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...
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 :)
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
Yeah, because everyone calculates the $20 per year savings that one TV has over another and takes that into their voluntary decision of which to buy.
If the labeling was clear enough, I think they would take it into account.
Legislation that mandates clear, consistent labels allowing consumers to make informed decisions about their own costs seems more reasonable than legislating forbidding the sale of a whole class of products. I'm no free market fanboy, but this seems like a case where the self interest of consumers is directly in line with the goal of reduced energy consumption. The only thing missing is good information.
/...
Question: if you're presented with two TVs with otherwise identical specifications, but one is A-rated and the other is B-rated for efficiency, which one do you buy?
That's right: you buy the one with the glossier black surround.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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
The only thing missing is good information.
Why educate when you can regulate?
--The Govenment
If they both have similar specs, but one is rated for 1000W and the other at 500W, would you not choose the latter?
A key part of my media room design is that the TV should automatically dim the lights in the room.
More Twoson than Cupertino