Slashdot Mirror
Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation
An anonymous reader writes "It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war. CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this. Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers. 'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch."
It's about time the government focuses on real issues, like how big your television screen is. I mean, if California was facing one of the worst financial crises in history or something, it would be totally absurd theater meant to detract from the fact that our legislative body has failed us deplorably. But since California is in fine shape, with no farmers in the Central Valley going without water, without widespread corruption, brutality, and incarceration - well, there's no reason not to focus on such an important and substantial issue.
Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and you won't get any tax money out of it. Suckas!
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Are they going to tell us what we can watch too? Good thing I don't live in California.
Pretty soon the secret police will come for your obnoxious football loving neighbor and his 52-inch plasma.
Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit
It frustrates me that these bureaucrats really do not get it, well maybe they do and just want to force more unnecessary laws on us. The television companies have obviously performed some cost analysis and decided while the consumers power costs maybe slightly higher, the TV will cost $1200 instead of $2400. According to this CNET article, a typically 50-inch plasma LCD would cost an average household around $63/yr to run. This legislation is going to do nothing but slow the sale of TVs in California which may result in job loss for the individuals who work for these TV manufactures. The economy has slumped enough, why can't we just leave it alone so a recovery will come in a year rather than years.
Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is ... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.
New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs. My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.
Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?
Free Martian Whores!
"In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place."
"In short, the differences between the two are not dramatic--the CEC's requirements are ultimately not any more stringent than the Energy Star guidelines."
"According to its analysis, many popular HDTV models already meet the CEC's requirements for the year 2011, and some LED models--which have made a selling point of their energy efficiency--already meet the CEC's Tier 2 standard."
Stay calm, people. The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.
Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W. For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier. For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.
The standards are not only necessary (its a suprisingly large fraction of the household power consumption in CA), but imminently doable.
Roughly 25% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50% meeting the 2011 specification.
The key is "LCD with LED backlight". Such TVs easily meet the spec and are of good quality.
LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity as well as power consumption.
Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I got a 50" plasma about 6 months ago. I researched all the specs to make sure I got a great tv - and I did. But what I hadn't paid any attention to was power consumption. I was pretty surprised when I learned my new TV uses 690W.
If you look at the back of a plasma tv they have fans on the back. The screen itself gets warm enough you can feel the heat on the back of your hand 3" or 4" away.
Do LCD's of this size use this much power?
California sure is hell bent on strangling itself in regulations. I don't get the mentality. I consider myself green because I don't even own a car and ride a bicycle, hence my carbon footprint is very low. But I'm not buying into the "Opus Dei" mentality that is the modern green movement: self-punishment in the name of mother earth, our new god, and we deserve to suffer (by we I mean all of you).
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
What's the big deal with large TV's anyway. 12" CRT TV owner, and proud of it. And... seriously? TV's are using enough power to warrant government intervention? I doubt that highly. Another great idea from The Land of Fruits and Nuts ;)
what do you expect?
. IF THEY COULD MAKE MORE EFFICIENT TVS FOR THE SAME PRICE THEY WOULD. They can't, so the TVs will be more expensive. This is more or less a hidden tax on CA consumers, or worse - a hidden tax on all of us, should manufacturers decide to redistribute costs amongst all of their products.
Why do people still believe that the price most goods are sold at is in any way affected by the cost of the manufacturing? tTere are markets where it is true, but in most it is not. Say it costs TV manufacturers an extra $100 to make high end TVs more energy efficient, but 11% less people are willing to pay for it, well if the TV is more than $1000 it's not worth it and the $100 will just eat into profit margins, if it was less than $1000 they would have been charging the extra $100 already. There are markets where a cost increase will be parsed onto the customers but high-end TVs is not one of them, it's an entirely demand driven market!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Why is People's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things?
It will NOT save the state of California millions every year. Utilities are taxed. By decreasing electricity consumption, they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People's Republik of Kalifornia cannot afford at this time.
If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television, they ought to let them. The consumers pay for the electricity they use.
Hell if they wanted to save power, they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36" CRT uses less electricity (76 watts at full brightness/full volume) than my Samsung 32" television (calibrated screen, "average" volume - I was curious and compared the CRT worst-case to LCD normal use, according to my kill-a-watt meter. I don't remember what the power factor measured at but it was similar for each - close enough to not be a significant variable. Incidentally, I might be replacing the CRT with a surplus 65" plasma screen, but the plasma screen is so heavy I'm not sure I'm going to take it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.
We are not going back.
Reasonable reduction, recycling programs, and common sense are certainly part of the picture, but the answer to the energy problem will be a technological one. We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.
If we pretend we can get by on coal and making TVs dimmer, we will pollute the atmosphere to the point it can't support us.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Should be noted that this regulation doesn't apply to sets larger than 58" and the reg about using 1 watt during standby is something that should have been done with all electronics years ago.
LCDs generally use a lot less power than plasma TVs.
LCDs with LED backlights are even better... Those TVs already meet the 2013 california specifications.
EG, the Vizio 55" LCD tv with LED backlights draws only 150W average. So significantly bigger LCD backlit TV (20% larger area) draws only 20% of the power of a plasma TV.
Test your net with Netalyzr
It is a question of freedom. The more power we give the government, the more they will take. The more power the take, the less we will have. At some point, we will realize that we are living in a tyranny and the only way to change things will be with guns. I'd rather stop this now, when no guns are necessary. All that you need to be free, is to be willing to have your neighbor be free as well.
Shut the hell up, all you fat asses with your ludakris-size TVs. Fat ass.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
This is the same stupidity that energy gurus did to ceiling fans. They decided that, in order to save energy, all ceiling fans would have to go to the candelabra-sized base, from a standard full-size base bulb. Their thinking (if you can call it that) was that those bulbs are not made in anything over 60 Watts, so that's bound to save power, right? Okay, so let's see what they did: They eliminated the possibility of using almost any compact fluorescent bulb in a ceiling fan, because the choices of CFL bulb offered in that size base are extremely limited. So get rid of those wasteful 100 Watt CFLs (which consume 25 Watts of power) and install the efficient 60 Watt candelabra base bulbs (which actually use 60 Watts). Way to go.
The only people this is going to hurt are people who sell large screen TV's in California, and the moronic government that will now miss out on the revenue from it.
Unless they are prepared to guard the borders to check Californians for "illegal" large screen TV's people will still get what they want.
Corporatism != Free Market
(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)
But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.
I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.
With that name, I'm amazed the politicians didn't come up with the idea themselves.
Bark less. Wag more.
Just like screen resolution: why did the govt step in and foist 525 lines on us when 441 was good enough for industry? So I'm going back a bit (1941); so what. We could have had 60 years of inexpensive 400 line TVs instead of the almost impossible to make, expensive, high resolution 525 line sets.
Nosy government do-gooders have forced us to pay for seat belts, air bags, crumple zones in cars.
Clean air standards have caused untold hardships for industry and employees.
We'd all have better lives if the idiots would just stop with these stupid regulations. Higher energy consumption means more work in the energy industry, better profits, and prosperity for a
ZPG to slight depopulation once you get some money.
I think all our depopulation efforts should be focused on the world's poor.
This is a win-win-win-win solution for California.
1> These measures ensure that California's current power plants will be capable of supplying all the electricity nmeeded for the foreseeable future. There be no need for trying to find a safe place to put new power plants that will either vastly increase CO2 emissions or worse cause increased radioactive contamination from nuclear power.
2>In addition, it will vastly increase employment opportunities in the state. When you cross back into California with your illegal power-hogging bigscreen, you will be met by "inspectors" from the newly expanded agriculture department. They will confiscate your contraband and charge you with crimes against humanity. you will then be temporarily incarcerted in facilites which will require many new prison guards until such time as you can be deported for trial by the ICC in their Somalian facility.
3>As you will be unable to pay taxes/rent/mortgage your home/apartment will be seized by the state. As it is now owned by the state, there can be no possibility of it being foreclosed upon which will operate to further reinforce the rock solid stability of the CA banking industry.
4>The vastly increased payroll requirements of all the new state workers will of course consume the current budget surplus so that there will be no need for any tax cuts - and in the years following, the taxes paid by those state employees will result in further surplusses so that even more state employees can be hired.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Surplus as in free? if you aren't interested, I am :)
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state? Ironically, this bureaucratic idiocy will create more pollution as a result of folks driving to buy TVs from another state AND it will cost CA sales taxes, with neighboring states benefiting from the decision.
And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?
Ship any offending models to California with some cheap, heavy batteries to supply power above the maximum wattage. They can take their charge during the "passive drain" when the television is turned off. Since these are residential TVs we're talking about, the regulator should be cool with the notion that they're only on for 8 hours a day, and the excess voltage after that period (when the batteries run out) is from abuse.
Seems exactly like what the 50-hot beds of democracy should be doing; backing up a federal decision when they support it.
California is just hedging it's bets against manufacturers lobbying Congress and buying enough of them to get the 2011 regulations pushed back to 2013. They did the same thing with car emissions. They'd sign on to the government plan, but the fed's would always move the goal posts at the last minute. So, California just started creating their own regulations in-line with the federal standards they agree with, and then holding tight to them. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
More tempest in a teapot so that certain self-righteous individuals can get all worked about nothing and feel good about themselves.
From my understanding, the power consumption of LCD TVs are calculated based on the maximum power usage. That would be OK if it weren't for the fact that most have this God awful "Vivid" (power draining) setting that seems to be the default. I bought a new 42 inch LCD a couple weeks ago, as soon as something came on with a white background, I looked like a vampire in the sunlight. It was just way to bright. After fiddling with the settings, I found that I get the best picture with the backlight turned down. When I'm watching SD broadcasts, I get the best picture with the backlight turned WAY down. I don't know if others have the same experience, but if most of us are turning our backlights down, it would seem like manufacturers are just shooting themselves in the foot by offering an energy hungry vivid mode that most people don't use.
I thought that the issue with these devices (and other electronic devices) is that the power consumption when these devices are "off" (standby) is so much greater and isn't reflected in the EnergyStar ratings.
Frankly, I wish my home electronic devices wouldn't require reconfiguring when I really remove power from them.
And as a side note - aren't large screen / HDTVs the Hummer equivalent of home entertainment?
LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity
As long as the thing lasts for the entire 12-month limited warranty, manufacturers could give a care.
as well as power consumption.
True, but who owns the patent on putting LEDs behind an LCD? Royalties could offset any power consumption gains or any increased customer demand from offering a longer warranty.
http://www.projectorreviews.com/blog/2009/11/20/the-plasma-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-projector-california-bureaucrats-have-decided/
Or, in other words, not only is this doable, but it's being done right now by the smarter companies.
This may or may not be an urban myth, but it's germane, so what the hell...
Back in the day, GM noticed that the EPA would run cars through it's test cell with the door open.
So they wired up the ECU to take notice of the door light, and if the door light was on, it would run
with a different map than it would if the light was off.
Any system with predictable rules will be gamed.
Really!? Regulate the size of your TV?
How about how many doughnuts you can eat in a day? I'm sure fat people generate more co2 than a thin person. Plus they radiate more heat. Should we regulate that? How about a government controlled bedtime? If everyone was forced to go to bed at sundown we could save lots of energy.
Um.... toilet paper rationing? Do you really need more than a square per squat? (except fat people who would be TAXED for additional squares)
Water conservation! -regulate the number of showers per week!
Seriously, how much government are we (THE PEOPLE) going to allow?
What's wrong frankly with holding displays to more stringent energy standards then they meet today? It doesn't appear to be a particularly hard benchmark to meet which leaves me wondering what the big deal is?
Looking around the house both the samsung lcd panels including the 2 year old one meet the 2011 target... The projector uses ~200w to throw a 7' x4' image and the 36" crt nobody should be using anymore but it's hard to recycle a 200lb television..
California already has stricter emissions requirements on cars than other states. Just try and license a car you bought in another state in CA and you will discocer it has to be retrofitted to meet CA emissions standards.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
I do not watch TV at all, and I watch maybe 2 hours of movies per week. Why should I not be able to have a giant, inefficient TV, when with my viewing habits, I'm still using less power than many people who leave there 2* inch HD sets on 24-7? What about people that have 3 TVs in their house? Why can't I have one giant one?
Just buy you TVs in Oregon, Nevada or Arizona...
Unlike cars, which have to be titled in the state, wherein the titling carries specific safety and emissions requirements, there are no titlign or registration requirements for TVs. This is totally unenforceable.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.
First, here are the actual regulations. All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:
Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.
This is just another of a series of energy conservation policies put in place by California over the last 40 years. As a result while economic activity and population have soared over this time period, energy use in the state has stayed CONSTANT. You heard GE bitching about the same thing for refrigerators and dryers many years ago when California introduced efficiency regulation for them. Those markets are functioning just fine. In fact California is such a powerful economic force it actually drives trends nationally and internationally in efficiency standards. The bottom line is that efficiency standards are the easiest and cheapest way to reduce energy consumption. They work and they do not have significant adverse effects on the market they target.
Set my TV to "SCAM" mode? I'm not going to fall for that one!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
That would be California, aka the left coast.
Sure, open door immigration policy and out of control social spending on non citizens and no citizenship verification at the polls, just come on in but dont think about a tv over 22" or you'll have a problem.
I cant wait till they fall off
Thought Experiment: CA passes a law limiting the purchase of computers to machines that use no larger than a 250w power supply.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
As opposed to elected bureaucrats, that usually only clamor about whatever will get them re-elected - sigh.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Seems that adding Energy Star ratings to the TVs (with regulation on how they are all tested to filter out this 'scam' setting), would help with that problem, and taxing the electricity and applying the money to building power plants would be a reasonable method (work with the market instead of against it).
People look at E-Star ratings for fridges and furnaces, seeing it on TVs would help raise awareness of the issue.
Is it possible that California is making a big stink about this so they can please the environmentalists with a restriction, while also pushing people who might be interested into buying a new set today instead of 2012, thus pleasing republicans by not raising taxes and helping big business?
A goatse reference that fits and you had the further taste to not include the link.
I salute you.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]
The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)
But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.
This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).
And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.
"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
The next regulation target will be for all large SUV owners to make them more efficient by replacing the big V-8s with 4-cylinder engines out of worn out Ford Escorts. LOL
Don't fear the penguins
Technology already exists to reduce TV energy usage. Most manufacturers are already introducing LED LCDs, which use less energy than the flourescent tube in traditional LCDs. On a side-note, most DLPs are energy star compliant (at least my 70" Hitachi from Costco is). LED DLPs use less energy than mine. No need to pass laws that are already techichly obsolete.
Good idea, but the bulk of the folks who voted the politicos in would immediately revolt, then vote for whoever is first to promise lowered power bills to the electorate.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
But not as an independent country. It could possibly be demoted back to the status of "Territory". That could mean a loss of representation in both houses of Cngress and in the Electoral College.
For the scessionist types, you might want to consider how much of that vaunted industrial machine (high tech and entertainment) would actually be likely to stay as opposed to wanting to move to a country where it would be more appreciated and not subject to rolling brownouts and the unfinded pension demands of rapacious public employee unions. And for those that stay, you might want to consider how much it is going to cost them to export to the US, Canada, and Mexico since the Nation of California will not be part of NAFTA.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
http://frognog.livejournal.com/
Standard "sky-is-falling" complaints. Note this would transfer money from the power companies to the electronic parts companies (if the TVs are more expensive but use less electricity). Could be a non-issue for the consumer, too, if the money saved in electricity exactly matches the increase in TV price. And not all "innovative features" used by televisions require a high power consumption.
I agree with the earlier post about "all rant, no facts".
I'm reading a lot of posts about the effectiveness of this new regulation -- how doable it will be, overpopulation, manufacturing costs, etc. But I think many of you are missing one large point. That is, it's none of the government's business how a television set is made! I feel like today everyone is running around asking whether we can do something that we forget to ask whether we should do it. I know, it's a stupid television. But it's just one more step in the over-regulation of our lives and the loss of our freedoms.
Look, if this is really such an issue then a television manufacturer could just release low-energy models of their products. If people think they are a good deal then they will buy them. I know that if I saw two equal television sets but one said that I will save $50/year on energy costs then I would be tempted to buy it. If the manufacturers sell enough then perhaps they will make more low-energy models or convert their entire line to it. It's how a free market works.
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
The only problem with that, is that electricity is part of our infrastructure. It's not something you can do without (such as large screen TV's), there are people of all sorts of financial ability that depend on electricity, whether it is to cook their meals, light their houses, or take a shower in the morning. It's the reason why we regulate some things "into the ground" (as blind conservatives would spew out), and it is necessary, else we WOULD have things like Enron. Infrastructure (mail, roads, utilities, etc) is not something you ration out to the highest bidder - that puts it into fast track for collapse, as the "less profitable" areas get neglected. Of all the things that have been deregulated, only one (telecomm) has shown to be an actual benefit for people other than the owners of the businesses supplying the services. I personally see that as an anomaly, a thing that happened before corporations knew how to game the system and lie before the congress.
Europe is going one better and requiring sets show an energy efficiency rating. There is an additional incentive on manufacturers to get their act together because a D rated set isn't going to look so attractive to consumers when its close to an A+ rated one.
Hi there Californians! I live in your neighboring state of Oregon, where not only can we buy any television we damn well please, but also there is no sales tax. For a nominal fee equivalent to the CA sales tax, I would be more than happy to purchase an energy guzzling television for you and deliver it to you. Just one question -- will the fruit check stations on the border now also ask me to declare if I'm carrying any large screen TVs?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Actually, we have a pretty well developed secession 'infrastructure' already and get to go first... Heck Joe Vogler took his case to the UN (claiming that the 1958 vote in favor of statehood was illegal) and the Alaska Independence Party has a pretty big following (including the Palins at one point). Anyway, letting California, Texas or Alaska go would be pretty much the death knell for the US since, I think, that the remainder of the country would fracture along regional lines. So, no, I don't favor Alaska leaving the union, but I do have to stop and think when I see the "Maybe Joe Was Right" bumper stickers up here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party
Mod parent up!
I think what you call "people" are like aliens from outer space. Consuming earth's resources...pillaging them..as if there is no tomorrow. Breeding and growing.
plants, or large screen televisions?"
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
It's all Arnold Schwarzenegger's fault, now that he's no longer making movies, he doesn't want you watching anyone else's movies instead so he's trying to force everyone else to have a small crappy set at home...
Incidentally, the small CRT i had a few years ago uses a lot more power than the fairly large LCD i have now.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
California is basically the only reason we have efficient washers and dryers, wallwarts with switching power supplies instead of transformers, consumer electronic devices which actually have low power modes, and vehicle requirements that vastly improve safety and mileage over federal standards. It has all been beneficial in reducing per-capita energy consumption (and water consumption too when it comes to washing machines).
The problem the U.S. has is that most people can't see beyond the end of their nose when it comes to shaping policy. It's really unfortunate that the Feds can't get their act together and it takes action by a state like CA to actually get something done. It's doubly unfortunate that CA regulations designed to give industries upwards of a decade to make changes aren't allowed to take effect until the very last minute by idiot politicians who think they are doing industry a favor when all they are really doing is making our industry non-competitive with other countries and creating massive shocks to the system that are totally unnecessary.
-Matt
ending wars. Imagine how much the environment stands to benefit.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Meh, I've bought every TV I've ever owned from craigslist. Either that or I've had it handed down to me by friends and/or family. That being said, I could give less of a damn about whatever my state government does to regulate TVs (yes I live in California). The simple fact of the matter is that, unless you have some kind of techno-pene compensation obsession, you really don't need the latest and greatest and biggest anything. Mediums like craigslist and ebay have opened up the entire state (and for that matter, world) into one big tax-free bazaar. I can find a TV I want in Maryland, pay the dude to ship it, and have it in a couple of weeks. If I don't want to pay shipping, I can wait two weeks and find something comparable 2 hours away. So go ahead government, drive up consumer taxes. Drive up regulation. Try to micro manage everything. I have no incentive to listen to your BS or buy into your system anymore =P
For the record, I do realize that regulations and taxes do have a trickle down effect on everytihng, including things like online commerce and the sneakernet, but so far the effects seem to have been minimal and, for the most part, negligible.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit.
Even in a perfect world, by increasing residential electrical taxes, you've still only solved less than 10% of the problem. Energy use is a classic 90-10 optimization problem; and as every geek knows, you need to address the 90% part to make any significant gains.
Less than 10% of energy use (about 1/12th) is domestic usage by private citizens: over 90% (11/12ths) is corporate (especially industrial and manufacturing). For green laws to be effective in making any sort of dent in energy usage, they have to target corporate usage, not domestic.
Granted, taxing corporate energy usage is one approach: outlawing in-efficient and/or pollution causing industrial practices is another. There are others: these solutions should be all be considered and applied appropriately, with careful balance to ensure the maximum improvement for the planet while still maintaining a functional economy. It's not an easy problem: but placing primary focus on domestic energy consumption is almost the same as ignoring the situation altogether.
Regardless of the solutions proposed, the metric for green success can't be measured by looking TVs, SUVs, or residential recycling programs: in order to make real change, we have to make our corporations and industry work smarter, greener, and more efficiently.
You people opposing this clearly buying industry FUD and unaware of how California has effectively lead the nation in getting manufacturers to make more energy efficient appliances, cars, etc.
About 30 years ago the same thing happened with refrigerators. They used to suck up about 10x as much electricity. California set extremely agressive energy efficiency standards. Manufacturers were up in arms (gnashing their teeth, predicting doom and gloom, etc). CA stuck to its guns, and refrigerator manufacturers figured it out. Fridges went from one of the worst energy suckers in your house to one of the best/most efficient - and everyone benefited. In fact, it actually spurred more fridge sales.
CA has applied this same type of energy regulatory framework more aggressively than other states, which is why their per capita energy use has actually dropped 30% over the last 30 years while the rest of the US (on average) has stayed the same or gone up.
Frankly, every regulation in the world is like this - manufacturers oppose anything that appears like a "cost" to them - and spread FUD about how it will "kill innovation" and "stifle demand". Rarely does that happen, and in the few cases it does, society still benefits (i.e. we want to stifle demand for wasteful things).
I'm shocked that the open source and net neutrality folks here can't recognize industry FUD.
I'm going to jump to the conclusion that this guy has swallowed the propaganda from a special interest group (CEDIA) and is unhappy that the manufacturers who enable the Home Theater Installation profession (WTF, can't install your own TV?) will be inconvenienced by the new regulations.
The car companies are always whining about emissions standards, time to share the pain.
As for all the folks whining about people emigrating from California, perhaps that is a good thing. How many episodes of Modern Marvels are dedicated to impressive feats of engineering required to let people live in that desert? Maybe that will save them some money that would otherwise be required to upgrade their infrastructure to support an otherwise increasing population.
Suppose that we create a big ball of energy out in space, and harvest the power from that. No, wait, hear me out...
We could make it really big: as big as the earth, or even bigger. We could power it with nuclear energy: like some weird sort of massive fusion reaction, or something.
Suppose make our giant ball of energy 100 times bigger than the diameter of the earth itself! We'd have more energy than we could ever use! It would literally last for hundreds of millions of years, perhaps billions, before burning out! Our biggest problem would be trying to find a use for all that energy; not the horrible energy crisis that haunts us today.
We'd place it nearby our planet, but not so close that it melts the entire Earth, 'cause that would be crazy bad. We'll keep it far enough away that at worst, some of the polar icecaps might melt a bit.
Anyway, that's my plan. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking we might just be able to make it happen one day. If it happens, remember I told you.
I'm going to call my invention: "the big blazing ball of nuclear fire in the sky".
I made an attempt to reduce the electric bill at my house a couple years ago, but the TV was the least of it.
My wife runs a rack of networking equipment 24/7 and a runs a 1/2hp stand mixer on weekends. Plus she likes to leave lights on in the kitchen and hallway at night.
The babysitter gets lonely during the day and turns on every light switch in the house then turns on the DVD player to play CDs and turns on (a different) TV to see the DVD player's "you're watching a CD so I have no video to show you" screen. The kid sleeps with a 20W CFL lamp on all night.
The cable box uses 20W whether it's on or off. There are idle loads from a garage door opener, doorbell circuit, burglar alarm, cheapo video surveillance system, several outdoor lights on motion IR, various clocks, a gas oven and a microwave with displays, 2 laptops and 10 (ten!) phones plugged into chargers.
If that's not enough, from June through September the wife likes to keep the house at 74F. So 10 tons of a/c capacity are engaged in a losing war moving entropy from inside to outside.
I'm willing to try to save money on electricity, in fact I'm highly motivated because I pay for it. But there are other people that I cannot simply yell at/browbeat/guilt trip into conservation at so in the interest of family harmony our carbon footprint is, well, gigantic really.
Someone explained to me once that the fundamental problem with healthcare is that the party benefiting from health care and the party paying for the health care were not the same--so the market fails and the resource is wasted to some large and inevitable degree. The same thing happens with electricity. So many people use electricity that someone else is paying for that there is a failure of the free market.
Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around. I'm serious.
This regulation only applies to NEW TVs that are to be offered for sale after 2011. So nobody is going to take your TV away. Also, most existing flat screen TVs on sale already pass the regulation.
By the completely pointless and irrelevant discussion of how one can comply with the regulations by decreasing the brightness and backlighting and removing the sound creates the erroneous impression that you have to do something to your existing TV to comply. This is not true only new TVs are covered, your existing TV will be completely fine regardless of what your brightness is.
Also the the reference to the train wreck of unintended consequences links to an article that does not actually mention a single unintended consequence.
So basically this article is just a hit piece produced by some PR flack that has been taken verbatim by slashdot editors. I thought slashdot editors were smarter than that.
This article is serving as a catalyst for an entirely different conversation than the matter at hand. The point is: a consumer WON'T. SEE. ANY. DIFFERENCE. PERIOD. As an electrical engineer designing power supplies, I can tell you that the only people who this will affect is other engineers who now must innovate (i.e. not be lazy) to make their products consume less power when they're plugged into the wall but not turned on (or in standby mode). Cell phone chargers have been regulated by the CEC for years, and yet you don't see a difference in your cell phone performance... in fact you probably didn't even know that CEC regulations are one of the main reasons your new cell phone didn't come with a wall wart charger thats weighs 5 lbs. This type of innovation has an impact on your wallet as well: a wall wart charger plugged into the wall 24/7 will cost you about $1 per year. Multiply that by every charger plugged in at your house, and you're talking serious cash.)
Ultimately, this regulation is PRO-consumer. Otherwise, engineers will design products that don't even spin down the hard disk when they're not in use; as happens in most DVRs on the market, causing them to consume more than 60 W even when sitting idle. That's $60/year it's costing you because some engineer knows that you won't know the difference.
Overall, this kind of regulation will take almost a decade to fully kick in, as it doesn't require anyone to throw their old CRTs out the window. But it is a step in the right direction. Wanton waste of energy by consumer devices is a huge problem, and fixing it is one of the fastest ways to help the energy crisis within the next couple of year.
Well, ok, not really the worst, but only because the competition for worst slashdot summary is pretty intense. I don't think I'll bother to comment on the merits of the actual proposal. The summary says more about whoever wrote the summary than about the proposal.
No, the regulation does not "target your big-screen TVs for elimination." Those few who RFTA will note that it doesn't say anything close to that. I note that the summary says nothing about what the proposal actually does say.
And I see that the poster makes sure to throw in spurious knee-jerk words like "unelected bureaucrats" because that certainly constructively contributes to the debate. Why would one want to debate issues when you can instead throw epithets? Going to claim they are child molesters as well?
Anyone who starts out like this summary isn't worth arguing with. When you start by blatantly misstating the most basic of facts in the matter and then continue by using irrelevant epithets in hope of getting knee-jerk agreement, I don't think you are looking for reasoned debate.
It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination
Why did you submit this article? You obviously didn't read it. There's nothing about banning big screen TVs, just a bit about tightening up energy requirements a tad.
My guess is that you saw an angry, ignorant rant on somebody's blog and are now parroting it. You're an illiterate fool.
Everyone, please read the article. The summary is a deliberate prevarication (three dollar word for "lie"). There is no plan or proposal to " target your big-screen TVs for elimination". Under the proposed California regulations anyone can sell or buy and size TV they like now and in the future. In fact the proposed regulations are unremarkable: they are essentially the same as the voluntary Energy Star program, considered to be well within reach by the industry. The CEC mandate simply makes them mandatory instead of voluntary. The better TV manufacturers (e.g. Visio) are in full compliance, and fully support both the standards, and making them mandatory. The only whiners here are companies that wish to hawk cheap inefficient TVs, and ideologues who feel that any government regulation is inherently evil in principle.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
"Unelected bureaucrats" "target[ing] your big screen for elimination?" Sounds oooh so scary. The California Energy Commission isn't an elected body, but they are appointed by people Californians elected. And the very story that "target for elimination" links to indicates the following:
* The proposed regulations aren't particularly stringent. They're about on par with the EnergyStar guidelines.
* Many popular models of HDTV already meet the proposed regulations.
* The regulations are technology neutral.
* The regulations are probably only going to slightly accelerate a shift that consumers are already demanding.
The other link, aside from being puerile, childish, and unthinkingly parroting the talking points of an industry astroturf group, proposes a solution too stupid to count as satire.
Put this in context: California has long regulated many categories of appliances this way. In most every case, manufacturers have found it much cheaper to make every appliance conform to the California standards than to make separate products for other states. So the price differential cannot be all that great.
I expect that, as usual, industry's screams of doom and terror are detached from reality.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
We're all for being sensible and doing what's needed to face challenges... unless you threaten *our* toys. We don't even need to be a jerk to bend over backwards to protect the jerks we might become!
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
What's the problem with taxing fattening foods again? What about starting by just removing the HFCS subsidies? Or will you really fight to the death for your right to get fat cheaply?
Build WHAT?!
Not in California. Not even if the central valley is a dust bowl to save the river smelt. Not even if the state paid the highest electric rates in the nation due to horribly botched deregulation. Not even if the manufactured crisis was easy to trigger because the total electric power available is very close to peak usage.
And yes, if California seceded from the Union, the only liquid flowing in most of California would be untreated sewage and contaminated field run-off. Water quality regulations are only important when they impact voters.
When I need to heat my living room in the winter, shouldn't I be allowed to use a 600W plasma to do so?
The US Constitution as drafted at ratification nowhere limits the right of a state to secede. That right was also put into words in several states' constitutions at the time they were ratified and approved by the federal Congress as part of the process for allowing a state to join the Union. The states came voluntarily into the Union, without limits placed on their right to secede. The fact that it has been decided after the fact (by the "Unionist" government) that states do not have a right to secede is the difference between the practical and technical ideas of secession.
Having read not only TFA, but TFC (the effing comments), here is a fairly informative comment posted to this article from XEagleDriver:
In other words, many or most of the current Energy Star certified TV's already satisfy the California requirements. TFA is much ado about nothing.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
This ain't Wikipedia, boy! Anyway, take for example Virginia. A state's constitution needed to be ratified in order for the state to join the union. Virginia's state constitution contained a clause spelling out its right to secede. (This was seen much as the Bill of Rights - a right held by the state, but put into words to reinforce what was thought of as a natural right.) Even with the secession clause, Virginia's constitution was approved and they became part of the Union. Later, they took advantage of the clause, which was approved by the Union as part of Virginia's constitution. After they seceded, the Union decided they did not have the right to secede and started the Civil War.
:)
This is a discussion, so if you need citations... GO GOOGLE THEM YOURSELF
truck freight?
No need to do any driving at all. And you can probably get it cheaper....
The planet is going down the toilet and all Americans can worry about is the size of their tv screens?
You just don't get it, do you?
With all the talk about purchasing out-of-state, I'd like to note:
Technically, California requires you to pay taxes on out-of-state purchases that are going to be used within the state (less any local or state sales taxes paid to the other state at the time of purchase).
It's called use tax, and it's not unique to California (most states do this). In California, there's a box for it on the EZ version of the income tax forms, or the really ambitious can itemize all of their out-of-state purchases and send a form off to the Board of Equalization.
So it's possible that the legislators were thinking that they were covered because of use tax.
However, no one that I can think of actually calculates and pays their use tax. (Note for my state tax board: Except for me, of course, Mr. Auditor, sir.)
Are you guys living in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our Bureaucratic ban-loving EU? :-)
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.
2.
Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to "Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with their large image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any running cost savings either.
(continued)
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned. TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice. This also applies generally, to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc, where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use. Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them. Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making them cheaper than today. People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.
Moreover, taxes are easier to apply and adaopt than bans, and can be lifted when no longer required, for example when sufficient low emisssion energy is in place, without having lost manufacture of the underlying product -unlike with bans
I have also extensively covered taxation compared to bans here:
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html (relates to light bulbs, but same principles)
Texas relies on property taxes quite a bit (along with sales tax) and has no state income tax at all. California on the other hand has much of their property taxes capped, I believe. When the economy goes down, there's no other stream of money coming in.
FUNK!
codec war. With the arrival of open source codecs like bbc's libdac and h/x264 , the government is losing control of brain washing and they're NOT HAPPY about that.
With the arrival of new HD sets built on these new open standards, they can't eradicate the golden mean aspect ratio and smooth fibbonacci based frame rates..
The big clamp down is converging with the big pandorra's box
Frak no! I love CRTs for their colors. Yeah, they're huge, heavy, power hogger, etc. But their colors and blackness can't beat LCDs and others so far.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
And whose fault is this? Is it the power companies, who manage to deliver power reliably to pretty much everywhere else in the United States?
Or the California legislature, who created perverse incentives with an illogical pseudo-deregulation, and byzantine environmental laws that essentially prevent anything from being built anywhere?
This is the typical cycle in California and similarly-run governments.
1. Have a superficially nice idea, and make it law.
2. This law has unforseen or ignored side effects that make things actually worse.
3. The next new nice idea purports to fix the problems caused by the last nice idea made law.
4. Repeat ad infinitum.
The repeated failure, and repeated attempts of the CA legislature (and others) to micromanage endevours beyond their expertise and outside of their duties results in a death spiral of over-regulation. No one says "STOP! ENOUGH ALREADY! STOP FUCKING WITH IT AND WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT WITHOUT YOUR HELP!".
It's getting to the point where it's obvious this death spiral of regulation is feature, not a bug. The expansion of government power under the aegis of fixing problems caused by previous interventions results in more personal power and larger budgets for legislators and regulators.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The name of that band is Talking Heads.