Posted by Artys on November 19, 2009, 6:05 pm
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_e ...
> California just passed another anti-consumer law. The focus is TV
> energy efficiency. Under the new regulations, 75% of new digitial tv's
> sold today will NOT meet the energy efficiency requirement for 2013.
> This is just another example of CA trying to force their ridiculous
> standards on everyone else. Of course, they are hoping that by passing
> these restrictions, all TV's sold in the US will have to meet their
> requirements, which will add significantly to the cost of each new TV
> set sold.
> Environmental groups pushed for passage of the regulation, citing
> that more and more homes have multiple TV sets, and the sets are turned
> on longer and longer, taking more power.
> It's a noble thought - and a very misguided one, in this specific
> instance. Here are some excerpts from the article:
> "The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
> old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
> less — about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
> by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
> account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
> each year."
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
> most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
> just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
> fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
> enough for some special interests.
> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
> representatives also have said the standards would force manufacturers
> to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than
> those sold elsewhere in the U.S."
> - yes, people will just buy TV's mailorder, if people try to force more
> expensive sets on them, especially if they are perceived as poorer
> quality sets.
> Here's an idea - instead of the government forcing everybody to do
> what they want, or what a special interest group wants, how about
> letting the consumers decide what to buy? From the looks of things,
> that approach is already working, with the shift to LCD sets.
By the way, I still get analog programs on my TV. The reception is
better than digital.
Posted by Paul_E_Wog on November 19, 2009, 8:21 pm
Ohioguy wrote:
> "The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
> old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
> less — about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
> by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
> account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
> each year."
>
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
> most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
> just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
> fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
> enough for some special interests.
I believe you don't have that quite right. The article states, (and
further research appears to confirm):
"Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle less — about 43 percent
----> more <---- energy than --> tube <--- sets, according to a study by
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility."
They don't use 43% less than tube sets, they use 43% less than plasma
sets. If Plasma sets use "more than three times as much energy as an
old cathode-ray tube set" then an LCD would still be about 30% more than
a cathode-ray tube.
Posted by Gary Heston on November 19, 2009, 8:40 pm
>http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
[ ... ]
>"The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
>old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
>less — about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
>by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
>account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
>each year."
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
>most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
>just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
>fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
>enough for some special interests.
[ ... ]
I think you have something backwards--your quote from the article says
LCD TVs use 43% _more_ power than CRTs, so there's no savings in power.
However, without knowing what size/model LCDs were being compared with
what size/model CRTs, those numbers are all meaningless. I'm sure the
old 25" console CRT in the other house draws lots more than a 25" LCD,
but probably less than a 52" plasma.
Good old government surveys...
Gary
--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"Where large, expensive pieces of exotic woods are converted to valueless,
hard to dispose of sawdust, chips and scraps." Charlie B.s' definition of
woodworking.
Posted by The Real Bev on November 19, 2009, 10:00 pm
Gary Heston wrote:
>>http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
> [ ... ]
>
>>"The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
>>old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
>>less — about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
>>by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
>>account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
>>each year."
And of course PG&E wants everybody to cut down on the amount of electricity
they use -- it's well known that they charge by the month and not the
kilowatt-hour :-(
>> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
>>most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
>>just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
>>fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
>>enough for some special interests.
I'm ashamed of California. I was born here and have lived here all my life,
and I HATE what we're become. Biggest recent disappointment was Ahnold, who
talked a good game before he was elected.
> I think you have something backwards--your quote from the article says
> LCD TVs use 43% _more_ power than CRTs, so there's no savings in power.
>
> However, without knowing what size/model LCDs were being compared with
> what size/model CRTs, those numbers are all meaningless. I'm sure the
> old 25" console CRT in the other house draws lots more than a 25" LCD,
> but probably less than a 52" plasma.
My 23" LCD is nowhere near as warm as my 21" CRT.
> Good old government surveys...
Results first, survey afterward.
--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================================
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995
XML site map
> California just passed another anti-consumer law. The focus is TV
> energy efficiency. Under the new regulations, 75% of new digitial tv's
> sold today will NOT meet the energy efficiency requirement for 2013.
> This is just another example of CA trying to force their ridiculous
> standards on everyone else. Of course, they are hoping that by passing
> these restrictions, all TV's sold in the US will have to meet their
> requirements, which will add significantly to the cost of each new TV
> set sold.
> Environmental groups pushed for passage of the regulation, citing
> that more and more homes have multiple TV sets, and the sets are turned
> on longer and longer, taking more power.
> It's a noble thought - and a very misguided one, in this specific
> instance. Here are some excerpts from the article:
> "The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
> old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
> less — about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
> by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
> account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
> each year."
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
> most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
> just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
> fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
> enough for some special interests.
> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
> representatives also have said the standards would force manufacturers
> to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than
> those sold elsewhere in the U.S."
> - yes, people will just buy TV's mailorder, if people try to force more
> expensive sets on them, especially if they are perceived as poorer
> quality sets.
> Here's an idea - instead of the government forcing everybody to do
> what they want, or what a special interest group wants, how about
> letting the consumers decide what to buy? From the looks of things,
> that approach is already working, with the shift to LCD sets.