributing factor in dementia in the elderly. If you want energy, try foods that are high in complex carbs and fiber, and some protein and fruit sugars in there and you'll be fine. http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/T045000.asp