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.
$18.48 in just a year? That new LCD HDTV will practically pay for itself!
-Peter
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
I measured my DirecTV HR20 DVR with a KillAWatt. On: 41W Off: 40W
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!!
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
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.
Perhaps they should focus their energies (pun not intended)
Dear Reader,
Please direct your attention towards my pun. Admittedly I do think it's clever, but I think that you think so highly of me, that I want you to know that I would never resort to using such a commonplace literary device in my prose. Therefore, I would like to formally renounce my attempt at humor and assure you that I am above making puns as a writer, as a pupil of language, and as citizen of Earth.
Sincerest apologies, D. Baggerson
P.S. - It was totally intended.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns
No it isn't. Planet Earth is everybody's business.
Step up and be a man, not a spoiled brat.
No sig today...
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
You won't voluntarily curb your energy use, and damn it it's MY planet you're warming. I'll bet you bitched about taking lead out of gasoline, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act... when your actions impinge my life, government SHOULD get involved.
Not all of us worship money and the free market. Some of us understand what is REALLY important in life. And it ain't a bigger SUV and outspending the neighbors. I have gworn kids, it it's THEIR planet you're fucking up.
Free Martian Whores!
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 think you think I'm more of a troll than I actually am...
I'm not old enough to have bitched about all of those things, and certainly there are both good intentions and good results, as many of those reforms can fall under the common-sense category (especially lead in gasoline...), but for every common-sense reform I can point at three that just resulted in wasted time and tax dollars, or caused severe market repercussions elsewhere.
Usually the problem with those negative examples is that someone freaked out about something (global cooling! global warming! global climate change! financial crisis!) and decided that SOMETHING needed to be done NOW. They then came up with a half-baked short-term solution to that problem and put it into place and continued living their lives. That's exactly what I classify this as: a half-baked short-term solution that won't do anything in the long run.
Take for example a great examples of way that private industry can help the environment: Wal-Mart reducing fuel consumption on their trucks: not only does this save Wal-Mart lots of money in fuel costs, but it drives innovation in truck and vehicle design and helps to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they then sell this technology to other companies similarly interested in both reduced costs and increased fuel economy, the effect will be much more substantial -- and require not a taxpayer penny -- than this silly regulation and the certification process it will surely produce.