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.
These new TVs will be identical to other TVs sold elsewhere in the country, except that have a governor that limits the brightness to 7.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
the models where the power cord doesn't end in a 3-prong plug, but in a stationary bicycle...
We're getting to a point where items like TVs and game systems should have power consumption ratings on them in the store, like with many kitchen appliances.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
Yet another revenue stream disguised as a certifcation process....
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
How about cable and sat boxes that can power down more then they do now and DRV's that spin down the HD when they are off and have no planed shows coming up.
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.
$18.48 in just a year? That new LCD HDTV will practically pay for itself!
-Peter
Non purchasers will save up to $1000 in the first year. lol
If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
Yep, you can save $18 and year and pay an extra hundred today. Sounds great for something like a TV that is only going to be used for 5 years or so anyway these days. Never mind that time value of money consideration. Thank you Nanny State for saving me from high energy bills, and myself.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Perhaps they should focus their energies (pun not intended) at something that would make a more substantial impact, such as CF or LED lighting...
I measured my DirecTV HR20 DVR with a KillAWatt. On: 41W Off: 40W
DRV's that spin down the HD when they are off and have no planed shows coming up.
Your DVR doesn't know if your TV is on. How useful is a DVR which doesn't offer rewind, but only records scheduled programs?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government.
But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket, but the government still insists on regulating how much I use of it, and now even what I'm allowed to buy to use it with...
One would think that, since I'm the one PAYING for electricity (not to mention various taxes and sales taxes associated with a TV, if I had a TV), I'd be allowed to pay more and use more? Now THERE is a novel concept - if I have more money, I can use more money to get more things! Wow. And if I'm smart, I can save money by buying a more power-efficient TV! Wouldn't that be a thought...
California, frankly, is wacky :)
I think this is overstepping it a bit.
I'm a big a/v-phile and I dislike LCD and "flat" tv's because they don't have true black points or uniform color.
I want a CRT, and CRTs are power hungry.
This doesn't mean i'm not environmentally conscious.
I use all CFL's and avoid having anything on unless i'm making immediate use.
How about introducing power consumption rules for homes, at least maximum peak power consumption to help lessen the load on the grid by incorporating localized temporary storage?
This would also have a side benefit of helping to prevent the kind of chaos mass blackouts produce by providing a bare minimum power to, say, keep your fridge running for 24-72 hours when the grid goes.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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 many government regulations, man....too many.
Next I guess you're going to tell me I can't burn tires on Earth Day?
Good Grief!
WTF? Over?
The article and in particular this "infographic" is completely wrong or at least misleading. LCD TVs do not consume more power than the same sized CRT as claimed. In fact, an LCD set will consume 50% or less power than a comparably-sized CRT. Of course, if you decide to base each type of set's power consumption on "average set size" without fucking bothering to define what that average is or even bothering to keep the same average for each type of TV (!), then you can pretty much "prove" anything you want, can't you?
Hell, my neighborhood newsletter is way more popular* and produces much better advertising results** than the LA Times!
I don't know why the "California Energy Commission" would make such a preposterous claim, unless they're not comparing the same size LCD and CRT, which would be ridiculous of course. I also don't know how the LA Times could be so ignorant as to not notice this obvious error, and how they could be so irresponsible as to report such obvious nonsense without doing any research or checking with other sources, or at least questioning or pointing out the (unfair) comparison of small CRTs to large LCDs.
Educate thyself and read any of the dozens of results that show LCDs use less power than CRTs.
Then wonder why the tax/power requirements isn't based on size/overall power consumption instead of just being arbitrarily assessed on LCDs in general. (Hint: it's another money grab, and what better way than to focus it on the better selling, higher-value product?)
* "popular" is defined as the percentage of my relatives that read it daily.
** "results" is defined as how many free gifts I get from advertisers.
*** Hey! Look at that! I'm full of shit but at least I cite my bullshit definitions, which is more than you can say for the LA Times and the California Energy Commission!
everything in moderation
It's possible over HDMI at least to have the DVR know if the TV is is on or not. I know some newer TV+Blu-Ray player combinations can even have the Blu-Ray player turn the TV on, and turn the input to the correct one, all automatically when you insert a disc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Consumer_Electronics_Control
Morphing Software
Doesn't California have power problems? If so, then if they can cut the power useage from everyone, even a little bit, then it helps resolve soem of their pwoer problems.
Sometimes things are done for a bigger picture then saving you a little $
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
I find it a little saddening that nearly everyone complains about this type of legislation while at the same time demanding that something be done about global warming.
The fundamental problem we have is that we aren't currently being billed the true cost of (most of) the power we are using. The energy companies have been getting away with polluting the environment on a massive scale for at no cost to them.
We can tackle that problem in two ways: 1) force power companies to pay to clean up their pollution. 2) Increases taxes so that Government can clean up the pollution. Either way it means that things are going to get a lot more expensive. Government isn't about to raise taxes to clean up the atmosphere and they certainly aren't going to try to make energy companies fix the problem so the only really option is to bring in strict guidelines on how much power devices can consume and hope the problem goes away.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
I don't think they can do it. This falls afoul of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No it isn't. Planet Earth is everybody's business.
Step up and be a man, not a spoiled brat.
No sig today...
Does anyone think that these TVs are built in CA? Even that might not matter, based on the Supreme Courtdecisions that anything that affects interstate commerce is covered by the interstate commerce clause.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
However, if you've turned off the cable box (I have Time Warner Cable, and use their DVR - the Scientific Atlanta 8300HD. The box has both a power button and power light) it's not recording so it can rewind anyway. So why not spin down the hard drive, or enter into some kind of lower power mode?
Side note: the 8300HD box that TWC provides does spin down the hard drive on a regular basis. I can hear it spin up the drive when I either: A) Turn it on, or B) periodically as it performs self maintenance, records shows, or installs updates.
Except making some people in power the thrill of being 'better' than 'you'. And in this case, 'you' means everybody except them.
Saving the power needed to run 86,400 homes? The Census reported 11,502,870 in 2000. So they want to save about .75% of total power generation? Maybe? Their power consumption numbers are so far off they may end up saving a tenth of THAT...
What an utter waste of time. More impact would be realized if they required datacenters to be located further north, requiring less demanding cooling systems.
Dammit, now I'm giving them more cockamamie ideas. I hate when I do that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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
I measured my DirecTV HR20 DVR with a KillAWatt. On: 41W Off: 40W
...and your KillAWatt lived up to its name :)
We're getting there.
STI and Barrett (both gun companies) now refuse to sell to any law enforcement or government agency in California.
I'm amazed that it even makes 1W difference. These devices don't really have an on/off state, they're constantly on, always recording. The only real way of turning them off is to unplug them.
So why aren't they considering regulating the excess of so-called wall warts? How many of the critters do you have in your house, continually sucking juice unless you make an executive decision to yank them off the hose?
Many years ago I read an estimate that AC adapters accounted for up to EIGHT PERCENT of the average household electricity bill. How much worse must that figure be now in 2009, given that so many manufacturers abuse them as a cop-out for better design? It's one thing to have an AC adapter for a device that MUST be as tiny as possible, can't dissipate heat, or is intended to be active all the time, like a router or cable modem... but does an HP or Lexmark printer or scanner need an AC adapter? Does a recharging station for a cordless Black and Decker hand vacuum need one? No!
Typically DVRs only disable the display drivers when power is off. Not a lot of power usage there. Going into a true low-power standby state requires a decent amount of work - you want the thing to be awake enough to record your programs, download the latest guide, etc. - and also to turn on fast when you want to watch the tube. Why spend the time doing that design when most consumers have no idea how much power the device uses at any point?
I'm actually coming around to the idea of regulating something regarding power use of always-powered devices. At least (as I posted above) something akin to the yellow tag you get on a dishwasher, boiler or other household device. It shows how much power the device uses in a year of typical use and its annual cost, and compares to "similar" equipment. (I can never find the items on the low end of that scale, though). For most equipment, a scale showing how the device compares to its competitors for power use in operating and standby modes could certainly sway me when buying a new TV or DVR. Assuming all else is equal, that is.
Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
because they only care about what the average person buys. It doesn't matter if per inch of viewing area an LCD uses less power than a CRT if the average consumer buys 2 inches of LCD for every inch of CRT.
I'm fine with my 24-27 inch CRT. But I'm not going to buy an LCD that's less than about 34 inches.
So if the government wants to reduce my power consumption they need to make sure that the 34 inch LCD uses less power than the 24 inch CRT I already have. It doesn't matter if the 24 inch LCD uses less power because on average, nobody buys a 24 inch LCD to replace a 24 inch CRT.
Work Safe Porn
Economic expansion I'll grant. Energy efficiency is laughable.
This is the state that has yearly rolling brown outs. Has to import a very large percent of it's power from nearby states, and NEVER has a surplus to sell back.
California isn't energy efficient, they may be energy stable, but that is not the same thing.
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
You aren't looking at the whole stack. Walmart having marginally more efficient trucks does nothing for the fact that one of the consequences of Walmart in general is an additional 1,000 (some huge number) of extremely dirty coal plants in China where the regulations aren't near as strict as the US, plus moving all the goods from China to the US on ships, and those ships have hardly any regulations at all while running on bunker fuel, which is downright nasty again.
Any savings in energy or cleaner air here are offset to a tremendous degree just by the business model of offshoring the manufacturing (let alone the hit to the wallets of all the out of work factory workers here and lost tax base). And air knows no boundaries, what was air pollution a week ago in China (remember when they had to almost close China down just to run the olympics so they could have tolerable air for the athletes?) has now traveled the Pacific and is hitting north America.
All you did was move the problem to the other side of an imaginary dotted line, plus cost tens of million of jobs domestically plus exported cash by the boatload and taken it out of the internal economy where it stopped being a force multiplier. That's why China is sitting on huge reserves of cash and is able to go around the planet and buy up the next 20-50 years of critical strategic minerals like they are doing in Africa right now, and the US is sitting in the debtors seat wondering where all the new jobs are going to come from.
So we still got way more air pollution in general, plus a lot of lost jobs that paid better than Walmart "associate" pay. The big trade was one generation of cheaper gadgets, and we got to play "make believe" that we cleaned up the environment when we didn't, we made it worse actually (looking at the planet as a whole), and now the US economy is partly collapsing from it.
If the top three tv makers were to stop selling in California, you'd end up with a new top 3 tv makers because someone would still sell in California.
Barret is making the decision to not sell to law enforcement in California(a relatively small market) in order to try and save the ability to sell to regular people in California(a much larger market). They're risking a relatively small amount to try and save a much larger amount.
A television company is risking a massive market in order to save the $5 they should have been spending per unit to make them more efficient in the first place, which they'll more than recoup by tacking on extra costs(even when it no longer costs them a cent). Their cost of boycotting is high, their cost of compliance is low.
Better energy efficiency is a good thing, and the various companies are too damned slack to do it on their own. As for the additional costs, your problem lies more with the fact that the companies you buy from will charge a $200 price increase to cover a $5 cost increase using the legislation as an excuse. They'll have to retool things a little bit, but they have to do that with all their new models anyway.
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
It won't solve a single crime, let alone stop one. You can quote me on that.
You're not likely to see anybody actually tool up for this. It's going to be too expensive. The final result of it will be that any semi-automatic handgun not on the California DOJ approval list come Jan 1, 2010 just won't be sold in California. Anything on the list before then won't have to implement the microstamping technology unless they fall off the list by failing to renew their spot.
It's completely pointless legislation. On one hand I want to attribute this to politicians that are simply looking to make an end-run around any Constitutional barriers to end all handgun ownership in CA. On the other hand is the more likely explanation: These idiots have no idea what they're doing in the legislature.
That is the problem, and right now, its a major bitch to get a new power plant built. Natural gas is now obviously foolish given all the price variance, coal and nuclear are both politically impossible, and windmills and solar can't yet even fill the role of a good peak demand unit. So, there is no more electricity to buy, and therefor, the government rations it.
This is my sig.
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.