That new
HDTV of yours? It may be thin and light and lovely, but it ain't saving you any money. The state of California knows this and has created new energy efficiency standards applying to any sets sold after January of 2011. The initial regs state a maximum of 1 watt of consumption when "off" and, when on, a maximum of .2 watts per inch of screen area plus an arbitrary 32 watts. Two years later, in 2013, things get even tougher, that formula dropping to .12 per inch with a 25 watt base modifier. There are plenty of TVs that already meet the 2013 criteria, most of them smallish LCDs, so it's not an impossible dream. The bad news? An inability to sell non-compliant sets in CA could result in lost tax revenue. The good news? Reduced energy bills and a smaller hit to our fragile environment. The
really good news? Any set greater than 58-inches is exempt, so go big, broheim.
posted Nov 20th 2009 7:54AM
The italicised font for the comment header is killing me!!!!
@Billy I agree. Loose the Italics.
The rest of the comment system, including hiding replies, is absolutely fantastic. :D
The smaller fonts are killing my old eyes.
It'd also be nice if I could push one button to unhide all comments, rather than having to do it case by case.
@NRB that would be great to have a link that will unhide all replies--I'm finding it tedious to unhide everything since I like reading all posts.
Also, I hate how the articles are written in Times New Roman. Serifs on fonts are terrible on the eyes!
@Billy Agreed. It should actually be off to the side as it isn't' that important. If I want to know the commenter I will just glance over.
Somewhere down below, I replied to another comment. I'd like to see if anyone else replied to the same comment, so I can follow the subthread. The only way for me to find my other comment is to unhide every single set of subthreads.
Ridiculous.
I like the new engagdet, but I agree with the italics.
@nrb Hear hear.
@nrb at the very least i would like to know if someone replies to my sub-comment. i.e., you should get a notification for this, maybe the OP too.
Good! Somebody has to push for less energy use.
If the industry as a whole can't stop vampire energy usage and can't limit their consumption of juice while on, then have someone bigger than them step in and force them.
If an industry can't self regulate, then we'll find someone that will regulate for them.
@Hazdaz Actually the industry in the past year has been starting to self regulate itself. Why do you think that all the manufacturers were starting to make green and eco lines? This is unneeded legislation, in my opinion--California has much bigger fish to fry than this particular bill.
@Hazdaz Go hug a tree.
This is ridiculous. How about you let people pay for more power consumption if they want it? That seems to have worked pretty well so far. "Climate change" is a joke.
I'm glad I don't live in CA any more, but I fear these kind of mandates will sweep across other states as politicized, alarmist science continues to influence new legislation.
@Alex It's no joke that we're consuming natural resources at a completely unsustainable rate. This isn't the Industrial Revolution anymore; we've only got so much resources to spread around. Get your head out of your ass.
@melloncollie
Look dude, the only "problem" is that humans consume resources. There is no escaping that. We are also smart, and once the availability of a resource begins to dwindle, we will either find a way to make more of it, or find something to replace it. What I'd like to know is how you can justify destroying our economy with cap & trade carbon limiting.
Climate change is NORMAL.
@Alex I'm not arguing global warming. I'm arguing the ridiculousness of our current rate of consumption of resources. Our veracious appetite for energy and the precious resources that we have must be put in check. This is something that will help keep it in check. It seems that most people operate under the assumption that every natural resource is unlimited or that we will overcome any limitations. The truth of the matter is that we're running out of a lot of the stuff that makes our daily way of life possible and I'm afraid that we may not be able to come up with a way to augment or replace those resources. As such, we need regulations like this to drive home the fact that nothing is infinite and we must do the best we can to preserve as much of it as possible to ensure future generations have it available to them.
@melloncollie
I respectfully disagree. I don't think we need regulations; I think the free markets are enough to put our resource appetites in check. We've been "running out" of oil for a while now, and while the government has made significant investments in alternative energy development, and (albeit slowly) tried to regulate auto emissions, it took the oil price spike to actually create real interest in alternative energy. Another example is salmon fish, the populations of which were at one point utterly decimated. So we began building enormous salmon farms, since the demand was there, and now we have all the salmon we could ever want, and for a quarter as much as it cost a few decades ago.
I know not every resource is renewable, but we will always find a way to get what we want.
@melloncollie I agree with both you and Alex...to an extent.
If the government would allow more nuclear plant construction this energy crisis would be much better than its going currently. And we wouldn't need these regulations. The most important energy concern we have currently is lowering our oil consumption--especially foreign.
@melloncollie
I second that.
Efficiency = good
Waste = Bad
There is no way to argue against that. We need make resources last and have a smooth transition to more sustainable fuel rather than running out and being fu*ked for a few generations.
@Alex I would love to have energy saving stuff. But try to get reliable numbers from the manufacturers - good luck. So I like this kind of law. And since it is the same for all companies I don't see any issues with it.
@Alex
"we will always find a way to get what we want" spoken like a true American.
@rickjamess04
Agreed on the nuclear power point. It's clean and abundant. Why the government has ignored this proven method of power production eludes me. Perhaps it's the tree-hugger aversion to the word "nuclear" that has bled into public opinion.
@Fais
Yes there is a way to argue against that. It's that this kind of legislation is an absolute job-killer, and it's the last thing we need in such a fragile economy. We would only be putting ourselves more at risk to the growth of the world's emerging economies.
@rickjamess04 Guess it is not that simple: Even if we would want to, there is not enough Uranium around for our never ending energy needs. However, there is one source that seems to be (virtually) never ending: the sun shines more energy on this earth every hour than all of us consume in one year. Now if only we had technology to exploit that... Oh wait, that's too green and sustainable, so let's not pursue this energy source.
@Alex I'm thinking more in the long term of the human race and our consumption. Something like oil will be around for at least 100-200 years. It will run out though. Hopefully by then something more sustainable would have replaced it but I seriously doubt it. I believe the free market caused this attitude of infinite resources (see Industrial Revolution). People put too much faith in the free market (I'm a Keynesian). It seems now more than ever most people could care less with voting with their wallets and simply accept anything a company does.
I'd also like to apologize for my previous outburst. This is a nice exchange we're having.
@Sebastian
Yes the sun is abundant but at the moment the technology is not quite there. Once solar technology advances to the point of being cheaper than what the Earth has to offer, the free markets will naturally swing to solar power.
@melloncollie
I see what you're saying, but I really think the free market will triumph. Obviously oil won't run out *all of a sudden* - (one day we've got gas, the next day we don't). It will slowly become more and more expensive until the cost is prohibitive, and we are, by our frugal nature, forced to utilize another source of energy.
No apology necessary. This has certainly been more civilized than many internet debates.
@melloncollie
I think this is an example conservative vs liberal attitudes. Melloncollie is looking long term at the big global picture problem is in the long term we’re all dead. Alex is more concerned about what is going on in his own back yard problem is the rest of the street may be on fire. Both of you are right because there needs to be a balance of free market and intervention to correct market failures.
@Fais
That's a rather unfair illustration of conservatism. Yes I'm looking out for our quality of life, but I'm also looking out for the millions of jobs that would be destroyed by cap&trade, and the likes of it.
@Alex I don't think your free market argument holds up in reality. Let's face it, the concept is that markets behave according to incentives (e.g. solar technology becoming cheaper). But in reality there are many hidden costs that regulatory frameworks try to build into the market place to direct the so called "free market". And we all readily accept them (think medication for instance). Fact is: the market is stupid, cruel and does not care about our children (think car safety standards which by no means come from the market itself).
My point? Let's have some carefully crafted incentives for the market to go into the right direction. Since this applies to all people in the market I really don't mind this one.
(And speaking of incentives, I really can't get over the fact that many countries subsidize OLD technology like coal mining which is neither the future nor helping us solving our energy crisis)
@Alex You're entirely right. If California's economy wasn't in the toilet, more so than many of the other 49 states, then this would be somewhat more justifiable. But this is no different from any other price fixing campaign to keep prices high by instituting energy standards that, by and large, will not have a significant impact on global energy consumption.
Oh dear, look at the mess I've created.
@Sebastian
We're going in circles here. The "incentives" you speak of are artificial and will never take hold until there is a real market demand for the technology.
@Brazell
I agree and furthermore I believe this is just another left-wing money grab because if you've seen CA's deficit numbers, they obviously can't sustain their reckless spending without new taxes. This is just a back-door way to institute a new tax, under the guise of "saving the Earth".
@Brazell Actually, if I'm not mistaken this is the same kind of legislation that the European Union will adapt as of January 1st. Now technology providers have two options: 1) go the way the US car industry went - don't care about these standards and go your own way. Ignore the EU and CA. (you can see how well that worked) 2) Adjust your products so that they are able to compete with the "best in class" on the world market (you need to follow the market here, it is more tricky since you have to be really competitive.
@Sebastian I have no qualms against green energy. But the problem we have now is that the technology is not there for efficiency and cost effectiveness. I am glad that people are working towards this goal. But I am a practical person and believe that we must supplement nuclear with green efforts in order to get costs down for consumers.
As a horticulturist, its really amazing how efficient plants are at capturing solar energy to use for all of their needs. For those of you with some biochemistry and have studied photosynthesis extensively know that scientists have said for years that if we had technology that could do what plants do, we would have no energy problems at all. Unfortunately we don't even have tech that comes any where close to photosynthesis' efficiency--heck there are parts of photosynthesis that scientists can't even explain what happens. So my point is that green energy is great, but its more of a long term goal that needs supplementation.
@rickjamess04
Yeah I was watching something on the quantum tunnelling and the apparent 97% energy transfer rates in photosynthesis yesterday. Pretty cool stuff!
@Alex The "running out of oil" for a while now reminds me of something that I learned a few years ago.
Q: So what do Rudolf Diesel, George Washington Carver, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford all have in common?
A: They were all firm believers in peak oil. They believed oil was running out at the turn of the century. Henry Ford tried to work with Thomas Edison to build an electric car, but found it impractical. George Washington Carver suggested using both Peanut Oil and Soybean oil as a bio-fuel, and became a pioneer of bio-fuel production. Rudolf Diesel specifically designed the Diesel engine in order to burn Carver's Bio-Fuel. It was only later that it was discovered that the unused oil that was left over from refining ( the stuff in the middle that was to viscous and slow burning for gas or lamp oil, but to much of a solvent to work as a lubricant) would burn nicely in Diesel's bio-fuel engine.
So whether we are at peak oil or not, some of the most intelligent people in the world have believed we were at the very beginning and were proven wrong.
My take, yes we have a finite amount of oil, but as it becomes scarce the price will increase causing us to invest in alternate energy sources that were previously impractical. Henry Ford's Electric car concept was not a practical concept then, but it is now that oil is more expensive and battery technology has improved.
@melloncollie Oh come on, having the government mandate this stuff is crazy.
The Green movement would more believable if it wasn't hypocritically blocking solar farms and wind farms at every turn.
With Nuclear and our own Natural Gas and Oil reserves we have enough energy to last 1000 years. However, that doesn't let the government control us or profit off forcing us to import oil.
Drilling off the coast and piping it to refineries, would reduce natural oil seepage and eliminate most of the oil spills that occur in the ocean from large oil carrying vessels.
Television companies are already working to reduce power consumption on all of their models. LCD and OLED consume less than Plasma but even Plasma makers have started to add technologies to reduce power consumption.
The free market will take care of this for us. Most people will buy TVs that use less electricity to reduce their own energy bills. The government does not need to mandate this.
@Sebastian So how about the government simply mandate an that an accurate power consumption number be specified in the product specifications. Then let the free market decide. Believe me, none of us want to waste electricity.
If CA is like NY - we pay ridiculous energy rates. If you reduce the amount you use significantly, they just raise the delivery fee to make up the difference.
@Sebastian Actually, they don't want solar in California, it might mess up the desert landscape too much. So, they'll ban "power guzzling" TVs because they don't want to generate Green electricity either. Massachusetts doesn't want wind power because it might mess up the ocean view. So, I'm not sure how we can have power anymore. No coal, nuclear, oil, natural gas and especially not any landscape changing solar or wind. I think we'll all soon need hamsters in little treadmills, oh, wait - PETA says we can't do that it's cruel. I'm out of ideas.
So soon, we'll all be allowed one lightbulb in our main living area and it will be attached to a government regulator who determines when it is on and off. I mean after all, we don't need to have lights at all they are a luxury.
As long as our homes are above freezing we can survive in them too right.
While we are at it, who needs to eat all the luxurious food. From now on the government mandates that all you can a eat is a healthy life sustaining gruel made from tofu and micro-nutrients.
Be careful what freedoms you give away in pursuit of the cause du jour because you just might not get them back again.
@Alex: Anyone who uses the phrase "free market" better know and understand the word "externality." From your post, it is apparent that you need to learn some basic economic theory. Perhaps you should start by googling a little thing called the tragedy of the commons.
@rickjamess04
I feel as if the government wants to blame us for this crises. Yes it's our fault we exist and we use resources to establish our lives lol.
They're the ones to ultimately blame because we gave them our tax dollars to spend on this country not to bail out their friends.
Considering the recent...problems...with California's budget, wouldn't it be a good idea to be skeptical of anything California does? If we want to discuss sustainability, let's not look to California for our model; I think it's fairly clear that they are not on the right track.
Dejà Vu.
Its just like with the zero emission laws
Wait...wait this a state that's 21 billion in debt and they worry about vampire electronics? What about the vampires that creep over the border? or better yet the ones that think they are entitled to FREE EVERYTHING because they were brain washed by the socialist blood suckers in the California state govt?
@Hbishop Its even worse than that. They AREN'T looking at vampire electronics that burn a lot of juice for no reason (DVRs,cable boxes, etc) its the TV that is only on when its being used and you have a choice in the marketplace on what to buy. You are stuck with that cable box and if it sucks power there is not much you can do but go without cable.
@Hbishop (Nastro?)
Just a small correction...
You obviously made a mistake typing, as you misspelled "the South", "California".
Surely when you were ranting about 'Free Everything' and vampires, etc... you were talking about the lopsided tax burden that the South and its citizens encumbers the rest of the productive country(especially our nation's workhorse, California) with, right?
@Hbishop they worry because higher usage leads to more brownouts and blackouts in the larger areas. I work for a tech based editing shop and we had two of our machines damaged by rolling brownouts cutting off the system in the middle of processing files. sure we could rebuild but it set us back a good two days and for us that's not cool
Those "vampires" that creep across the border are actually productive members of society that pick your food. Did you want to go pick your own food in heavily pesticided fields? Go for.
shut up, idiot.
"per inch of screen area" is this the same as the diagonal size or do you mean square inches of screen area? (it´s a real difference between for a 42" TV ; 0.2 * 42 + 32 = 40.4W or (37*20)*.2+32 = 180W)
It's square inch. Engadget should clarify that. I read this article before I saw it on Engadget and it's very enlightening, and the energy savings are more dramatic than one would thing. I recommend the quick read.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34021207/ns/technology_and_science-future_of_energy/
What is the logic behind these numbers they are choosing to enforce. Are they derived from empirical evidence stating that those number are feasable and beneficial?
Just wondering if some politician without any understanding of technology just pulled some number out of a hat or whether there was research saying that brought them to those numbers.