California considers ban on energy devouring TVs
[Thanks, Garrett]
[Thanks, Garrett]
Relevant Posts
- ITC rules Samsung infringed on four Sharp patents, bans import of some LCDs (17 days ago - 3 Comments)
- Sony and VIZIO ditch the courtroom, clear up licensing issues (29 days ago - 4 Comments)
- Survey says 13 percent have never heard of Hi-Def (2 days ago - 12 Comments)
- Engadget HD Podcast 164 - 11.17.2009 (10 days ago - 18 Comments)
- The best HD sports on TV this week (8 days ago - 1 Comment)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
carljanderson @ Mar 25th 2009 3:28PM
Come on!! It's California, lets just add a 10% "Energy Tax" on the sales of the least efficient HDTV's!!!
Make it effective April 1, like the additional income tax, and 1% Sales tax increase!!!!
WOOT!!!
TrentD @ Mar 25th 2009 4:47PM
Kalifornia, our new communist republic!
Honestly, politicians, get over it.
Evan @ Mar 25th 2009 4:55PM
So, some HDTVs consume too much electricity, but charging an electric car is okay?
Andy Sullivan @ Mar 25th 2009 6:50PM
Between $18 and $30 per TV per year? Seriously, that's a lot of coin.
Jason @ Mar 25th 2009 6:13PM
I love the math. $18-$30. On a TV that will last
Jason @ Mar 25th 2009 6:15PM
I love the math. $18-$30. On a TV that will last <10 years. If the energy efficient TV itself costs 10% more than the waster, you're probably better off wasting power!
If you want to reduce energy usage, don't tax the device, tax the power. If you want to make it so that the wealthy pay more, make it a curve, where the more power you use, the price per unit goes up - like income tax.
Dang engadget HD and tag stripping. This isn't a tag, it's TEXT!
eugene @ Mar 25th 2009 6:36PM
it's not how much but WHEN the electricity is used that's the issue.
Running TVs during peak hours BAD, trickle charging in the middle the night when there's less demand, not as bad.
Seriously people, it's not rocket science. electricity generation isn't unlimited, the more we use the more we need and since no one wants a new nuclear power plant next door that means we need to conserve.
Of course if this country and state subsidized solar energy like Germany and China than every home and business could generate their own power during the day and reduce load but oh, that would require actual leadership from our government and would require lazy whiny asshat amercians to do something other than sit in their air conditioned homes while whining about having to buy an energy efficient something.
EatingPie @ Mar 25th 2009 6:39PM
Indeed, how about something truly HELPFUL. Not this BS regulation garbage.
For example, put Solar Panels on every roof in Southern California. There are oceans of roofs here that could generate electricity. It's mind boggling that we're not harnessing the power.
But politicians would rather regulate and control than actually contribute. (Man that sounded cynical! This last election really wore me out!)
-Pie
Guy Incognito @ Mar 25th 2009 6:42PM
I'm for it.
There was an article in the Economist a while back where they talked about energy efficiency in refrigerators. Before they started regulating them in California they were big energy wasting hogs. Unless manufacturers have an impetus to make their wares energy efficient they won't.
I couldn't find that article but here is something similar graph on wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_energy_performance_standard#California
And from a different article:
California set the first standards for refrigerators in the late 1970s. These standards were superseded, however, when national efficiency requirements were set in 1987 affecting refrigerators made in 1990. An updated standard, which became effective in 1993, further improved the efficiency of new refrigerators by 15%. A recent consensus agreement, if enacted into law, will improve refrigerator efficiency by another 25% for 1998 new units. This most recent consensus standard was the result of two years of active negotiation among industry representatives at the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, environmental advocates at the Natural Resources Defense Council, efficiency analysts at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and utility and regulatory representatives from the New York State Energy Office, the California Energy Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison.
In energy terms, an average new auto-defrost refrigerator with top mount freezer in 1972 used about 2000 kWh/yr. A new unit in 1990 used about 900 kWh/yr, and in 1993 about 690. In 1998, a new unit will consume less than 500 kWh/yr.
Alex @ Mar 25th 2009 7:10PM
well put. People like to complain or call the government Nazis or Commies or use other childish ignorant responses, but history has shown again and again that Industry absolutely not improve their products for energy or water efficiency unless forced to.
Why should they? Because a good chunk of the Western US is facing drought and having problems with energy usage. There need be no other reason than that.
Garrett @ Mar 25th 2009 9:13PM
This best part is how the LCD Manufacturers Association is supporting the proposal according to the energy.ca.gov website.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/tv_faqs.html
eugene @ Mar 25th 2009 9:48PM
Of course innovative companies are going to support this regulation. It helps to differentiate their brand.
This may come as a surprise to some people but people in parts of the world not the United States pay a lot more for electricity and live with rolling brownouts or mandatory energy conservation periods.
Making electronics that use less juice is just good business sense for those markets.
This just reminds me of when the government pushed for cleaner more efficient cars and detroit bitched and moaned and complained how it was going to destroy the industry. Well they were right, it did destroy the US auto industry, not because of the regulation but because they choose to fight it tooth and nail lobbying and wasting time and money while companies in Japan seized on the opportunity to innovate and create products that not only met the new regulations but surpassed it.
It happened again with wind and solar, the republicans saw conservation as something evil, cut the tax breaks and subsidies and those technologies which WERE developed here in america got sold off to Japan and Europe. And now look, those industries create thousands of jobs and are important industries.. meanwhile in the US we have to license the very technologies we developed.
It'sa fucking joke and this attitude of bitching and moaning every time we're asked to sacrifice just a little bit instead of looking at it as an opportunity to innovate and create industry and jobs is what's driving this country into the ground.
Jason @ Mar 25th 2009 10:27PM
The point is that there are much higher efficiencies to be gained by removing home heating/water heating from the grid. If you get rid of electric water heaters in favour of solar (part. good for California), you'll save substantially more than the $30/yr.
Try 25% for hot water! 50% for heating and cooling!
Who cares about a stupid TV, fix the damn leaky taps and old hot water heaters!
Naman @ Mar 25th 2009 11:16PM
If the CA Legislature wants to drive even more people out of the state with their over-regulation, more power to them! I always enjoy watching corrupt, overzealous lawmakers shoot themselves in the foot. It's great entertainment!
Lv99 Slacker @ Mar 26th 2009 2:49PM
Well, instead of just bitching on the web, I hope some of you Californian readers (like this big 'ol liberal here) actually take advantage of the California Energy Commission email address listed in the source article and voice your displeasure at this possible development.
Garrett @ Mar 26th 2009 4:41PM
Eugene, to say that innovation and creating jobs in the industry comes from government intervention is the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks for the laughs.
Ogo @ Mar 27th 2009 12:53AM
Damn complainers read about this issue before you start bitching.
1. There are heaps of models of TVs that will qualify for this regulation, it just trims out the hogs.
2. It will cost you nothing extra to buy a more efficient tv.
3. It will save Californians money because you won't have to build a shit load of new power plants.
kevin @ Mar 27th 2009 7:33PM
Seriously, Engadget? WSJ reported on this months ago...old news.