california ??????

[onlycafe]

now it's wide screen tv sets, what next?


To Save Energy, Big TV Screens May Have To Go

14 April 2009 2:47 AM, PDT

The Consumer Electronics Association has warned that a proposal by the staff of the California Energy Commission to cut energy consumption in the state by imposing strict energy-use rules on sales of television sets would see many, if not most, wide-screen TV sets becoming unavailable in the state. The Cea said that if the plan is put into effect, around 80 percent of all wide-screen digital TV sets would be eliminated. The CEA also observed that if the ban went into effect, it could also bring about massive job losses and reduce state sales tax collections by $50 million.

[Westy]

Yes, I am very proud of my state.

[VaSteve]

I was in California a couple of weeks ago. Does everything cause cancer there? On one of the posts in the parking garage (with open sides mind you) it said "this garage may contain carbon monoxide, which has been found in the state of California..." CO in a parking garage? O RLY????

[pwd72s]

Big brother loves you.

[afterburn 549]

Just shout we want more Govt, we cant think for ourselves.
When they get it so locked dwn the tax base stops....maybe they will ..notice ??

[VaSteve]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Big brother loves you.

I've been waiting for someone to notice that.

[jyl]

Under the proposed energy standards, a TV set's maximum power consumption is determined by the size of the screen. The bigger the TV, the higher the permitted power consumption.

The proposed standard is:

By 2011, 0.156 x sq inch screen + 80 watts

By 2013, 0.120 x sq inch screen + 25 watts

So, a 2011 set with a 42" screen would have a 199 watt limit. Most LCD TVs and rear-projection TVs already meet that standard, or are close enough that it will be easy. LED TVs will also meet that standard. Plasma TVs burn the most power, current 42" plasma TVs can burn nearly 300 watts.

There are many different ways to lower a TV's power consumption. Most of the power supplies and other parts of a TV or other appliance do not use the latest, most efficient components, because manufacturers have no incentive to do the redesign work. More interesting, the screen backlight can be designed to emit less or no light in parts of the screen where the image is supposed to be dark. (In most current LCD screens, the backlight lamps are on full all the time, even if the image is all black.) This not only reduces power consumption, it also gives a better picture since blacks can be blacker. This can be done with LCDs using CCFL backlights (long tubes), but more easily with LCDs using LED backlights (a grid of 30 to 60).

The proposed California 2011 standard is not too different from the latest "Energy Star" standard (v3.0) that most appliance buyers are familiar with, except that Energy Star is a voluntary standard.

More info on TV power consumption
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html

The reason for this sort of standard, for all sorts of appliances, is to reduce the load on California's electricity grid, to reduce the amount of additional capacity that will have to be added in the future. Every couple billion dollars counts.

Personally, I think there should be energy consumption standards for TVs, you should be able to buy a TV that doesn't meet the standard, but that TV would have a "gas-guzzler" surcharge.

[Aerkuld]

I don't know why can't just buy a regular sized TV and sit closer.

If you don't want to sit too close (you'll get square eyes my Grandma used to tell me) then watch it through a pair of binoculars.

[kycarguy 935]

What's next? black cars? hehe

[HardDrive]

CA sucks ass.

[stevepaa]

yeah, bad place to live, earthquakes, fires, mudslides, hippies, actors



please don't move here.

[911pcars]

What's wrong with appliances that consume less energy? Should be cheaper to operate in the long run, yes? Or do you like to see the spinning wheel in the electrical meter?

I'm sure one could import a high wattage TV from Nevada or AZ if it's really desired.

Next thing you know, people will want cars that consume a lot of fuel and produce lots of air pollution all in the name of "independence".

S

[Tobra]

Sure, I am all for energy efficiency. Let me apologize to any differently abled or simian individuals, but we have retarded monkeys making the laws here.

Compact fluorescents, great idea, make incandescent lights illegal, fantastic.

What if you have your trouble light in the garage, which you occasionally drop, and you break your CFL, or worse drop one in the house. How much is it to have a hazmat team come to your house? How much mercury does it take to kill you? How much to really screw you up, Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland screwy, but not kill you outright? How about for little kids, or a pregnant woman?

BTW, these are rhetorical questions, I know, and it does not take a lot of mercury to give you some profound neurologic deficits, especially if you happen to be a developing embryo.

[Jim Richards]

Oh come on, that's too easy. You're loving state gov't can follow up with legislation to require all CFL bulbs to have unbreakable glass. What's a little extra expense when it comes to protecting embryos? And think of the poor retarded monkeys!

[legion]

All of the people on welfare with huge plasmas will have a big problem with this.

[jyl]

The amount of mercury you might realistically ingest after breaking a CFL is about the same as the amount you will ingest from eating a can of tuna.

A CFL has 4-5 mg mercury. If a CFL breaks, a portion of that mercury eventually evaporates. Tests on standard fluorescent tubes showed appx 1/3 of the mercury evaporated gradually over a several day period, with 2/3 remaining in the broken tube. So, break a CFL and take an hour to sweep up and discard the bits, and the amount of mercury that might evaporate into the air during that time is, perhaps, 300 micrograms. The amount that you might inhale is some fraction of that, maybe 100 micrograms.

A typical can of tuna can contain 50-70 micrograms of mercury.

[creaturecat]

Maybe they should ban TV.
It is called an idiot box for a good reason.

[Rot 911]

I wonder how much energy would be saved by disbanding the energy commission? Just think of all those lights, appliances, computers, etc. that wouldn't be turned on. The trees that wouldn't be killed for paper.

[Gogar]

The banning of the high-wattage TVs will result in many consumers being forced to buy newer TVs that meet the requirement, therefore "stimulating the economy."

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

CA sucks ass.

LOL That is fully coming from someone who is not exactly conservative.

Ca is actually a good state with lots of good people. Unfortunately we've allowed too many "non-conservatives" to move in from other places and have taken over. they are the ones who are killing the state with over-taxation, over-spending, and over-legislation. So is Ca sucks ass, it's because we have too many people who think like you.

When we kick the "majority party" out of sacramento things will change. Until that happens it will continue to get worse.