Slashdot Mirror
California Publishes Television Efficiency Standards For 2011
eldavojohn writes "It's been nine months since California announced their intentions to create new standards on energy-consuming televisions in their state, but yesterday the California Energy Commission finally released the first draft of the regulations. (More information straight from the horse's mouth.) If you live in another state, you may be unfamiliar with California's history of mandating power usage among anything from dishwashers to washing machines to other household appliances. This has also led to California pushing to ban incandescent light bulbs. From their FAQ on TV Efficiency Standards: 'The proposed standards have no effect on existing televisions. If approved, they would only apply to TVs sold in California after January 1, 2011. The first standard (Tier 1) would take effect January 1, 2011, and reduce energy consumption by average of 33 percent. The second measure (Tier 2) would take effect in 2013 and, in conjunction with Tier 1, reduce energy consumption by an average of 49 percent.' The Draft from December 2008 is available on their site (PDF, with a shorter 'Just the Facts' flier for those of you without two hours to burn). There's no indication whether that's what they're going with, or if it's been updated since then."
I am totally against protectionist policies because it never works. You have to understand that we get our water from outside California. We get it from the Colorado River, for instance. Why can we get the water from the Colorado River but we can't get renewable energy from outside the state? We get most of our cars from outside the state; why can't we get renewable energy?
With Reuters outlining some challenges. Aside from that, you have some groups like the CEA speaking out against it and a surprisingly negative response from the California citizens for smart clean energy claiming that it cuts jobs for citizens. A rep from them said:
We all believe in the importance of energy efficiency, but the CEC's proposed regulation is simply bad policy that will do little to achieve energy efficiency and a lot to destroy California jobs. The consumer electronics industry has been trying to work with the CEC since day one on alternatives that would help achieve energy efficiency without causing undue harm on California's economy. But time and time again, we have been disappointed with the CEC's approach and process.
My work here is dung.
Leading us to a bright new future! or at least that's what the politicians want you to think.
Why not just make people pay the full price of the electricity they're using so they can leave lights, heating and AC on 24/7 but it's only they who are suffering.
There be other places to buy yer electronics matey. This law will create markets blacker than the old man's beard and five times the size! By me whiskers this is the worst idea since they made grandma's medicine illegal!
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I think we all deserve better TVs frankly and I think it is fair to say that the TV industry as a whole has failed to step up. We still have brand new TVs which draw almost as much power "off" as they do turned on with the sound blazing... Hopefully California will encourage more TVs to be produced with these kind of energy saving features by default around the world.
Yes, I too hate the "nanny state" and government intervention but when an industry or consumers fail to act in a responsible fashion at points a government has to step in... I mean lead paint in kid's toys, god knows what in our food, labelling on products to give the consumer more information, sometimes the nanny policies are good for society.
Water heater consumes the most energy in most households. I'm pretty sure it's possible to make it more efficient than it currently is. Same goes for electric heating and air conditioning.
...for example, motor vehicle emissions laws which allow an officer to stop your vehicle on suspicion that you have non-CARB-certified equipment on your car or if your car is "modified for racing." Apparently CA whalehuggers aren't aware of those of us who like to drive our cars fast...at the racetrack or dragstrip. Or that many car enthusiasts have the best-running (and thus cleanest running) cars on the road, asshats who gut their catalytic converters excepted.
If stopped, you're told to open your hood and allow the inspection. If you refuse, you're immediately arrested, your car is impounded and towed to the nearest CARB inspection facility. You better hope and pray that everything in your engine compartment is original or has a CARB stamp on it or your car (yes, the entire car) will be confiscated and you'll be facing thousands in fines. The CARB stamp is just a massive tax / attempt to discourage aftermarket parts, because it is irrelevant whether the modified car passes emissions standards, and CA charges a fortune to certify parts.
Unreasonable search and seizure anyone? Oh, look, a baby seal. Welcome to the People's Republic of Kalifornia, the most legislated state in the nation, and sadly, that fucks over the rest of us, since product manufacturers don't want to be unable to sell in that market.
Remember the clusterfuck that is MTBE, aka the chemical which reduces smog but pollutes the hell out of groundwater and is a known carcinogen? Guess who we have to thank for that?
Please help metamoderate.
While the federal is pretending to construct fences along our border with Mexico, do you think it's possible to have fences erected along the California border too?
Fata viam invenient.
Like when auto makers pulled out of the California market due to emission restrictions?
So, I have this eeepc. I don't know exactly how much power the screen itself draws, but I can guess, since the machine draws about ten watts with the screen on at full brightness and six with it off -- so let's say four watts, for a 10" screen. This screen's about the same aspect ratio as a widescreen TV, so no monkey business here. It's been optimized to hell to decrease power usage, obviously, but it hasn't affected the cost much -- the whole computer was $300 or so.
Let's say you want a 40" display. Since area goes as linear dimension squared, if everything scales in the naive way this puts us at 32 watts. If anything this is a conservative estimate, since the 40" display will have fewer pixels than sixteen eeepc screens. Of course, you've got to decode the image, and that requires some computing -- probably no more than 10W for that. Let's say eight watts for sound (since the volume will probably be set at 1W or so, and 12% efficiency seems reasonable), and we're still coming in just at 50W.
Somehow I doubt you can get a 40" television that only uses 50W.
What makes you think any of this is unconstitutional? The constitution places a lot of limits on what the FEDERAL government can do. State governments not so much.
If Californians behaved in a more rational manner less of this nonsense would be needed. Like if you have electricity supply issues build some power plants instead of exporting the electrical supply problem to Texas. If air pollution from burning gasoline is a problem, tax the hell out of gasoline. As far as street racers modding their cars in violation of state laws, cry me a river.
I will be really pissed if this nonsense makes it hard for me to buy a really really big TV next year. Right now I have a 60" set and when I replace it I will be extremely unhappy if I have to downsize when I want to upsize because of some fruit loops living in California who don't want a power plant or transmission line their neighborhood.
And look at how great the car companies are doing in the USA! I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford have record profits! Oh wait... Congress "had" to bail them out?... We are in a recession, it makes no sense to increase regulations (and therefore increase expenses) when the average person has a huge cash flow problem. Lets see here, the house you invested in now either might end up being a loss, or at the very least hard to sell today. The stocks you invested in? Most are probably losses if you were to sell them today. If you are going to try to regulate the market (which is a bad idea in and of itself) at least do it in a period of prosperity, that is when people have the money to spend, if the price of goods go up, the average person is going to spend less, the less they spend the worse the economy gets.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Historically, when fuel standards go up, American carmakers whine; Japanese (and European) carmakers just keep doing what they've been doing all along.
Toyota's figured out how to make a car (the Yaris) for under $12000 -- after American tariffs, no less -- that gets ~41-46mpg highway (depending on elevation), goes 100mph without breaking a sweat, handles well, and has plenty of room on the inside for stuff. I think the Europeans are getting well over 50mpg with bog-standard diesels.
Why can't Ford do this?
Apparently CA whalehuggers aren't aware of those of us who like to drive our cars fast...at the racetrack or dragstrip. Or that many car enthusiasts have the best-running (and thus cleanest running) cars on the road
Last I checked, you could have the best running car on the road and still get 5 mpg.
I'm sorry that you dislike the penchant for people in California becoming annoyed at your self-righteous pollution of the atmosphere. We all happen to breathe your self-righteous fumes and are unable to jog in L.A. without becoming ill due to fumes such as yours.
If you don't support a strict effort to control such fumes and just don't realize how serious a problem they are, then I suggest you move to one of the many areas in the United States that never takes such things into consideration and you can fumigate yourself all you like.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
While the California government overlords spend their people's time and money worrying about a few watts of electricity, the unemployment rate in California hit 12.2% and continues to rise. The San Joaquin valley continues to suffer under a drought, but the water that would normally be used to irrigate the crops is being used to protect an endangered minnow. This has resulted in nearly 40% unemployment in some agricultural communities and will lead to higher food prices for produce across the US -- yet another burden heaped on poor and middle class families.
But they have lots of time to force you to buy more expensive TVs in order to save a couple of watts of electricity.
Maybe Californians (who are not part of the elite, effete ruling class) should consider getting out while they still have something left to bring with them.
Thanks on the errant factor of two, this is what happens when I post before coffee.
They don't sit much further away from a television than from a computer when measured in multiples of the display diagonal. If you're going to calculate apparent brightness of the whole display, then you get another factor of r_display^2 that will cancel the factor of r^2 from moving further away. A 10" display viewed from 3' with a given brightness per square cm will have the same apparent brightness to a viewer as a 40" display from 12' away.
So, fixing my fuckup with the factor of two, that puts my back-of-the-envelope math at around 80 watts. It's good to know that your panel is close to that; I'd be interested to see what percentage of TV's are in this neighborhood and what percentage are way above.
Thanks for the math correction, btw.
What's being left out is that its not illegal to own such a TV, only sell one in California. This means people who want larger TV's or a better picture at that cost of more energy consumption (like Plasmas) will just buy the TV's out of state through something like Amazon or BestBuy.com.
The only thing the CEC should do, if anything, is mandate labels on the TV's which list the average cost to run each TV. This way consumers could make the choice about which kind of TV to purchase.
In the UK, I cannot buy them already; nor have I been able to for the past year or more.
I wish someone had taken the time to conduct real studies on the these bulbs:
Two problems are:
(a) they flicker - supposedly not visible but I'm not using a standard set of eyes and cannot avoid the flicker - headaches follow
(b) they have wide gaps in the spectrum of light they give out - supposedly not noticeable but it's like being in the dark even when the fluorescent bulb is 'on'.
Combined effect: I cannot buy a light-bulb which enables me to see without headaches and my stock of incandescent bulbs is now almost dry :-(
Requiem for the American Dream
The "full price" you're describing doesn't include the cost of damage to human health and the environment from mercury and other heavy metals, acid rain, greenhouse gases, mountaintop removal, smog, etc.
Some *small* part of that cost is included now via regulation, requiring cleaner smokestack technology e.g., which the utilities pass on to customers. But much of it is *not* regulated or otherwise included in the price the end-user pays.
In the meantime, conservation has paid proven dividends in California:
I'm wondering why an article on TVs makes you think of homos. Then again, probably everything makes you think of homos..
Requiem for the American Dream
Ford can get 76.3 mpg. http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/NewFiesta/NewFiestaECOnetic
Although I don't think that model is available in the US.
Do you get the same bad effects from LED lighting? I know for area lights they suck (at least the ones I have seen so far), but for reading lights, etc they work OK.
I haven't done it, but maybe if you took LED spots, then had a white or light colored ceiling and tried to just bounce it/diffuse that way around the room or a piece of the room where it mattered you could use them for area lights. I need to try this...
I agree with you on the compact fluorescents, I try to be as energy efficient as possible, and tried some of those things and they just weird me out, can't stand them, have difficulty reading with them, or doing such things as opening the box up for repairs or upgrades, etc..anything close, close work or reading, they just slap don't work well.. But, normal long tube fluorescents as overhead lights like in shops or offices, etc, don't seem as bad to me for some reason, I can at least tolerate them (except for some that make a hideous high pitched noise that doesn't seem to bother most people but I can hear), but the screw in fluorescent replacements for incandescents just don't cut the mustard for my needs in any place I have tried them yet.
Last I checked, you could have the best running car on the road and still get 5 mpg.
Last I checked, miles per gallon has nothing to do with pollution (and CARB stickers on aftermarket engine components don't get better mileage.) Witness cities in the 2nd and 3rd world where mopeds and motorcycles (which are not required to be inspected by CA) fill the air with choking smoke. You could be getting 40MPG and spewing NOx everywhere.
If emissions are so important, why does CA except from emissions testing COMPLETELY: Vehicles made in 1975 or prior, Diesel-powered vehicles (which includes the ENTIRE TRUCKING INDUSTRY), Natural gas powered vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds, Hybrids, Motorcycles, trains, planes? Why aren't airplane emissions regulated? Did you know that a jumbo-jet taking off puts more pollution into the air in one takeoff than many cars will in their entire service life? Airports aren't transportation hubs: they're giant kerosene burners.
I ride my bicycle every day in the city and emotards on their 1970's mopeds are spewing 1000 times more pollution than a car to look trendy and save money on gas, undoing all the work the rest of us are doing to cut our personal emissions. When I ride the subway, I see the commuter line roar by, its diesel engine belching a 3-foot-wide plume of blue diesel smoke..
I drive a car that is actually negative-emissions because its radiator is coated with catalyst. And, it's a heavily modified for performance. It's not CARB legal, despite being negative-emissions, because the company that made my exhaust (which has a catalytic converter) didn't bother to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a CARB stamp. I take public transit to work, use the train to travel when possible instead of fly, and I bicycle 120 miles a week. So don't you fucking lecture me about emissions or saving the environment or the air we share.
And, incidentally, I don't live in CA. I live in a state which proxies their emissions laws off CA, which means I don't have any legislative representation in the matters which affect me as a citizen of a different state.
Please help metamoderate.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? I suppose that the arrow of causation probably goes from pollution towards environmental activism (rather than from environmental activism towards pollution), but STILL. Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things, I'm often struck by just how hard-nosed and practical Virginia usually manages to be on most of the "core" issues (roads, taxes, regulation)--and how well it usually works. Not that VA is perfect... but compared to California or Massachussets? How can you live in those places?!
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
...this? Wow, looks like California is trying hard to maintain their reputation as the most dysfunctional state government. Granted, over here in NY state we may still hold the record for the least amount of actual legislation written this year (so far almost none); but at least our government is talking about thinking about proposing to hold meetings about news conferences about talking about proposing to write legislation that spends money looking into our budget problems.
Of course, they'll do that right after they vote themselves a pay raise and have actual meetings about re-gerrymandering their favorite districts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So you are driving down the street with aftermarket spoilers and an obviously modified exhaust and other clearly visible or audible mods, racing decals, etc. and think that doesn't give the police probable cause to search your vehicle for other illegal mods. I don't think so. This is firmly established law.
Look, I don't know you or how you behave. But I have a neighbor whose teenage daughter was killed practically in their front yard by a couple of street racers going over 100 mph in a residential neighborhood (Speed limit 25 mph). It could have easily been one of my family members. As far as I am concerned the laws against excessive speed, driving modified cars of that nature and so forth are far too leniently enforced. Nip that behavior in the bud and the serious incidents will occur far less often.
And exactly what kind of power plants do the crazy hippie laws in CA allow?
Not my problem.
What are the options?
1) Move closer to work?
2) Buy a new car?
3) Public transit?
4) Get a new job?
Or car pool. That's one that doesn't actually cost any money and will work for almost everyone.
What we need are LONG TERM solutions to power consumption, we need someone to bite the bullet and finally start building some nuclear plants.
FORGET about gas, once we can convert everyone over to an electric economy run on clean power everyone will switch to EV cars anyway.
California can't supply power enough power for TV's and you are talking electric cars?
California doesn't have anything like the grid infrastructure to support EV cars and it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
These sort of state mandates are STUPID. Stupid because industries have to react to an ever increasing morass of standards across the country, stupid because, while California is a large state and has more resources than say.. Rhode Island I suppose, it's a state, they've done this to other industries and it's terribly counterproductive and just stupid. Why? 1: State Legislators are experts in... What? Being Lawyers? Possibly running state Government, how many scientists, engineers, people who understand how a particular industry or technology works actually got to provide their input into this bill? 2: Abiding by these sort of rules is expensive, terribly complicated and time consuming, time is money after all. If some new rule was agreed on by the Feds, or a group of states got together and put together a single rule to cover all the states, nifty. In this future you're going to have to prove you've got California certified TVs and when MA or MI decides it wants it's own rule? But the idiots in their state legislature define "energy saving" in a different way, then you'll have another set of headaches, which will in turn make TVs more expensive, which helps no one at all. 3: Did anyone from the land of fruits and nuts consider whether this was worthwhile or not? This costs money will making these devices more energy efficient result in an actual savings for anyone involved? It's more than possible that more efficient TVs will require more total energy in their cradle to grave lifecycle than lower efficiency TVs. Is the savings worth the effort? Did they just spout an idiot factoid about how much current all the TVs in the state of CA draw at one time? Or did they look at what percentage of the states electrical usage is about TV consumption, I'd wager the percentage is pretty small. Will reducing it do any good? 4: Wouldn't the best way to reduce electrical consumption be to charge more for it on an increasing scale? The first so many KWH are sold to you at rate X, then when you reach 100% of the mean usage for that month you pay 1.5XKWH, then at 200% 2XKWH.. Etc. Make the people who use the most pay the most, wow what a concept. (Unrelated most of my electric bill is usually just for the privilege of having electricity, if I'm not running my AC my total bill is essentially unchanged by my energy consumption, there's essentially zero incentive for me to save energy with lights, TVs etc. I can't tell by my bill how much I use any of those things.) See also, Compact fluorescent bulbs SUCK and are awful, annoying, hard on the eyes and do not start properly a large percentage of the time. Their alleged lifespan in hours is a complete fantasy and they seem to last about twice as long as incandescent bulbs, fix all that and I'll switch.
You're imagining things. For the last thirty years the only place where you have found incandescent lighing has been at peoples home.
Every mall, school, workplace already use flourescent lamps (though you might only recognize them looking like this instead of this).
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious?
First of all, your suggestion California is the "most polluted" is downright inaccurate. If you're referring to air pollution in LA and other cities, then you have to consider local climate plays a role in retaining certain pollutants that form smog, as does the fact the area has around eighteen million people.
As for "how" I can live here (here, for me, being in the San Francisco Bay Area), for some reason I have trouble understanding the question. Are you seriously asking how I can live in one of the most statistically desirable places in the United States? Well, I manage pretty well...
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
What makes you think any of this is unconstitutional? The constitution places a lot of limits on what the FEDERAL government can do. State governments not so much.
I stopped reading your post there because that's so wildly inaccurate I wouldn't know how to set you straight.
Posting this mostly so you don't get modded informative.
So, I have this eeepc. I don't know exactly how much power the screen itself draws, but I can guess, since the machine draws about ten watts with the screen on at full brightness and six with it off -- so let's say four watts, for a 10" screen. This screen's about the same aspect ratio as a widescreen TV, so no monkey business here. It's been optimized to hell to decrease power usage, obviously, but it hasn't affected the cost much -- the whole computer was $300 or so.
Let's say you want a 40" display. Since area goes as linear dimension squared, if everything scales in the naive way this puts us at 32 watts. If anything this is a conservative estimate, since the 40" display will have fewer pixels than sixteen eeepc screens. Of course, you've got to decode the image, and that requires some computing -- probably no more than 10W for that. Let's say eight watts for sound (since the volume will probably be set at 1W or so, and 12% efficiency seems reasonable), and we're still coming in just at 50W.
Somehow I doubt you can get a 40" television that only uses 50W.
And, somehow I doubt your eee is as bright as a typical 40" TV, or has the same viewing angle range. I don't disagree they're wildly inefficient, and IANAEE, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
For what it's worth, I just looked up my TV's consumption (just googled it) - and at regular usage it's 406W. :(
Your latter kind are the kind which cause skin damage...
And yes, I know how to recognise a fluorescent bulb - thanks :D
Thought you were being ironic with the 'You're imagining things'. That's presumably the mindset of those who invented the damn things "I can't see it so it's not there".
Requiem for the American Dream
It's not at all surprising. People react to pollution that they can see, smell, and touch. In less populated areas where smog just blows away, few are going to care what their emissions are doing. California has wonders like the LA basin. Smog stays trapped near the source. When people have to breath the smog they produce, they tend to care a little more.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? [...] Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things [...]
Just as an FYI, Virginia pollutes more than California.
I'm not even taking into consideration that Virginia has 30 million less people than California. If I took that into consideration and looked at per-capita pollution, then Virginia pollutes WAY more than California.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Things Like this makes me hope California breaks off and sinks into the ocean.
Ford has been doing it in Europe for years - they have class-leading petrols and diesels in the small, medium and estate (station wagon) markets that are not just "ok" - they are genuinely good cars with some excellent engines.
Why they don't sell those in the US, where I thunk Ford cars are the proper joke of shitty engineering, I have no idea.
note that being a british site those figures will be in miles per imperial gallon. So the 76.3 (which is the "combined" figure, urban is lower, extra-urban is higher). Converting to US gallons gives us a figure of 63.5 MPG.
Also different countries will have different testing rules so figures from different countries are not directly comparable even when you get the units right.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Seems that detroit puts more effort into large vehicle fuel economy.
A large Chevy Tahoe is rated 15/21mpg and the smaller Honda Pilot16/22mpg.
On the other hand, there is performance and driving comfort to consider. Edmunds claims a Yaris S does 0-60mph in 10.7 seconds. For me, the performance cut-off is around 9 seconds. Any slower than that feels danderously slow to me. I test drove a first-gen Toyota Prius and it was downright scary in city traffic. My car does 0-60 in under 7 seconds. I also rented a Toyota Corolla for a week which got nearly 40% better fuel economy compared to my car. But the NVH, hard seat, and lack of power made me glad to get rid of it.
Fuel economy is not the end-all requirement; everything is a compromise. Sure, I'd love to drastically cut down on my fuel costs, but the MPG improvement with a Yaris, Fit, Scion, or whatever doesn't overcome the loss of comfort and performance.
There doesn't seem to be any substitute for wheel base when it comes to a comfortable and stable ride.
Just in case you were like me and were interested in how your existing model stacked up:
Year Standby Active Max Power Factor
2006 3w N/A N/A
2011 1w 0.2*area+32 0.9
2013 1w 0.12*area+25 0.9
I _think_ that the area of a 16:9 TV is:
(C is the diagonal, C^2 is the square of the diagonal)
=SQRT(256*C^2/337)*SQRT(81*C^2/337)
So, using 2013 numbers:
42":115.45W
50":153.19W
65":241.64W
I have no idea what "Max Power Factor" means.
Yeah, right. Let's put off saving power, money and the planet because a few bankers had a hard time. If you're gonna do it, do it now, whenever now is. It will only be harder later. When you're down, another kick doesn't really matter. When you're up, it's a big deal. Get a life.
There have been energy efficiency standards for decades before Obama took office, in particular for refrigerators. Medicare also has always been run by the government. I don't understand this idiotic Obama backlash, where suddenly every new government program or regulation is socialism or communism, but Medicare, social security, public schools, and other programs we've had for decades are perfectly fine.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Yeah, next time they (voluntarily) buy a new tv they will have to buy something that will be more energy efficient. Oh fucking dear. And how much more expensive will it be ? No more expensive than the last one. Meanwhile California continues to exist on borrowed time because they have exhausted the Colorado river and will die of thirst within 20 years. Why don't you buy an island somewhere and expire quietly ?
So what is the comparable figure in the US ? Or are you just equivocating ? What is the best MPG available in the states for a pure petrol or diesel engined vehicle ? (convert to UK gallons for extra points)
This is one of the more peculiar forms of populist ideology: I can't think of anything the average American understands less well than wealth.
Pareto distribution
New evidence for the power-law distribution of wealth
Getting rich in America obviously means adding another zero. Does it really need to be an exponential feedback relationship to get an enterprising American (or Brit) off the couch? A linear feedback relationship couldn't achieve the same purpose? Why not? How about a slightly smaller power-law coefficient? No chance?
At what magnitude does the power-law wealth coefficient cease to be about entrepreneurial motive, and instead become more about power elites? Anyone in America interested in funding a study to determine this? Hmmm, no one with enough money to fund this wants to know the answer.
Excess concentration of wealth hasn't been a complete disaster over the past 100 years. You can argue the merits: we have in fact enjoyed a spectacular rise in wealth pretty much all around, if you look at it through lenses with a logarithmic slant.
Hans Rosling: Let my dataset change your mindset
One can argue it has been a complete disaster, lately. When the elites bungle, we all pay. Kinda sucks as a system, actually.
If you go back 100 years, there were many untapped resources, it was a growth scenario. For the next 100 years we'll have to work very hard to relearn our current standard of living with respect to an increasingly finite resource base.
But oh no, even a sensible initiative--which is likely nothing but a good thing in terms of managing California's over stressed electrical grid--is going to put an imperceptible dent in our precious exponential wealth incentive coefficient. How will we ever live?
How exactly am I saving money when I have to spend more on my products?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
When the state goes bankrupt.
The EPA's CO2 emissions by state disagrees. California produces about 3.5x as much CO2, for example, as Virginia. It does produce less per capita, though, as it has slightly more than 4x as many people.
California produces about 3.5x as much CO2, for example, as Virginia.
Actually, my statement is referring to the fact that Virginia has around 71 million pounds of reported toxic chemical releases per annum. California has about 45 million pounds of reported releases.
If you're going to report solely on the basis of C02 emissions, then you should also consider that this is not a good indicator for how much a state pollutes in total. We all know there are plenty of pollutants out there besides C02, and of course the highest emitters of the gas are going to be states with large populations.
My statement was specifically refuting that California is one of the worst polluters in the nation. This simply does not stand up to the facts, if you look at the picture of environmental impact in total.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Although most of the BoR is now applied against the states, even the most ardent States Rightist must concede that the 10th Amendment reservation of powers suggests that it has always been anticipated that the states would (and should be permitted to) do things that the either expressly forbidden or not iplicitly permitted to Federal Government.
http://www.scorecard.org/ranking/ was the first google hit for "pollution for state" VA is ahead of CA in Total Toxic Chemical Emissions.
The point is that the government wastes time and money on this sort of regulation when they could be using both to actually do something useful. Given CA's known bureaucracy, this is easily going to cost 10-20 million... for what, exactly? Is this even worth concern when the majority of new TVs are now LCD, which have minuscule power requirements compared to just about everything else in your house? No, it's not. It's wasteful. It's purposeless. It's feel-good regulation that does nothing for anyone's good. It's the sort of thing that is slowly running the state into the ground.
I don't live there anymore, luckily, but I still know this from experience.
Great Intellect...
The point is that the government wastes time and money on this sort of regulation when they could be using both to actually do something useful.
The California Constitution dictates that the budget must pass with a 2/3 majority in the legislature. In addition, the constitution stipulates you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. Hence, the budget is impossible to pass and taxes are not raised. The republicans hold the budget hostage every year until they receive ridiculous concessions. It is basically the only time during the year when the republicans have any say in the legislature, and they use it to push through their entire conservative agenda on issues that have nothing to do with the budget. Meanwhile, the governor (Schwarzenegger) encourages this activity by threatening vetoes unless he gets exactly what he wants as well.
In an environment like this, no wonder it is easier to pass bills that don't involve the 2/3 majority clause.
Basically, these two stipulations in the state constitution are ruining the budget. How exactly would you propose to solve the situation? Sitting on the sidelines and yelling about "bureaucracy" doesn't change the fact that California voters voted for these additions to the state constitution that make it impossible to pass a budget or raise taxes.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Yes, I agree, and when the overlords are not out wasting tax money they are spanking blond lobbyists in eye patch underwear. I think we listen to the same radio station.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
"Energy Star requires power consumption of less than 1 watt in standby to qualify."
Well, yes. But Energy Star by itself voluntary. The proposed regulations *require* Energy Star compliance:
"If the commission adopts the new rules, beginning in 2011, California retailers would be able to sell only TVs that meet the guidelines of the voluntary federal Energy Star program."
Sounds good to me.
Wow, that's insane. I have a Casio TV-770 which only needs 3.5 watts.
The stench of all the Randroid droppings in here is REALLY thick in the air today!
Somebody open a window and break out the Glade!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
New regulations, promoting new efficiencies can lead to R&D and actually help the economy. The thing the rules need make sense, and be implemented across an entire industry, nationwide would be very nice, worldwide would be ideal. (At least in the sense of all the nations with the same power and video signal anyway.) The insane thing is the multiple state and federal rules trying to accomplish the same thing.
Even the closeted, self-loathing "faggots" in the GOP? DO they need to die as well?
How about all the "faggots" in the pulpits of the Church(es)?
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
It's worth trying several different types of the compact fluorescents - The older ones tended to have a 100 Hz flicker but the newer ones work in the range of 10's of kHz which the persistence of the phosphor should smooth out. Cheap ones tend to have a worse spectrum - I like the Phillips ones but GE make some reasonable bulbs too. Some of the really crappy ones may also have a 100 Hz modulation caused by insufficient or dried out smoothing capacitors in the input section.
Other than that incandescent light bulbs are still available. Retailers are allowed to sell existing stock (and the rules only came into effect 20 days ago so I'm not sure why you've been struggling to find them for so long, where do you live?). What has been banned are bulbs over 100 W and all frosted bulbs (since these are deemed more easy to replace with fluorescent). This doesn't apply to anything other than standard general purpose lighting so spotlights, candle bulbs, etc are unaffected. Also there are replacements which include a halogen capsule in a standard glass envelope like this.
Where I live in southern England there is no trouble getting incandescent bulbs at the moment - hardware shops, supermarkets, poundland, and DIY shops such as B&Q are all still selling them. Failing that I'd recommend you go to a decent electrical wholesalers such as TLC direct
In addition, the constitution stipulates you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. Hence, the budget is impossible to pass and taxes are not raised.
Regarding the last point, California taxes have already been raised...the state individual income tax rate is 9.3% for people making $44k or more. Only Rhode Island and Vermont has a higher tax rate (9.5%), but that doesn't kick in until $357k.
California corporate tax rate is 8.84% (fixed). There are a handful of other states with such high corporate taxes, but most tax much less.
In Los Angeles, the sales tax is 9.75%, and the minimum sales tax anywhere is California is 8.25%.
California property taxes are the 10th highest of the states, at 0.48% of home value.
I guess you can find models that are available in both the US and Europe - Toyota Prius, Volkswagen Golf and Mini for example, and compare the fuel efficiencies as measured under US rules and EU rules. The point I was making is that Ford manages to make cars in Europe that have comparable fuel efficiencies to those from other manufacturers. They could sell those models in the US if they wanted to, and Americans were prepared to buy them.
The Volkswagen Golf is often mentioned in the US as one of the most fuel efficient cars around. If you went into a Volkswagen dealer in Europe and asked them for the most efficient car, they would sell you a Polo. That does 74.3 mpg (British gallons, EU measurement rules). There are three cars that are more efficient than that - Seat Ibiza 76.3 mpg (Spanish subsidiary of Volkswagen), Ford Fiesta also 76.3 mpg, and the Smart Fortwo 85.6 mpg. The Golf does 62.8 mpg for comparison.
Yep, I've been trying to buy 150W bulbs... 60W really are no use to me.
I'll look into the Halogen/Phillips/GE - thanks :D
Requiem for the American Dream
That electrical wholesalers I linked to still has up to 200 W available and deliver to most of Britain. I'm sure there must be many others as well.
One problem I have with all this efficiency stuff is that we can't just ignore generation like California has attempted to do.
Just look at what they're proposing to replace traditional gasoline vehicles, even hyrids - plug in Hybrids and EVs. Both of them use electricity instead of gasoline. All well and good, especially if the electricity was generated in a green manner.
But, consider the consumer that averages 30 miles a day. This gives you 10k miles a year, but I'm figuring the road warriors who are on the high end still mostly drive liquid fuel vehicles. Using the Tesla Roadster as an example, consumption of electricity is on the order of 3 miles/kwh*, or 28kwh per 100 miles epa est(3.5m/kwh). That means the consumer will use 10 kwh to power his vehicle, or 300kwh extra during a month.
Now, the 'average' family uses ~1000kwh/month, so this will be a 30% increase in their usage, easily wiping out increased efficiencies from replacing light bulbs and appliances with versions that use 10-30% less electricity.
*Buried in the article.
I don't read AC A human right
And when you reach the impassé of people who do not evaluate everything in terms of financial cost?
That's when their only recourse for extracting retribution from the company, the courts, step in as a more or less neutral third party and IT sets the price. As it does when the two parties are otherwise unable to come to an agreement.
Don't get me wrong, like most people I like clean air, water, food, etc... But I recognize that it's impossible to run a modern society without sacrifice.
Without cars we wouldn't have car accidents and the ensuing fatalities and smog. But on the average, cars increase our quality of life so much that it's worth it. That doesn't mean that we can't afford to optimize to maximize our benefits - Safer cars, cleaner cars, more efficient cars.
Hell, more efficient city planning could do so much if we could convince the NIMBYs to cooperate.
I don't read AC A human right
The LA Times, for some reason, came out against :-)
the proposal today. This fired me up, so
I spent some time putting together notes on the
subject at
http://kegel.com/energy/television/
in hopes that it'd help me write a killer
letter-to-the-editor explaining why they're wrong