California sets limits on energy-gulping TVs

[Dari]

I have no problem with California doing this. It helps everyone else out. At least they have the balls.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

If our infrastructure cannot provide enough electricity to meet demand the solution isn't to reduce the demand- the solution is to increase energy output by improving infrastructure. Its only natural that energy demand will increase as the state grows and develops.

 

[werepossum]

Your point is self-conflicting.

(1)- Yes, the industry has already massively moved towards lower-power TV's. Basically all LCD sets already comply with the new requirements, particularly the LED backlit ones.

(2)- How will this end with 'less TV for the money'? Certain energy hog models, probably some of the older Plasma sets, will get discontinued, but as the future lies with LED and OLED, which are very low power usage, explain that to me?

(3)- This legislation doesn't affect current owners of any TV. If you have a 50" 4-year-old Plasma that sucks juice like nobody's business, you're free to keep right on using it.

---

I don't think this legislation will have much impact at all, but it's certainly nothing to go batty over. California does indeed do some stupid things, but it often makes sense in the context of their state. They are extremely overpopulated, and so the emissions improvements have helped a lot with the air quality out there, even though it's still poor. Their power requirements are also extremely large, so movements towards energy efficiency will help, this will be doubly important if plug-in hybrids/electrics start gaining steam.

I'm a classical conservative (think WFB) but this is a non-issue to me. My primary concern with the liberal conventional wisdom from the politician's viewpoint is their reluctance to expand nuclear energy. It's worlds cleaner than coal, more versatile/reliable compared to wind/solar, and with a surplus of cheap electricity we could indeed move a lot of transportation consumption to a nuclear-powered energy grip rather than dumping untold billions to the oil companies and overseas oligarchs.

It has to be one or the other. Either it will save huge amounts of electricity, or it will raise the cost of televisions, if only by reducing competition as less energy efficient models can't be sold. After all, the only reason to make an energy guzzling TV is because for the size and performance it is cheaper. My disgust over the bill isn't really either of these things, though; it's that the California legislature is dealing with penny ante things like this when the state is literally collapsing.

California could really use some big pebble bed reactors, but its political climate precludes them. I think the most likely scenario is that nuclear plants get built in Nevada and the electricity transmitted into California, probably with the rest of the country paying for it.

 

[SneakyStuff]

So long plasma screens...

 

[Vette73]

So long plasma screens...

Actually 75% of TVs out there now meet the 2011 standards. The standards are very low. This is more PR then anything with a little make the bad/cheap companies upgrade a little.

All this does is make the few bad/cheap ones have to do basic upgrades and maybe even make them more reliabile at the same time when using newwer and better parts.

 

[Double Trouble]

Fluoride, that's it. Hey, I'm glad. I watch my energy usage and I don't want a TV that uses 200 watts. This laptop uses less than 30 watts.

Nothing wrong with reducing energy usage, but if you wanted to use less energy, you could do it right now, the consumer can always vote with their wallet -- and they have. There's no reason why the legislature should dictate to the people what size TV they should watch, it's just another example of nanny state government getting bigger and ever more intrusive.

 

[ebaycj]

With the switch to LED for the light source, displays should drop power use by about 30% and the picture will actually look better because with LED light you can dim parts of the picture while having other areas bright.

With the current backlight you either get all bright or all dim which makes for poor blacks.

VERY few LED-backlit TV's work like this. They are VERY expensive ($4000+). The cheap samsung "LED TV's" that you see at Best Buy, etc.. use LED's as a light source, but are edge-lit (just like traditional LCD's, only with LED's instead of CCFL's).

 

[Zargon]

I have no problem with California doing this. It helps everyone else out. At least they have the balls.

not really.

its a bandaid to a much larger problem thats only going to get bigger now as the new admin will NEVER build another nuke plant, which we badly need.

these stupid next gen 'clean coal' plants a)arent that clean and b) dont produce near enough power.

our power grid is weak because of leechy states like california who refuse to upgrade infrastructure and let whinny special interest groups prevent from building new plants with high capacity because they create polution.

 

[rudder]

Agreed. Industry is slow to enact change or outright resists it so we legislate it.

I'm sure the free market loons will be in here soon to tell us how we have no right to legislate what we want...too late.

Industry is not slow to change. LED tv's are out and they already consume less power than LCD's. I challenge you to find a new computer system that comes with a CRT.

The article itself says that a 1000 TV's on the market already meet the standards.

Why is the legislation needed again?

 

[fskimospy]

This thread is very telling about what we find important in America. People can't decide. On one hand they say the legislation won't do anything, and then on the other hand they say that we are being subject to the tyranny of the 'libruls'. (this is of course while ignoring people showing them how it won't alter their purchases much at all). Nice to see we make our stand on liberty and justice around our TV sets.

First they came for the plasma TV's and I said nothing...

 

[skyking]

California spends a great deal of energy in cooling, and it takes more than 1 watt of cooling to mitigate 1 watt of heating by an appliance.
We purchased a new plasma about three weeks ago, and I looked at the energy consumption carefully. In the Western Washington we heat more than we cool by a large margin so I was not as concerned about it.

 

[alphatarget1]

California (PG&E) already charges people significantly more for using more electricity. I don't know why this is really necessary. It'll make TVs nationwide cost more.

But then maybe that's a good thing. People don't need to watch TV all the time or buy the newest crap.

 

[Jaskalas]

If our infrastructure cannot provide enough electricity to meet demand the solution isn't to reduce the demand- the solution is to increase energy output by improving infrastructure. Its only natural that energy demand will increase as the state grows and develops.

Perhaps the population increase is the problem then. You're attempting to run ahead of an infinite problem within a finite space.

 

[canadageek]

If our infrastructure cannot provide enough electricity to meet demand the solution isn't to reduce the demand- the solution is to increase energy output by improving infrastructure. Its only natural that energy demand will increase as the state grows and develops.

see, this is what's wrong with america. everyone wants their 8 liter fahv' hunnert horsepowa vehicle, 5000 square foot house, and 60" TV, resources be damned.

yes, as a population grows, more resources will be consumed. that doesn't mean reducing consumption is in any way a bad thing, you jackass.

 

[Modelworks]

see, this is what's wrong with america. everyone wants their 8 liter fahv' hunnert horsepowa vehicle, 5000 square foot house, and 60" TV, resources be damned.

yes, as a population grows, more resources will be consumed. that doesn't mean reducing consumption is in any way a bad thing, you jackass.

The problem is being told what resources you can consume and how much of them you can consume by a government entity. If someone wants to consume more than someone else I am fine with it if they pay for it. I think cost should be what controls consumption, not the government.

Want a bigger tv ? Fine. They should charge enough for the electric to cover the cost of the service . What CA is doing is forcing people to use a preset amount of electricity , not because increasing capacity or improvements to the grid can't be done but to cover their own ineptness of letting their infrastructure go to hell while they spent it on items that their politicians could use for publicity .

Nobody wants to spend money on fixing a bridge, it isn't good PR like handing out money or building a new shopping center.

 

[Arkaign]

It has to be one or the other. Either it will save huge amounts of electricity, or it will raise the cost of televisions, if only by reducing competition as less energy efficient models can't be sold. After all, the only reason to make an energy guzzling TV is because for the size and performance it is cheaper. My disgust over the bill isn't really either of these things, though; it's that the California legislature is dealing with penny ante things like this when the state is literally collapsing.

California could really use some big pebble bed reactors, but its political climate precludes them. I think the most likely scenario is that nuclear plants get built in Nevada and the electricity transmitted into California, probably with the rest of the country paying for it.

I think you missed some details, but it's neither of the first stated scenarios here. I doubt this will save California any energy whatsoever, or even if it does, only a statistically irrelevant amount. The reason is that the sets are already plummeting in energy consumption compared to models from just a couple of years ago.

If you go over to the A/V/Home Theatre section, you'll see that there is no connection between energy guzzling TVs and 'cheaper'. The only reasons for TVs to suck huge amounts of energy is the technology they run on. It goes like this :

Old Plasmas > Old LCDs > New Plasmas > Standard LCDs> Edge-Lit LED LCDS > Dynamic Lit LED LCDS > OLED

Basically every TV being currently produced meets these standards already. The ones that don't are probably either already on the way out or are large enough / small production enough to qualify for exemption. That subsection of this market is probably less than 2% of TVs sold in CA, perhaps less.

So yes, this is 'feel-good' or 'get-angry' legislation with no substance whatsoever. It placates one side of idiots while angering the other side of idiots.

I wish a standardized 21st century reactor design could be settled upon, so that they could be rapidly put in place around the nation. I would wholeheartedly support a responsible federal leadership on the issue, even if it meant a significant initial expense. It would create jobs, and it would strengthen our national security if it was combined with some substantial grid upgrades. Depending on crumbling infrastructure and extremely archaic/inefficient power production technology is pretty sad.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Your point is self-conflicting.

(2)- How will this end with 'less TV for the money'? Certain energy hog models, probably some of the older Plasma sets, will get discontinued, but as the future lies with LED and OLED, which are very low power usage, explain that to me?
.

Hmmm... priced out LED backlit LCD's lately? I'd rather have a 50" plasma 1080P for less than $1000, than a $3000 LED backlit LCD that will probably save me $200 in it's lifetime in energy costs over a $1000 set. Also, they're enacting even stricter standards in a short amount of time so we're going to end up in Kalifornia with a situation akin to what the Euro's with their "volume-limited" ipods/iphones: The "Kalifornia Energy Saving Feature" : from here on out, Kalifornia screens will have 50% brightness compared to other LCD's you can buy in the other 49 states.

 

[Arkaign]

Hmmm... priced out LED backlit LCD's lately? I'd rather have a 50" plasma 1080P for less than $1000, than a $3000 LED backlit LCD that will probably save me $200 in it's lifetime in energy costs over a $1000 set. Also, they're enacting even stricter standards in a short amount of time so we're going to end up in Kalifornia with a situation akin to what the Euro's with their "volume-limited" ipods/iphones: The "Kalifornia Energy Saving Feature" : from here on out, Kalifornia screens will have 50% brightness compared to other LCD's you can buy in the other 49 states.

Yes, but the new Plasmas such as yours are almost certainly already compliant.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-028/CEC-400-2008-028-SD.PDF

Read the actual bill, then look at the power outputs of CURRENT models.

The older Plasmas were horrendous power suckers, and older LCDs were almost as bad, but they really have gotten worlds better of late.

 

[Modelworks]

Looking at it there is no reason for CA to make this a law other than the usual incompetence of their state government. Their capacity is listed as :
Net demand - 136,000 MW
Net capacity - 192,000MW
56,000 MW capacity excess.
The rate is increasing by 4% each year. It will take 10 years before they reach the limit of their current capacity and by then they could repair and improve the infrastructure to push their capacity to 30 years before they would have to do anything else.

 

[Arkaign]

^^ Yes. As pretty much everyone can agree, this legislation is meaningless and useless.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Wouldn't it be better to just mandate only 4 hours of television viewing a day? Maybe make some sort of auto-shutdown switch in the TV.. an S-CHIP so to speak.. Unless the programming was government approved.. like MSNBC or something.

 

[feralkid]

Oh, I don't have a TV. I do have a 1080p projector and a 106" screen .

That's a television.

 

[Modelworks]

CA just needs to put the money where it needs to go.
CA for example is only adding 336 miles of new lines by 2018, NC is adding 1698 new miles of transmission lines by 2018 . CA is way bigger than NC, it does no good to make the power if you cannot get it to the home.

 

[exdeath]

That's a television.

Not without a tuner.

 

[Pulsar]

I wonder how many of the people whining about this law were ones that supported the cafe standards. If I were a vindictive individual I would go back and check, just to embarass some of the more vehement protestors. Of course, I can understand the viewpoint of only complaining when something actually affects you, but folks let this boat sail a long time ago when they started letting the government put limits on things like fuel economy. It's just a question of when they start putting quotas on electricity usage - because eventually they will.