Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-want-my-i-want-my dept.

Earth 619

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."

cancel ×

619 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hooray! (5, Insightful)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171894)

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!

California Uber Alles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30171940)

Pretty soon the secret police will come for your obnoxious football loving neighbor and his 52-inch plasma.

Re:California Uber Alles (5, Interesting)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172030)

Actually that's not funny. After all, the pigs already use infrared sensors to search homes without a warrant looking to bust up harmless pot farms. Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.

Re:California Uber Alles (5, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172072)

Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.

Why are they invading your toilets?

Re:California Uber Alles (1)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172134)

I dunno really. They're scared to death of people having free choices as to what they eat, drink, and smoke. They assume that they own our bodies and minds, and that any rights that belong to us are generously granted by Them. So they go around in armed vehicles looking for hippies with IR cameras that can see through walls, thus, into my privy.

Re:California Uber Alles (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172196)

Um, I thought the courts already ruled that to be unconstitutional.

Re:California Uber Alles (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172288)

That's no longer permitted [wikipedia.org] in the US.

(Apart from being a good ruling for civil liberties and privacy, Kyllo's also interesting for its strange 5-4 split: the majority, pro-civil-liberties, opinion is by Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer.)

Re:California Uber Alles (2, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172474)

After all, the pigs already use infrared sensors to search homes without a warrant looking to bust up harmless pot farms.

Not since 2001 (better late than never) -- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html [cornell.edu]

Tax (2, Interesting)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171942)

Because they have a huge budget shortfall and they want to get rid of the big screen TVs, why not tax the shit out of them? It won't get rid of the TVs but it will really curtail their consumption.

Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....

Re:Tax (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172096)

It's a good thing most Californians like along the Pacific coast, and the Nevada line is far, far away. That makes it less practical to drive that far just to save a few sales tax dollars. It's why even though I could drive to Delaware to get tax free goods, I opt not to.

I just heard on the news last night that California's Treasury Secretary is investigating the Constitution. He's wondering if California can revert back to being a territory, in order to resolve its budget crisis!!! Wow. Frankly I don't understand this. Cuoldn't California just lay people off, and cut their costs for 2010? That's why companies do when they face a financial crisis.

But no. Instead the government raised paycheck withholding by 10%, in effect giving themselves an interest-free loan from now until April. Nice. If I lived in CA I'd raise my allowances as high as possible, because I don't trust California to offer tax refunds come April 2010.

Re:Tax (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172158)

Ha! I would love to see Califronia try to secede from the Union. Technically, the states have the right to secede at any point, but practically the result of the Civil War says otherwise...

Re:Tax (4, Interesting)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172296)

I think nothing could be better for the people of California. Tell the Federal Empire which robs us blind, kills our young men, and embroils us in endless overseas conflict to get lost. California would save tens of billions a year not paying taxes to the Empire, which we could turn around and use on our own infrastructure and defense. We have the eighth largest economy on our own, we don't need the American albatross hanging around our neck.

Re:Tax (1)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172454)

I like this idea! Will you emigrants from the USA to come to your new country without restriction and be granted immediate residency/citizenship? How about emigrants from Mexico? What financial incentives will you offer prospective immigrants?

Will you have a democratic form of government? If so, may I nominate Nancy Pelosi for the head of State?

Re:Tax (1)

JaySSSS (859968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172106)

They'll just set up checkpoints like the agricultural checkpoints at the state borders. "I'm sorry sir, I'll have to confiscate that contraband 65-inch television in your trunk!" Hmmm... I see a business opportunity for folks willing to be a TV "mule" to smuggle big-screens into the state.

Re:Tax (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172164)

That would be illegal, as its interfering with interstate commerce. They can't stop you from importing goods into your home state.

Re:Tax (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172278)

They can't stop you from importing goods into your home state.

But the feds can, if the representatives from California manage to dupe the House into thinking that extending California's TV power consumption regulations to the whole of the United States is a good idea, and the House in turn dupes the Senate.

Re:Tax (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172484)

I see a business opportunity for folks willing to be a TV "mule" to smuggle big-screens into the state.

I don't think this would be as popular as you might think. I can only think of one person who would be capable of kiestering a 65-inch TV, and even he might be turned off by the sharp corners.

Re:Tax (3, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172152)

Actually, the goal of saving energy/reducing pollution from energy generation would be better served by taxing energy. You wouldn't have to have a TV set power consumption regulation office, you just take whatever the electric company charges and slap a percentage on top of that. Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate so that it's possible for nearly everyone to avoid the the tax by using electricity moderately.

Yes, it's another case of using the tax code to achieve something other than bringing in revenue, but it does the same thing that *regulation* would do, only across *all* uses of electric power, and without forcing anybody to change anything. If you absolutely MUST have that gigantic plasma TV, and absolutely DON'T want to pay without tax, you can go without lights or a refrigerator.

Re:Tax (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172424)

Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate

No exceptions, no rebates. It's the only way to balance a checkbook.

Re:Hooray! (2, Insightful)

virg_mattes (230616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172128)

I don't normally shout RTFA, but the writeup doesn't describe the article very well. California doesn't care about the size of your TV, the article states that they're putting mandatory limits on how much power it can use. This is a problem for manufacturers, but consumers will still be able to buy whatever TV size they care to own.

Virg

Re:Hooray! (4, Insightful)

sustik (90111) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172348)

It was well said already, I do not repeat:

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1451590&op=Reply&threshold=2&commentsort=0&mode=nested&pid=30172042 [slashdot.org]

What is fascinating is how these discussions so soon turn towards political drivel. I am genuinely interested in finding out what makes people behave in such irrational manner. Lack of logic? Anchoring to a view and incapable of admitting the mistake?

- TV size is not regulated, power consumption is.
- The household energy use issue is real for CA. Remember the rolling blackouts?
- Legislation often happens in parallel. Homework assignment: how many laws they pass in a year? Would you want them to do it one at a time in order of importance?

Having said the last one, I also think some issues are just distraction, for sure.

Silly fool! (3, Funny)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172362)

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.

Re:Hooray! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172434)

WTF? Who modded the parent "troll"? It was a satire, and a very good one, and illustrated the point very vell. I guess someone in California's legislature or bureaucracy has mod points today. Someone please mod that back up to visibility!

Governmental Controls (1, Funny)

TechnologyResource (1638031) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171934)

Are they going to tell us what we can watch too? Good thing I don't live in California.

Re:Governmental Controls (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172246)

Uh... California (Hollywood, Burbank, et cetera) already have control over what the Soviets... er, Americans watch. They also have a lot of influence in Canada and Europe. I for one welcome our tan-skinned, bikini-clad overlords.

Simple solution (3, Insightful)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171950)

If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit

Re:Simple solution (2, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172262)

If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit

Mr. President? Is that you?

Re:Simple solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172280)

I agree but, do you expect a majority of people to vote for this idea?

Re:Simple solution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172282)

Public transit: because buying a brand new BMW for every rider would be cheaper...

Re:Simple solution (1)

jeff.j.jeff (1680758) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172326)

"If you want people to use less electricity charge" We all saw how well this worked when gas prices hit $4. People are not willing to drive less or even willing to drive sanely. Driving sane not only gets one to their destination within the same minute, but saves 10% in fuel. "If you want people to use less electricity charge" It's called cap and trade

Re:Simple solution (1)

aengblom (123492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172336)

If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit

The difficulty is people don't know how they're using that energy. Most consumers probably don't think of their energy bill when buying a TV (they're thinking picture quality and price.) Moreover, even if they are, it's pretty difficult for a normal consumer to figure how how much energy a television will use and exactly what the additional cost of that energy usage is over the life of the TV.

Oh, there's also one other trick. The cost of building new power plants has gotten pretty expensive in recent years. Lots of commodity costs (steel, energy... and now debt) went way up. Thus, if lots of new inefficient TVs come online and require a new power plant, that more expensive power plant will raise the base cost of electricity for everyone. Even people who are just trying to use it to run some basic necessities.

Re:Simple solution (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172444)

"Your TV's soak too much power, so we're going to make your kitchen appliances more costly to operate and make electric vehicles less affordable. Don't worry, we'll get you to work along with a bunch of punk gangsters."

Might want to target the issue a little more precisely.

Really (1)

dburkland (1526971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171954)

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 [cnet.com] , 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.

Deckchairs? (1, Insightful)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171962)

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.

Re:Deckchairs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172018)

So lets kill all the lawyers and move to Mars? Just how do you plan on handling the overpopulation of Earth?

Re:Deckchairs? (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172108)

Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

Re:Deckchairs? (4, Insightful)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172184)

The best way to fix overpopulation is what we're doing. Encourage economic prosperity which in turn reduces the number of new children born. This method is already working in Europe and has always worked well in the United States.

The fewer people living in poverty, the less of an economic engine having lots of kids will provide and the problem will become underpopulation.

Re:Deckchairs? (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172264)

The real issue there is security, not prosperity. Having lots of kids is an unconscious hedge against the fact that most of them will die without reproducing.

But if we spread prosperity first, the current population glut will destroy the planet before the birth rate is sufficiently constrained.

Re:Deckchairs? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172350)

I say we build three spaceships. The "A Ark" would contain leaders, the "B Ark" would contain middle-men and the "C Ark" would contain workers.

Re:Deckchairs? (2, Informative)

Walterk (124748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172166)

there's just too many people on planet earth

So the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people. You'd best do the honourable thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual [wikipedia.org]

Let me know how that works out.

Re:Deckchairs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172390)

Why is that the default response to someone claiming overpopulation? Just don't have 5 fucking kids and we'll be ok in a few generations.

Re:Deckchairs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172194)

Malthusian, depopulate yourself.

Re:Deckchairs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172214)

I would never dare to claim that the world is overpopulated; I'll let nature and economics make that decision.

But you have so wisely declared that the world is currently overpopulated, so why don't you kill yourself now, and decrease the surplice population.
Ok, ok you can be allowed to live, but only if you agree to government mandated forced sterilization

Malthusian fail.

Re:Deckchairs? (4, Insightful)

BlackCreek (1004083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172222)

I did say the disease is the life style of relentless consumption that we see nowadays in most of the industrialized world.

The biggest problem is that the pollution bill is footed by everyone in the planet. People buying (and throwing away) stuff should be forced to also pay for the pollution produced by the waste and manufacturing of the goods.

Kyoto was a first attempt at trying to get handle of that. It didn't go very far.

Re:Deckchairs? (2, Insightful)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172304)

The disease is overpopulation

[Citation needed]

Re:Deckchairs? (2, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172306)

I don't think it's overpopulation, per se. I think it is simply a matter of how much energy each human uses over their lifetime.

Think about it. Tribes in the forest use next to zero energy. They use rudimentary tools and what little carbon they create/release (breathing/fires) is easily absorbed by the environment.

The issue really is when you look to "civilized" society where we have cars (and all the manufacturing to make/sustain them), houses, "things", and simple energy usage to power tv's and other electronics.

Humans in the forest live just fine. At least in the sense of being born, living a happy contributing life (at least to their tribe), procreating and then passing on. The rest of us basically do the same thing, but we fill every gap in between with "things" to make life "better".

I'm no tree hugger and frankly I love my computer, tv, house, car, etc, etc, etc. I don't want to give up those things for a loincloth and a hut in the Amazon. But that is our basic problem as a species. We soak up so much more than we need to survive.

What can we do about it? Well, now we can't shut the box we've opened for ourselves. We can't just ask everyone to turn off everything, stop manufacturing anything besides huts/basic tools and start living as the natives do. We just can't go back now.

So now we're stuck finding a technological solution to a technological problem. We have things and we now need more things to fix the damage our current things are doing. Is this possible? I have no idea. Frankly, if we find some technological, easy, cheap way to create energy to reduce our footprint, I'd argue we'll just take advantage of it and make more things for ourselves and use more energy. No matter how much energy we make, I can guarantee you we'll, as a species, find a way to use it until we need more.

I have a feeling, we'll never "fix" our basic issues. We will never have a clean planet. We'll find a way to fix the current problem enough to keep living and then we'll do it again, and again. I hope I'm wrong, however.

Re:Deckchairs? (2, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172312)

I think it's more over consumption.

We, in the US to use an often cited stat, use 25% of the World's oil - and we're what? 4% of the World's population?

The reason why the consumption around the World is increasing is because people in developing countries want to live like US. If 300 million people are using 25% of the oil, then that would mean that only 1.2 billion can use oil like we do.

I say, we here in the USofA lead by example. If folks want to live like US, let's show them how to live.

Re:Deckchairs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172316)

There is a tragic yet inevitable role for epidemics...

No geometric population growth in developed world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172328)

ZPG to slight depopulation once you get some money.

I think all our depopulation efforts should be focused on the world's poor.

Re:Deckchairs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172418)

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.

Citation needed. There is no empirical data on actual maximum sustainable human population on earth. There are theoretical maximums in the 13Billion range. Since we're at roughly half of that theoretical maximum I'd say we're not even close to dealing with the problems of "over" population. Nice try though.

Re:Deckchairs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172478)

Hi, my name is Anyone, and I've been thinking that it's deckchair arranging since before you likely even had the thought. It doesn't stop here, though: what about the antics of the Sierra Club? They collect millions of $$$ and waste it fighting the symptoms of the real problem. The Sierra Club gives official lip service to overpopulation, acknowledges it, but then completely ignores it.

As long as this 800-pound gorilla is still roaming free and unchained, does it really do much good to clean up after him?

Hilarious (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171966)

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?

Re:Hilarious (5, Insightful)

dargaud (518470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172202)

For a same screen size an LCD will consume less than a CRT, but most people who change their TV go for a much bigger screen that negates any benefit.

Re:Hilarious (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172224)

Looks to me like these regulations are being put in place to make sure that the manufacturers don't cut corners and erase any of those gains.

But I like your idea of pushing California further into debt to encourage consumerism.

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172330)

This action by the CEC will do enough to push them further into debt, actually.

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172398)

You are wrong.

For small displays (i.e. monitor sized) LCDs are much more efficient than CRTs. But at larger sizes plasmas in particular and even some LCDs can be less efficient than comparably sized CRTs.

Sources:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/energyeff/tv.pdf [nrdc.org] (page 17)
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/redirector.jspx?action=ref&cc=CN&lc=chi&ckey=1484550&cname=AGILENT_EDITORIAL [agilent.com]

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172420)

p>Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?

California is in no condition to subsidize anything.
Maybe some of those butt-in-ski actors should subsidize their home state of California.

Power consumption? (1)

userw014 (707413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172462)

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?

...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30171968)

"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.

What is more important (-1, Flamebait)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30171972)

The polar bears or your big screen?
Eco-Fascists unite, we must burn all big screen T.V. and kill the demons the lurk within
This what was prophecy that came from Al Gore through his prophet Nancy Pelosi.
OBEY!

Re:What is more important (3, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172088)

In spite of all the fuss, it turns out that the CEC mandate is not especially stringent vis-à-vis what Energy Star has planned. In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place.

Re:What is more important (2, Insightful)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172446)

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.

Why the uproar? (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172032)

Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about? THe PC World article says that the new CEC requirements aren't much different than the Energy Star regulations that most manufacturers seem to be embracing. Is it that EnergyStar is voluntary and CEC is required? With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star label, so perhaps non of this uproar applies to me. Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either. From the article:

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.

Re:Why the uproar? (2, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172124)

I wonder at what point the TV manufacturers are just going to have to tweak down the maximum brightness on the TV just to meet the power requirements? You can't tweak it down forever without eventually sacrificing the total lumens.

Re:Why the uproar? (3, Insightful)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172216)

Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?

Probably the expense of testing their products to prove they meet the regulations. Energy star is voluntary and probably less bureaucratic to get. To have to do it all over again to prove to a state that they meet the regs (even if it is just the time of a staffer to submit the paperwork) is viewed as a un-necessary expense. What if multiple states start doing this kind of thing? Pretty soon is a whole department of people needed to keep up with the paperwork. Which makes your TV more expensive.

Re:Why the uproar? (4, Insightful)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172394)

What manufacturers are really worried about has nothing to do with the content of these specific regulations.

They're concerned about the possibility that individual states can have separate regulatory frameworks from the government. In that case, they'd be obliged to do testing and demonstrate that their products satisfy the regulations of every state in the Union that passed regulations. Theoretically they could just make sure they satisfy the most stringent of the state regulations, but if the regulations conflict, that's a problem; if different regulations emphasize different aspects, that's a problem. If CA mandates that televisions use less than 200 KW, and NY mandates that their manufacturing process not contain any Insidium-A, both those regulations may be achievable individually, but you may not be able to make an energy-efficient TV without Insidium-A, and now the megacorps lose the economies of scale that let them crush any smaller competition. (Though to be fair, it would be kind of a headache to keep track of all that, which was sort of the idea behind the Interstate Commerce Clause to begin with).

I don't think it's a terrible thing, particularly when the regulations aren't onerous and no other state really does this -- CA is large enough that it deserves to be its own state (in the poli-sci sense) anyway -- and the manufacturers, like all big businesses, have an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any kind of regulation. But I can see how the precedent might not be pleasing to manufacturers.

Article is BS... (3, Informative)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172042)

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.

It is not a question of technology (3, Insightful)

mgrivich (1015787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172204)

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.

Re:It is not a question of technology (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172438)

Great idea. Where were you when every politician was calmoring for the government to do something when there was the wild fires in CA? When Georgia is hit with floods, suddenly all those "Govt get off my back" people vanish from the scene and "Govt, do something for ME" crowd runs loose. Let the energy users pay the FULL price of energy, with no government subsidy, no government permission to pollute then you can argue "I am willing to pay, so get off my lawn".

When I say "no pollution", it is zero pollution. No acceptable level business. The the energy companies do not have the right to belch anything into the atmosphere. It has to capture everything and bury it in its own premises. If they cant do that they need to pay for the privilege of emitting the pollutants. And we, the people, will charge them fair rates for it.

Re:It is not a question of technology (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172440)

I thought it was more that the more power your TVs take, the less everybody else will have?

Mandating energy-efficient devices is not a step down a slippery slope to CommunoFacist Dystopia. Really. Simmer down.

Re:Article is BS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172238)

However, LCDs contain harmful chemicals that us (in Canada) are already being charged for with 'Disposal Fees'.

Re:Article is BS... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172346)

Thats the mercury backlight in a conventional LCD. Those are being replaced by LED arrays.

Re:Article is BS... (3, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172322)

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.

You can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands, because I appreciate things like dark blacks, bright whites, color fidelity and blur free motion. LCDs are a lot better than they were at these things, but 1000:1 contrast (DNC is a lie) is still a deal breaker.

I gladly pay for every watt that my plasma draws, so if you think that I'm not paying my fair share, I invite you to find a rate that you think is more fair (of course, remember that you'll have to pay that rate for your fridge too -- a KWH is the same irrespective of what use). Moreover, my energy use is median for my area, so I'm not using more than my neighbor even if my TV uses more than his TV -- I save energy in other ways.

Finally, I have no problem driving up to Oregon (bonus: no sales tax) to buy my next TV. It's quite ironic that a measure intended to cut energy use would encourage such insanely wasteful behavior -- TV energy use pales in comparison to a few hundred miles on my (30mpg) vehicle.

Re:Article is BS... (1)

Thavilden (1613435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172332)

LED backlit LCDs are not cheaper than plasmas. They still cost almost 50% more. This is comparing a top of the line Panasonic plasma to a top of the line Sony LCD.

Cui sonny bono? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172464)

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.

It's surprising how much power new TV's use. (1)

djdbass (1037730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172076)

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?

Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use. (0, Redundant)

MarkSyms (167054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172168)

No, they use about 100W if they use LED backlights.

LCDs are MUCH less power... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172178)

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 [vizio.com] . So significantly bigger LCD backlit TV (20% larger area) draws only 20% of the power of a plasma TV.

Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172342)

That seems especially bad compared to this, never mind LCD or Plasma:

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ [cnet.com]

(but those numbers are for the TVs as they come out of the box, so who knows)

Suicide State? (1, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172084)

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).

What's the big deal? (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172094)

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 ;)

You elected them.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172114)

what do you expect?

cost != price (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172130)

. 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!

This whole thing is BS (1, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172138)

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.

Surplus Plasma? (1)

postermmxvicom (1130737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172364)

Surplus as in free? if you aren't interested, I am :)

Re:Surplus Plasma? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172428)

Not free, but cheap enough for me to consider an antiquated plasma screen. Burn in isn't an issue for the purpose I would be using it.

Trying to save the planet (5, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172140)

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.

Doesn't apply to sets larger than 58" (1)

pedropolis (928836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172176)

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.

Ludacris (0, Flamebait)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172206)

Shut the hell up, all you fat asses with your ludakris-size TVs. Fat ass.

Geniuses (2, Interesting)

PonyHome (625218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172232)

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.

People will just buy their TV's out of state (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172234)

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.

Just cut us off already (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172254)

(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.

Re:Just cut us off already (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172460)

Then everything in your fridge goes bad while you sleep.

"SCAM" mode? (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172268)

With that name, I'm amazed the politicians didn't come up with the idea themselves.

Damn gummint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172308)

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

Idiotic bureaucrats (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172380)

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?

A better solution than SCAM mode? (1)

DingerX (847589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172386)

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.

SCAM Mode Vs Vivid Mode (1)

Escape From NY (1539983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30172458)

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.

Here's an interesting take on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30172466)

http://www.projectorreviews.com/blog/2009/11/20/the-plasma-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-projector-california-bureaucrats-have-decided/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>