Slashdot Mirror
Efficiency Gains Could Prove Proposed Plasma Ban Shortsighted
hihopes writes "As the EU calls for a ban on plasma TVs, a leading Harvey Norman executive said that the issue should be left to vendors, who at the recent CES Show in the USA showed an array of low-powered TV display screens."
It's never made sense to me why governments think that micromanaging things like what lightbulbs can be sold or how much power TVs can consume is a smart method for curbing energy use.
If your goal is to improve energy efficiency, economists have figured out a remarkably simple and efficient method: tax electricity use. A 25% surcharge on each kilowatt-hour used would cause people to buy more energy-efficient products, meaning companies would shift resources toward building less power-hungry devices. A simple energy tax has the same ultimate effect as regulating efficiency across myriad consumer electronics, but without the need for a massive government bureaucracy.
"Let the market decide" is almost religious dogma in the United States. And it's not a completely unfounded idea. People tend to buy things that provide a better quality of life at a lower cost, and companies tend to provide things that are more profitable, so cheaper and better quality wins over more expensive and crappier.
But one thing that many of the "free market everywhere" people miss completely is the idea of the tragedy of the commons. I don't need to try to explain it as it's already explained well elsewhere. But it's one concept that the "free market" Libertarian types completely ignore, at their own peril.
In this case, people are notoriously bad at figuring long term expenses that are sustained and slightly elevated. People will tend to pay $10,000 over the life of a car for a "cheaper" model that costs $4,000 less. They'll tend to buy the plasma TV that costs $300 less than the $2000 LED TV that lasts twice as long and uses 30% less electricity.
And this affects the commons because power is increasingly a rare resource being squandered to provide a 5' wide screen typically viewed 15 feet back that provides the same viewing aspect ratio as a 19" TV at 4 feet at 11x the power. Power that isn't then available for running manufacturing plants, hospitals, and other things that generate real wealth, and require a tax-funded power plant to compensate for.
On the other hand, regulations take a long time to change, and marketplaces can change quickly. A bad law, once past, might take a decade to be redacted or canceled by jurisprudence, but the technology regulated by the bad law may render the law moot in 2 years due to other market forces.
I tend to feel towards deregulation, since I'm American. But I can see that Plasma tech just might be a bad idea!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The obsession with energy efficiency is so frustrating. Many of the improvements are done by using technologies that require more toxic materials, which just make it someone else's problem in the short-term (e.g., Guiyu). Our energy problems will be solved either by making energy production cleaner, or by decreasing the use of electronics (GASP!). They won't be solved by trying to use less energy to do the same thing.
You'd be right if the energy cost of a large TV was noticeable in end users' wallets. But it's not.
It's the usual thing about internalizing energy costs. Energy is way too cheap for the market to have much of an effect. Why else would the US need gas mileage standards?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
The post below me makes a succinct point. No one (or at least, not enough people for it to be significant) look at the power consumption as a primary attribute for a TV set.
They're not going let the power consumption be the deciding factor between two competing screens. Maybe it's starting to be in the back of people's minds, but in the vast majority of cases, a TV draws so little power in the grand scheme of things (regardless of what the true value actually is) that they don't even consider the cost of electricity to run it, thus manufacturers don't have to worry about it, unless they have some mandatory figures to aim for.
It's not difficult to engineer the panels to be low power (within sensible limits), it just might cost a little more, that either adds to the retail price, or is eaten as a cost by the manufacturer. Either way, it's more beneficial in the grand scheme of energy saving on a national/global scale.
Since when did Harvey Norman have anything worthwhile to say about electronics design, or energy policy for that matter? I'm not sure of their international reach but here in Australia they're simply known as "the people with the shoutiest ads". e.g.:
"BRING YOUR TRUCK BRING YOUR TRAILER BRING YOUR CASH!!!! HARVEY NORMAN'S HARDLY NORMAL SALE IS NOW ON!!!!!" etc, etc, ad nauseam.
They have a vested interest in shifting as many Plasma TVs as possible, and who cares about the environmental cost, so *obviously* they would say that wouldn't they? Let's hear from someone with valid, objective credentials, please.
Well, assuming that I understand the summary correctly, one of the most important points of this regulation actually IS improving the level of mandatory information - the rest is just throwing out the most blatantly inefficient devices, and I wouldn't be actually surprised if those same devices tended to be badly engineered in general, so it's possible that nothing of value will be lost anyway...
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
For God's sake HOW MANY FUCKING WATTS DO THEY USE? When they studiously avoid giving any numbers in a two page article, one has to assume it is not good.
There's also the commons.
I own a bigscreen TV. And I have no clue what so ever what sort of effect it has on my energy bill.
And even if I did know, I would still be willing to spend the money... after all it's a bigscreen TV it's not a frugal purchase, it's like buying a sports car. :D
That all being said if everyone was willing to spend the money but that expenditure had a detrimental effect on the commons (In say the need to build another nuclear reactor, the need to improve transmission lines, etc) I should be stopped for my own good.
"Why should I spend more on an energy efficient TV when Bob across the street saves $500."
This is a beef I have with commuters. I'm always hearing demands from people who live 50 miles from work that I need to spend 20 billion dollars on highway improvements. Meanwhile I spend an extra $400 a month to live close to work and drive less than 10 miles and don't touch an interstate.
Commuting to work 80 miles round trip has additional costs than just the energy consumed. The tax payer also picks up the tab for high way improvements, expensive on/off ramp and traffic solutions etc. It's the same with any energy expenditure. The costs don't always get passed along with the energy bill-- even with propper education. And you can be certain that if Joe Next Door is saving money and not doing the 'right thing' there is a serious disincentive to do the right thing yourself.
This is a beef I have with commuters. I'm always hearing demands from people who live 50 miles from work that I need to spend 20 billion dollars on highway improvements. Meanwhile I spend an extra $400 a month to live close to work and drive less than 10 miles and don't touch an interstate.
The people living further away are paying 36 cents + 8% in taxes on every gallon of fuel they spend. It's a tax that scales with usage, and is reasonably fair in that regard. The vehicle registration tax (or I guess it's called a fee here in California, since that way they can raise it without a 66% majority vote) is a little more unfair, though I guess it's closer to a property tax that scales based on the value of your car.
I think the EU's ban is rather silly. I support the EnergyStar stickers that show people how much they'll be paying a year in energy costs for an appliance, since that will indeed encourage people to buy more efficient appliances, but just banning them is silly. If I'm willing to pay the money to power my appliance, and the power company is making a profit off me, who exactly is losing? In France, it'd even be coming from nuclear power, so the hippies worrying about CO2 emissions and the like have nothing to worry about.
Seriously, it's the magic of the invisible hand that issues like that are taken care of.
One of the problems is that having low energy requirements could potentially limit the chance for new technologies to develop. If for example plasma TVs cannot meet the new requirement they may well be scrapped, but potentially if they can remain on the market it is possible that in 5 years time that technology will have developed to the point that plasma TVs use much less energy than the LCD TVs.
A system which prevents any technology from co-existing also prevents that technology from developing which is a bad thing.
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
Why preferably nuclear? Coal is much cheaper and in plentiful supply for the expected life of the power stations.
If I'm willing to pay the money to power my appliance, and the power company is making a profit off me, who exactly is losing?>
Joe Next Door loses when electricity rates go up in reponse to the increased electricity demand. They likely won't come down until years after a new generation plant is built to pay off the cap-ex. So your increase in demand is being subsidized by your Joe Next Door paying more for the same amount of electricity, or by his reduction in electricity use to maintain the same agregate demand.
Seriously, it's the magic of the invisible hand that issues like that are taken care of.
In this case, the pressure to improve power efficiency would have been delayed while waiting for the invisible hand to stop scratching its ass.
On the broader issue of global warming, waiting for the invisible hand to correct the market is a non-starter. By the time market pressures build enough for people to notice, the damage has been done. The damage needs to be done (ie population reduction due to decreased food production) for there to be a market pressure.
Absolutely! Transparency is almost always a good thing. Nn increased electricity tax can't work unless consumers can tell which choices use more electricity.
I have been told that the reason for this rule is British lobbying to support former colonies.
Whenever the British government (not just the current one) want to do something unpopular they decide that the best route is to push it through EU and then they can pass the blame when it comes back out again.
If the gas taxes don't cover all of the taxes of increased vehicle usage, then you're actually subsidizing driving, which tends to encourage people to do it more.
I would suspect this is the case, as that $0.36+8% would cost you about $0.015/mile, while your typical self sustaining toll road, which cannot receive federal funding, seems to cost 5-10x that amount. The rest of the money must then come from general taxes, and is therefore encouraging driving via government handout.
In Europe, Nuclear power is heavily subsidized to keep the air clean, so excessive power usage is actually costing the rest of the taxpayers money.
The invisible hand only works when the cost of goods is the actual cost to the public.