California Publishes Television Efficiency Standards For 2011 265
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."
Counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)
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 [reuters.com]. Aside from that, you have some groups like the CEA speaking out against it [reuters.com] and a surprisingly negative response from the California citizens for smart clean energy claiming that it cuts jobs for citizens [reuters.com]. 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.
Re:Counterpoints (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe the article from the New York Times is about the bill passed by the California legislature to limit renewable energy from in-state sources. The governer's response, therefore, is focused on his support for receiving renewable energy from both inside and outside the state of California. The article doesn't really have anything to do with televisions.
As for the Consumer Electronics Association speaking out against a mandatory increase in energy efficiency in televisions, who saw that coming? An industry lobby is hardly where I would go for reliable advice on cutting down on energy consumption.
By the way, the other group opposed is named "Californians for Smart Energy" not "California citizens for smart clean energy," a difference I am sure we can all appreciate. According to their website, they are a group consisting of "consumers, small businesses, trade groups and associations." So, they are another industry-associated organization. Again, not the place to go for real advice on how to reduce waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, first sentence in the post above should read: I believe the article from the New York Times is about the bill passed by the California legislature to limit renewable energy *to* in-state sources.
Thus, the point is that all renewable energy used in California would come from within the state of California. Legislature passed this bill and the governer (Schwarzenegger) is opposed.
Re:Counterpoints (Score:4, Insightful)
who knows more about manufacturing TVs than the TV industry?
And who knows more about automobiles than the automobile industry? But, wait, the automobile industry protests practically every single time California wants to introduce stricter emissions controls. Nevertheless, California presses forward over their objections.
The result is that we have cleaner air and automobiles with higher gas mileage. The result of this TV law is that we will have TVs that don't consume as much energy. Just how is this a bad thing? Seriously...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Higher cost. Seriously...
Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
Higher cost. Seriously...
I suppose it depends on what types of "cost" you evaluate. I like clean beaches, clean air, clean water, less disease and a longer lifespan.
All of these things have value for me. Therefore, the savings I accrue in terms of the things I value in laws that benefit the environment far outweigh any potential gains in paying five dollars less for a television set.
Furthermore, devices that use less energy provide savings in your electric bill. If you can't evaluate the savings in your future health costs by breathing cleaner air, then at least evaluate the savings in your immediate energy costs by using less electricity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pick a side and stick to it. Don't act like corporate hegemony is t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh, are you responding to the right post? Which part of my post did you disagree with? Is it that I'm in favor of clean beaches, air, water, less disease and a longer lifespan?
Exactly where did you think I was suggesting that it's okay for corporations to "exploit and pollute at will?" It's funny this is the message you received from my post, since I was suggesting exactly the opposite.
I assure you that my post is in cogent English. If you read my statement carefully, there is no room for error in the
Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)
doubtful. Efficiency regulations have a long history of saving consumers money. Even if it costs 10% more, which is unlikely, you're going to save a significant amount of money in its usage and easily recoup that cost over the lifetime of the product. Most efficiency regulations save consumers money rather than cost them money.
Re:Counterpoints (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a 40" television that consumes a rather obscene 220W. at my rates, after 5 years, the 10% extra cost would have to have made the thing consume zero energy over that time. There's no way that an LCD tv produced at the time mine was will last 15 years anyway, with with LED/LCD tvs coming out all without any californian intervention, so it's kind of moot.
Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Joe Sixpack doesn't look at consumption when he buys a TV.
2. So you impose some standards by law.
3.????????????
4. Jobs are lost!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Both groups opposed are closely tied with industry (see my other response post).
So, it's no surprise that they're going to say the bill will cost jobs. "Costing jobs" is the "fighting terrorism" of 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
"Costing jobs" is "you're not thinking of the children!"
"Your not thinking of the children" is "costing jobs," "putting our healthcare at risk" and "letting the terrorists win." "It's socialism."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Jobs were also lost when cars replaced horses and the buggies, jobs were also lost when typography machines were invented and people no longer had to duplicate by hand or place letters by hand on a form to print a page?
Maybe in a few years solar cells will be cheap enough and have performance good enough that each house will have them on their roofs so should we then ban them because jobs in power plants will be lost ?
Re:Counterpoints (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, demand for electricity is shrinking. And our electric grid is so underused that we're planning to shut parts of it down.
Get a grip. I live in California. We don't have enough power plants to meet demand, so electrical generation costs are ridiculous. Our electrical grid hums and arcs for several hours a day. The fact is that we're using a lot more electricity than we can economically provide with our current infrastructure, and the other fact is that improved efficiency will give us additional electrical capacity more quickly and more cheaply than infrastructure improvements alone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why shouldn't middle-aged workers be able to enroll in a college, university, or vocational program just like a younger person? Yes, they might have family to support, but the government ought to provide an income replacement program for people out of work due to the kind of structural unemployment [wikipedia.org] you describe. This subsidy would support them while they retrain. (I imagine it'd be based on the number of years of previous work exper
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about the energy lost from more efficient plasma TVs, It will just be made up by people needing to turn their heating higher to compensate.
Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
It will just be made up by people needing to turn their heating higher to compensate.
I think you're confused! In much of California it will result in additional lower energy consumption due to reduced usage of air conditioners. Also, even if you should live in parts of California where for some part of the year you have significant heating requirements you will still end up with a net gain in energy efficiency because this is not true all year round. Also heating should not be a huge expenditure if you properly insulate your home which will also help with hot summers. In Sweden and Germany, for example, there are strongly enforced rules for how much heat loss per square meter of a buildings outer surface is permissible. This has led to buildings that are nice and cool even in 90F summer weather as long as you close the blinds during the daytime and open the windows at night. And yes, we do have 90F summer days during most summers in Germany. I now live in Southern California and I don't even turn on any lights, if I don't have to, in summer, because every little bit helps in keeping the air conditioner usage to a minimum. I also bought a Philips eco tv to not heat up my place more than necessary when I watch something on my large-screen tv. Unfortunately there are many people that are either too ignorant or lazy to estimate life-time costs of running an appliance and/or they're total idiots and believe conservative talk show hosts rather than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists concerning global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One the one hand you accuse Joe Sixpack of being too ignorant to estimate the life-time costs of running an appliance while at the same time neglecting to mention that government interference in the electricity market (especially in California), by fixing the price too low for example, encourages wasteful use while at the same time discouraging greater efficiency by minimizing the gains that can be realized from purchasing more efficient appliances. Yes, California tried deregulation before and got burned (
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One the one hand you accuse Joe Sixpack of being too ignorant to estimate the life-time costs of running an appliance while at the same time neglecting to mention that government interference in the electricity market (especially in California), by fixing the price too low for example, encourages wasteful use while at the same time discouraging greater efficiency by minimizing the gains that can be realized from purchasing more efficient appliances.
I would be the first person to support higher electricity rates in California and probably almost everywhere else. In Germany rates are much higher and people use energy much more efficiently. The same is true with petrol prices. People in the US are unbelievably spoiled in those areas. If the rates were higher the free market would lead to an optimisation process that would likely help people compensate for much of the difference.
However, why should I go out and buy a new television for several hundred dollars (at least) when, as other posters have pointed out, it will only save me ~$18 per year in electricity costs?
Nobody, including myself, wants to force you to go out and buy a new tv.
Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Interesting)
That means that each year, each household is saving ($18/yr / $0.16/kwh) = 112.5kwh/yr.
Which means that the state of California saves (112.5kwh/house * 12million homes) = 1,350,000,000kwh/yr
Now, let's be realistic. Not everyone's going to run out and buy a new TV year 1, but let's say even 1% of households do. Heck, let's save 0.5% of households do.
1,350,000,000kwh/yr * 0.005 = 6,750,000kwh/yr
Not an insignificant amount of energy by any means.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's like a million bucks worth of electricity. Per year.
Enough to employ 10 lobbyists, or 3--5 lobbyists and their commensurate grafting presents. But not nearly enough to even ramp down a single oil plant. A single, small wind turbine will produce 6 million kWh in about six hours of good wind.
Re: (Score:2)
That press release doesn't say anything except what is necessary to scare people. How does it kill Californian jobs? What TVs or TV components are still being made in California? I don't know if TVs can be made in the US anymore. They're being made in China, Taiwan and Mexico because US labor is just too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
I am totally against protectionist policies because it never works
In fairness, a lot of those protectionist policies seem to work.....we have shower heads that save water, more efficient appliances and dishwashers, etc now. Whether that is solely because of California regulation can be debated, but by pursuing a consistent, directed policy of regulation towards lower power usage, California seems to have achieved some success in reaching their goals. I still miss powerful showers, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Drill out the flow regulator in your shower.
Typically they are made of easy to drill aluminum if they are not outright removable.
BTW I don't think 'protectionist' means what you think it means.
Look it up.
Arnold is talking about the requirement that all renewable energy used in CA be generated in CA.
Like we're going to turn our noses up at hydro power from out of state, much of it generated at damns CA utilities own.
Regulations! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Considering the energy savings, a slightly dimmed future is more like it.
Why regulate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because being rational doesn't get you reelected. It's better to spread around progressive ideas so you look like you have accomplished something.
We pay a bunch for the electricity too. We also pay a tax when we buy a display to cover the disposal of that display (around $16 last time I bought something). Of course what I wonder is why we didn't just mandate garbage companies to deal with electronic waste, thus raising the cost of disposal in a way that can adjust to free market demands. We would benefit from additional efficiencies, and adapt to changes without having to write new legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
But that's not true. If we look at this like an ideal demand causes prices to go up scenario, then the increased demand in energy causes prices to go up for people that make less than those with the money to keep the lights, heating and AC (wtf?) on 24/7. The brownouts might also cause needs for more infrastructure which raises the average cost per kilowatt hour for every consumer -- rich and poor.
I'm not advocating this regulation but I'm do recognize the argument against your counterpoint and I thi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are more issues at stake than cost per unit of electricity. I have this idea that we're all supposed to be reducing our carbon footprint. It makes perfect sense to make personally-painless reductions in needless waste before we start infringing upon our ways of life.
Why would someone want to buy a device which isn't as energy-efficient as possible? Waste isn't cool ppl.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would someone want to buy a device which isn't as energy-efficient as possible?
Because the inefficient device is better in some other way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Waste isn't cool ppl.
You have obviously never done a sub 13 second quarter mile. Gone over 80 in a boat.
The fact is that _waste is cool_.
Very, very cool.
Kind of expensive though.
Re:Why regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because all the morons polluting up the planet by leaving their AC on 24/7 make the rest of us suffer. Seriously, if it were only a matter of economics, there would be no alternative energy movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all the morons polluting up the planet by leaving their AC on 24/7 make the rest of us suffer. Seriously, if it were only a matter of economics, there would be no alternative energy movement.
I run my AC 25/8 just to piss you off.
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing that we should burn coal just because we have a lot of it? If you had a hammer, would you insist on nailing your feet to the floor?
Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see nothing wrong with using {hammer, nails, screwdriver, screws} to build something.
On the other hand, burning coal spews tons of toxic garbage into the air. Sure, we get electricity from it now, but in the long term we're all sick and/or dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Because then the poor will be left out while the rich folks mop up all the goodies.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's also wasteful to live in a large house or to fly more than x airmiles per year. We could regulate everything to make sure the rich folks don't mop up all the goodies, but then there won't be any point in getting rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Because few consumers make choices based on energy efficiency; style, color, and brand are more likely to be deciding factors that efficiency of a single tv. When you talk about 30 million TVs though it makes a much bigger difference.
Regulation is the only way to force manufacturers to produce goods that they would have no other incentive to do otherwise, even if it is better.
Residential power is pretty highly subsidized: a 5kVA service only has a 10% premium over a 20 MVA service, despite being about 20% m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they already do and then some.. You get so much at one price, then if you use beyond that it gets really expensive. There is a problem with it though.. whatever voodoo they use to calculate the baseline is all over the place. You and a neighbor with identical houses could have different baselines before they start sticking it to you or them.. same with apartments.. you can move into an apartment and then be shocked at the low baseline that probably has something to do with the people who lived the
Re:Why regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a lot of the cost of energy use is negative externalites. Who pays to clean up the pollution caused by energy production? Further increased demand for energy increases the price for energy which affects everyone too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By "full price", I am including externalities like pollution. So if a rich person uses $600 of electricity per day, he'll pay, for example, $220 for the actual production and $380 to cover the environmental damage he's causing. We wouldn't care how much smoke he's causing to be pummeled into the air since he's reimbursing us for the harm it's causing.
Um.. how does money "reimburse" anyone for environmental damage/pollution? There's not (yet) a company we can pay to vacuum that up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you reach the impassé of people who do not evaluate everything in terms of financial cost? People who no amount of money will compensate them for their child suffering brain damage from mercury in sea food or don't consider it possible to set a price on the extinction of a species or the destruction of the woodland or jungle they care about?
regulation has worked in California (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [theatlantic.com]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
France accomplished this by building a large number of nuclear power plants. I'm not going to go into the whole debate over nuclear waste and everything, because that's getting way off topic. It can also be provided by a clean and cheap source like hydroelectric.
Hydro can be broadly split into two categories based on whether or not it uses a dam.
Conventional dam based hydro is a dream for grid operators (since they can take the energy more or less whenever they want it and at very short notice). Unfortunate
other states (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:other states (Score:5, Interesting)
This law will create markets blacker than the old man's beard and five times the size!
Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.
How is mandating energy efficiency a bad idea? Is it also a bad things that California has the best track-record in mandating greater energy efficiency in automobiles? Is it bad that California mandates energy efficiency and alternative energy use in power consumption? Explain how this is de-facto "bad."
Re: (Score:2)
Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.
I would not be surprised if there were not even a black market for energy-sucking TVs in Korea. They deliberately chose NTSC and then ATSC for their own broadcast standards to be compatible with the US in order to better leverage economies of scale. All on its own, California's economy would make it roughly the 10th largest national economy in the world. It's just easier to standardize, after all the hardest part will be in the engineering so might as well amortize that cost over as many sets as possible
About time... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time... (Score:4, Insightful)
consumers fail to act in a responsible fashion at points a government has to step in
If you argue that consumers should be dictated to by the government, aren't you really arguing in favor of a sort of totalitarianism. Who gave you or any other Fed the right to say what is responsible and what is not. That is not among the enumerated powers we have granted to the Congress in our Constitution.
Re:About time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe he's arguing that industry should be dictated to by consumers, through the government the consumers elect? That's what government is supposed to be -- the collective will of the people voting for it.
Your Constitutional argument is meaningless because this is a state action, not a federal one. Per the Federal constitution California can mandate that new televisions come with a rubber duckie if they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:About time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, California is the land where individual rights and freedoms are forgotten.
You really have only a few choices left under such a regime:
- Escape while you still can,
- Live there as a criminal,
- Get a government position and be above the law,
- Or just learn to do what you're told.
Re: (Score:2)
That is until your Nanny State starts to go bankrupt, and goes begging for federal dollars to bail its ass out. For the most part, Federal dollars are two things:
- Tax revenue from all the states combine (those with good fiscal policy and those with bad)
- Borrowed money (that will need to be paid in the future, with interest)
Your "Statist" argument fails because the federal government has gotten into the "extend, embrace, and assimilate" business via bail outs with money it doesnt even have.
For more informa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Maybe he's arguing that industry should be dictated to by consumers, through the government the consumers elect? That's what government is supposed to be -- the collective will of the people voting for it."
What the consumers purchase is a direct expression of their will. What a government composed mostly of appointed officials whose agendas are not directly set by the people is something different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I take it you're in favor of leaded gasoline and are opposed to catalytic converters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So I take it you're in favor of leaded gasoline and are opposed to catalytic converters.
No, just slavery, wife beating and the holocaust.
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it you can't argue the point because you're losing and need to change the subject?
Re: (Score:2)
Aye, but what we really need be TVs with a "stupidity" dial, matey.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
I don't know if the manufacturers are shipping vastly different sets to the US compared to the UK, but I tested my own cheap & nasty 6 year old CRT set and it draws hardly anything on standby compared to when it's running.
Re:About time... (Score:4, Informative)
Either you don't know what you're talking about or you are lying to push a political position. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply know nothing about modern electronics.
First, modern TVs use much less power than older TVs. The move away from CRTs alone made a big improvement (ignoring projection TVs), and even within the CRT space, things improved a lot over the years when they built those.
Second, power consumption when idle is almost invariably a tiny fraction of the active power consumption if you're looking at anything built in the past few years. Anything with the Energy Star logo is required to draw <1W standby, compared with 200W or more for a large LCD set. Even with non-Energy-Star-certified plasma sets, they typically draw low single digit Watts. Either way, there's typically at least a factor of 100 difference in power consumption between standby power and active power consumption in most modern TVs.
So citation needed. Find me a recent TV that draws almost as much power when idle as it does when turned on. The backlight alone for an LCD set is between half and 2/3rds of its power consumption, so good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
LCD screens may use less electricity, but Plasma screens use a lot more. Also, screens have got a lot bigger than they used to be, and bigger screens mean more electricity everything else being equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, screens have got a lot bigger than they used to be, and bigger screens mean more electricity everything else being equal
And then there is the whole widescreen issue, almost all modern sets are widescreens and that basically means some area at the edge of the screen is filled with "fluff" (they can't put anything important in that area since a lot of people still have 4:3 TVs) which means to get the same effective viewing size you have to buy a bigger TV.
Re: (Score:2)
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
At times government regulation is a good thing of course, but I want to point out that your argument here is similar to arguments made for prohibition. Maybe it was a valid argument then too?
Why televisions, though? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The water heater dosnt consume the most energy, If thats the case, why does the apartment building I live in use 30 therms of gas/month in may-october (water heaters for all apartments and cooking for 2 of the 3, and the shared clothes dryer) and ~150/month therms average in nov-apr when the heat is on. I wouldnt call that most of the energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe has been mandating more efficient boilers since about 2005. I would have thought that electric heating is 100% efficient.
Re:Why televisions, though? (Score:5, Informative)
I call BS on the 60-100W figure. A quick Google search:
Modern televisions use only a small fraction of the power in standby mode (typically less than 10W). A modern HD LCD television may use only 1W or less when in standby mode (compared to 80W-125W during standard operation). [wikipedia.org]
Various [lbl.gov] charts [lbl.gov] showing a range from 0W-16W
Energy Star requires power consumption of less than 1 watt in standby to qualify. [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Energy Star requires power consumption of less than 1 watt in standby to qualify.
Wasn't there a scandal that came up on slashdot not long ago (I don't remember exactly when but within the last year) where sets with the energy star logo actually had a much higher average standby consumption than the energy star measurements due to powering up the tuner for EPG updates?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was. I even did a search for you. I can understand why you didn't do it yourself, I used an astounding THREE, not one, nor two, but three, search terms to find the article. "slashdot \"energy star\"".
Here you go: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/08/1322228 [slashdot.org]
Have a nice weekend!
They just want to enforce Energy Star (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pictures or it didn't happen. The only way that happens in a modern TV is if you set it on fire!
I had a 42" plasma, that was made in 2004. Not even HD ready. At full load, it never peaked above 350W (I used a meter because I was curious) during a two week period. Average when it was turned on was just over 280W. Turned off it drew 6W of power from the socket.
The only thing your TV is doing when it's powered off is powering the power indicator and running a small cir
CA also has a history of unconstitutional laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 vio
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:CA also has a history of unconstitutional laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
MPG != pollution (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 mos
People care most about polution in their back yard (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Meanwhile, CA unemployment is at 12.2% and rising (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [bloomberg.com]. 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 [wsj.com]. 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.
Re:Meanwhile, CA unemployment is at 12.2% and risi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile, CA unemployment is at 12.2% and risi (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't live there anymore, luckily, but I still know this from experience.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
You Can Still Order Them Online (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
So they balance the state budget and then... (Score:2)
Of course, they'll do that ri
Calirornian Government is STUPID! (Sometimes) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. :(
Re: (Score:2)
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" dis
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Ford can get 76.3 mpg. http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/NewFiesta/NewFiestaECOnetic [ford.co.uk]
Although I don't think that model is available in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Every mall, school, workplace already use flourescent lamps (though you might only recognize them looking like this [made-in-china.com] instead of this [nature.com]).