# California considers Ban On Big Screens



## Dave

According to an article at www.electronichouse.com California is considering a ban on some large screen TV's. They say that some brands are consuming to much energy. That the more effecient models can save the consumer $ 18 to $ 30 per year. This savings pitch is what they will use on the consumer if they ban certain models. They think that with the demand and number of large screens TV's this would be a big drain on the power grid over time. I guess in California big screens (40") and larger are flying off the shelf. :nono2::nono2::nono2:


----------



## Lee L

I bet that stores not too far over the border in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon will be happy about this.


----------



## LarryFlowers

Ok.. so they pass the law... the Consumer Electronics Association or someone similar files suit... ties it up in court for 4-6 years or more by which time the sets will be 80% more efficient than they are now... Net result: rich lawyers.



Dave said:


> According to an article at www.electronichouse.com California is considering a ban on some large screen TV's. They say that some brands are consuming to much energy. That the more effecient models can save the consumer $ 18 to $ 30 per year. This savings pitch is what they will use on the consumer if they ban certain models. They think that with the demand and number of large screens TV's this would be a big drain on the power grid over time. I guess in California big screens (40") and larger are flying off the shelf. :nono2::nono2::nono2:


----------



## davring

LarryFlowers said:


> Net result: rich lawyers.


They are lining up now...


----------



## BattleZone

Were this to pass, a lot of lawmakers would find themselves out of a job. Flat-panel HDTV sales is probably the ONLY major consumer item that is selling well in the horrible economy here in California. Killing that would be a huge mistake.


----------



## tcusta00

Well if the law passes I would say these lawmakers have left their Marx (sic). :eek2:


----------



## Steve

Surprised that a state governed by a former actor wants to 'terminate' big screens.  /steve


----------



## rabid_hobbit

Steve said:


> Surprised that a state governed by a former actor wants to 'terminate' big screens.  /steve


lol


----------



## BattleZone

I doubt this is coming from Arnie.


----------



## PatentBoy

What I would like CA to do is to think of a way out of the current budget crisis and not focus on such idiotic lawmaking.

This is the state which banded cell phone usage while driving vehicles, however leaving the ability to text-message intact (yes, they fixed that recently). :nono2: Meanwhile, everyday I see people applying makeup or eating meals while driving the busy highways of Silicon Valley.

CA - Prioritize on the issues and take the top ones out first, eh?

OK, I'm done. :sure:

Continue...


----------



## barryb

Lame!


----------



## Bobby H

Banning big screen TVs would be pretty stupid. This week Best Buy reported better than expected sales figures, with big screen HDTV sales being a big part of that. The switch from analog to digital TV broadcasting is helping drive those sales (and Blu-ray could be having a positive effect too).

OTOH, I have zero problem at all with bans on cell phone use while driving. We don't have any such legislation on the books here in Oklahoma, but I think the laws are needed. So many people are practically driving blind, heads firmly implanted in their backsides while they yammer away on their phones and even text while driving. 

I saw one idiot just a couple days ago steering his Honda Civic with his legs while he used both hands to thumb text messages into his phone (I drive a full size pickup and could see down at what he was doing). That doofus could kill someone some day -just like that commuter train engineer who got himself and over 10 others killed because he was too busy texting his girlfriend to notice the red light signals.

Overall, I've had it with all the cell phone misuse. You can't watch a movie in a theater without half the seating area lighting up with phone displays.


----------



## Nick

A double-hit on the anti-big-screen movement would
be if CA also banned tv sets with _black_ bezels.

It could happen! :shrug:


----------



## hughh

Ban big screen tv's, yet they have wall-to-wall refrigerators cooling beer 24 hours a day at every supermarket. Very smart, indeed!!!


----------



## Zellio

That site named the ban incorrectly. The ban would not ban large screen tvs, it would ban all Plasma tvs from California.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/871/california-might-ban-plasma-screen-tvs.html

You can have a tv as large as you want still as long as it's not giving out too much energy.

At the current economic and energy crisis, you should be glad large states let you buy large tvs still. People ***** and moan when things like incandescents and other high wattage low efficiency devices are banned, and then of course ***** that's it's someone else's fault when gas prices go up, when they didn't buy a good mph vehicle.

I don't care if the car dealerships were selling more low mpg vehicles then high. In 2003 I got a 27 mpg highway, 23 mpg city car. Fast forward a bit and it was a great decision.


----------



## Nick

The answer is simple:

The govt gives every household a big screen flat-panel tv and a full-package
subscription to cable or satellite. That would solve America's energy crisis as
everyone would stay home and watch movies and travel shows on tv instead
of wasting gas going eating out, going to the movies and on vacation trips.
Thus, gas usage and other variable costs associated with automobile travel
would decrease considerably, resulting in a net saving of money and a huge
reduction in the use of fossil fuels and of the average family's carbon footprint.

Another idea is to give every terrorist who hates America a big-screen tv and
a lifetime subscription to "Girls Gone Wild".

It _could_ work... :shrug:


----------



## TEN89

guess they don't care about the sales tax they would be getting everyday and would reather take the $30 a year savings


----------



## Richard King

> People ***** and moan when things like incandescents and other high wattage low efficiency devices are banned,


I have no problem with "them" banning incandescents just as soon as they find a viable product to replace them. Products that pollute worse than incandescents are not the proper replacement. I don't want to have to call the hazardous materials cleanup crew every time I drop a light bulb.


----------



## Richard King

> The govt gives every household a big screen flat-panel tv and a full-package
> subscription to cable or satellite.


Cable/satellite is a right, not a privilege.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Richard King said:


> I have no problem with "them" banning incandescents just as soon as they find a viable product to replace them. Products that pollute worse than incandescents are not the proper replacement. I don't want to have to call the hazardous materials cleanup crew every time I drop a light bulb.


There you go, thinking big picture again. I mean, what good does it do to realize the cradle to grave "cost" of a CFL to the environment is greater than an incandescent bulb?  If we didn't have someone to scare us into the more costly (and higher margin) technologies, why would anyone switch...)


----------



## Kheldar

Lee L said:


> I bet that stores not too far over the border in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon will be happy about this.


Until the inspectors at the California border add big-screen TVs to their list of things "that pose serious threats to California's agriculture and environment" and stop cars at the border. :grin:


----------



## txtommy

hughh said:


> Ban big screen tv's, yet they have wall-to-wall refrigerators cooling beer 24 hours a day at every supermarket. Very smart, indeed!!!


That's why I drink Guinness. It's best at room temperature.


----------



## Richard King

txtommy said:


> That's why I drink Guinness. It's best at room temperature.


How environmentally aware of you.


----------



## Zellio

Tom Robertson said:


> There you go, thinking big picture again. I mean, what good does it do to realize the cradle to grave "cost" of a CFL to the environment is greater than an incandescent bulb?  If we didn't have someone to scare us into the more costly (and higher margin) technologies, why would anyone switch...)


The bans are made really to set limits on wattage and add more efficiency. Thats why incandescents and plasmas are attempting to be banned.

The newer plasma probably wouldn't be banned, neither would the next gen plasmas.

Also new incandescents are coming out soon that will eventually be as efficient as cfls.


----------



## Mark Holtz

I really am not happy with the current state of California. What kind of sense does it make when the power company runs ads encouraging you NOT to consume power? Can someone explain THAT reasoning.

I gave up on the state over a decade ago. It took a power crisis in, of all times, Winter 2000-2001 to finally build more plants.


----------



## koji68

Zellio said:


> Also new incandescents are coming out soon that will eventually be as efficient as cfls.


I'm not aware that anybody else is trying to develop this. The last I know is that GE is not pursuing this any more and they have turned to LED and OLED technologies.

http://www.lightsearch.com/lightnow/2008/1208/1208_hei.htm

CFLs do contain a small amount of mercury and should be recycled appropriately but all the places that sell them have containers where you can drop them for recycling. I have seen then in Ikea, Lowes, and Home Depot.

Also the mercury in CFLs is a very small amount. The risk of mercury in the environment is far greater from the emissions of coal powered power plants. Using CFLs will reduce the amount of mercury in the environment as we'd have to use less energy and therefore burn less coal.

The mercury in CFLs is encapsulated and there are processes to recycle the bulbs. The mercury emitted by power plants goes into the air and the water. It makes it to our food supply and into us.

If a CFL breaks, the greater risk is if you get cut. There is very risk of exposure by breathing as opposed to fluorescent tubes.

Here are some notes on what to do if a CFL breaks:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Here is a calculator of saving from CFLs

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=602

Edit: Sorry for the off-topic post


----------



## Zellio

Latest news I had was that GE was contuing the HEI project... And yeah I did hear they postponed it.

I agree that limits on wattage should be made regulatory. With that said, I doubt the legislation made in California will have any thought and will just probably ban all big screen tvs :nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2::nono2:


----------



## Richard King

Mark Holtz said:


> I really am not happy with the current state of California. What kind of sense does it make when the power company runs ads encouraging you NOT to consume power? Can someone explain THAT reasoning.


I can still remember the "jingle" from the local power company from when I moved to Minnesota in 1965. It went like this: "Electricity is penny cheap from NSP to you" It would appear that things have changed.


----------



## Richard King

http://www.dealerscope.com/article/...ller-does-not-benefit-consumers-405274_1.html


> The Consumer Electronics Association Thursday released a study showing that if a proposed regulation by the California Energy Commission is enacted, would be a "job killer."


More...


----------



## mtnsackett

Zellio said:


> People ***** and moan when things like incandescents and other high wattage low efficiency devices are banned...


I bet these are the same people with pallets of incandescent bulbs in the basement waiting for the demise of them in 2014, and driving a Prius and telling us all to green our homes


----------



## Herdfan

koji68 said:


> I'm not aware that anybody else is trying to develop this.


I believe Philips is working on it and they have a haologen based bulb that meets the 30% threshold. But I am stocking up just in case. Too many expensive dimmers to have to go CFL.


----------



## TSR

Dave said:


> According to an article at www.electronichouse.com California is considering a ban on some large screen TV's. They say that some brands are consuming to much energy. That the more effecient models can save the consumer $ 18 to $ 30 per year. This savings pitch is what they will use on the consumer if they ban certain models. They think that with the demand and number of large screens TV's this would be a big drain on the power grid over time. I guess in California big screens (40") and larger are flying off the shelf. :nono2::nono2::nono2:


Did the Governator have anything to comment on about this??


----------



## looney2ns

Wow, another reason for the flood of people moving "out" of CA to continue.


----------



## ironwood

Lawmakers need to do some research. My big screen tv's have a setting called "energy-efficient mode"


----------



## jclewter79

Looks to me that the voters of California need to do some research on their lawmakers. Anybody that would offer up this type of legeslation would not have my vote.


----------



## BubblePuppy

I don't think the issue should about about the size of the tv screen. It should be about all the appliances that remain in standby mode to retain settings. That must use up alot of electricity.
Perhaps everything that requires standby, to etain setting (like my panny plasma tv) should be equipped with a flash card to retain the settings, thereby allowing the appliance to be turned off.


----------



## phrelin

This story is continuing at a political rhetoric level as people gear up for next year's election for Governor and other state offices. The issue is simply whether the California Energy Commission, which sets all kinds of rules regarding energy in the state, should set energy consumption standards for new TV's sold after 2010. It's being framed as a "they want to take away your TV" or "they want to take away your right to buy a 120' plasma TV" because, of course, people like their TV's. Mine's a 5+ year old 42" plasma which when compared to a 42" LCD available today is an energy black hole.

Jon Fleischman, Vice Chairman, South , of the California Republican Party, is not one of my favorite politicians. His Flashreport has an update on this subject which says in part with the political rhetoric left out:


> The CEC is looking to regulate Californians' electricity usage by mandating that all television sets sold in California use 33% less energy by 2011, and 49% less energy by 2013. Currently, no state in the U.S. has such a standard in place, but from the looks of it, the CEC is expected to move on this regulation this summer.... If this regulation is enacted, it will remove 25% of current LCD and plasma big-screen TVs (and 100% of plasma models that are larger than 60 inches) off store shelves permanently.


Thie issue, of course, relates to whether the 2011 and 2013 proposals to set "energy-star-like" mandatory power consumption standards for new TV's sold in California are reasonable. Ignoring the rhetoric from Fleischman about job losses (we don't manufacture any plasma TV's in California), the CEC has a very good FAQ page on the proposal and provides the draft of the standards for the public's review.

I assume some of you are knowledgeable enough to understand if the proposals for 2011 and 2013 are, in fact, reasonable. I'd be interested in opinions about the standards in terms of what manufacturers could and are likely to accomplish in two and four years from now relative to potential consumer costs for TV purchases and subsequent energy use savings.

Like everything else, because California has over 10% of the population whatever product regulations get adopted probably will determine what gets imported into the U.S. This proposal could have positive effects on long term energy use - probably not super-significant, but positive.


----------



## Dave

The energy savings they are striving for are: Between $ 18 and $ 30 dollars PER YEAR. So between $ 1.50 and $ 2.50 per month.


----------



## Lord Vader

Richard King said:


> I have no problem with "them" banning incandescents just as soon as they find a viable product to replace them. Products that pollute worse than incandescents are not the proper replacement. I don't want to have to call the hazardous materials cleanup crew every time I drop a light bulb.


Then don't, Rich. I got so fed up with my CFC bulbs that I took out most of them and replaced them with the traditional bulbs. To show my disgust, I took all the CFC bulbs and threw them into the dumpster my building uses, smashing all the CFC bulbs to pieces in the open dumpster. I didn't care, then I walked away.


----------



## rudeney

I have no problem with the government suggesting and encouraging energy conservation, but to ban a single appliance is ludicrous. As *hughh* pointed out, what about all the beer coolers? And what about other frivolous things like landscape lighting and pool filters running in the huge energy-sucking homes of all those movie stars, and studio and corporate C-suite execs?

As for the issues with CFL's, I'm not crazy about them and yes, they are more costly in the long run that incandescent bulbs when factoring all the economic and environmental issues. I do use them in some places, mainly because I have my entire house wired with X10/Insteon lighting controls so I use them for fixtures that come on automatically. I do have a problem with them not being dimmable (well, unless you pay $8/bulb for that capability, which is ridiculous). Also, they sometimes cause my X10 lamp controls to switch themselves back on because their electronic ballasts continue to "pulse". I actually like the idea of LED lights, but the their color is just way too blue for my tastes, and of course they are ridiculously expensive right now. Hopefully technological advancements will be able to address both of those issues in the near future.


----------



## Shades228

I love how they target high priced items but then ignore the biggest waste of electricity. Any type of transformer, power supply, for most electronics draws the same electricity whether or not it needs it. They need to make all these cheap items use no electricity until it's needed. I have all mine on power strips so I can just unplug the strip but imagine how much would be saved vs plasma's in a home.


----------



## rudeney

Shades228 said:


> I love how they target high priced items but then ignore the biggest waste of electricity. Any type of transformer, power supply, for most electronics draws the same electricity whether or not it needs it. They need to make all these cheap items use no electricity until it's needed. I have all mine on power strips so I can just unplug the strip but imagine how much would be saved vs plasma's in a home.


I agree - I hate wall warts! Although they don't use that much energy (usually less than a watt when not supplying the device), add up all of them in all our houses and offices and it's a lot of wasted energy. I'd love to see some sort of whole-house low voltage supply. Or at least put the transformers back int he devices with hard switches on the A/C side, like we used to have back int he "good old days".


----------



## Dave

The energy commission in California is getting ready to open the talks in the commission hearings with each other about the TV bans. Yes it is getting ready to happen in California.


----------



## Movieman

Damn so now you will have to switch to LCD or LED? Maybe they will give a credit voucher for this. All kidding aside, I think they are messing too much with private use. I think this might even hurt the California economy. California is known for technology and innovation and this just might hurt some people/businesses.


----------



## armophob

So legalize pot in CA, and then take away their big video screens? Why not criminalize Doritos as well?


----------



## Dave

Just wanted to remind the fine folks that live in California, they are down to the last (3) THREE months on purchasing some of the big screen HDTV's. Californias ban does go into effect, I believe January 1, 2011. You might start looking around for that 65" now and plan a good Christmas. I know that not all HDTV's are involved. But that one you may have been looking at purchasing could be on the list. Might need to be looking at black Friday or a good christmas present. This is just a reminder for California HDTV purchasers.


----------



## BattleZone

phrelin said:


> Ignoring the rhetoric from Fleischman about job losses (we don't manufacture any plasma TV's in California)


How many people make a living selling them? Servicing them? Installing them? Providing programming service for them?


----------



## Lord Vader

This is just so frickin' asinine! And people wonder why organizations such as the Tea Party crop up.

Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves over what this country has become due to our government sticking its nose into every aspect of our lives.


----------



## Glen_D

I helped my BIL move his 42" EDTV plasma set last year, and I almost dropped it when I saw the label on the back showing the power consumtion - 450W! I guess that one would be banned in CA, if you were buying it new.

He also had a newer 42" LCD HDTV. It was listed at just over 100 watts. I can't imagine a bill like that even being introduced in Texas.


----------



## B Newt

looney2ns said:


> Wow, another reason for the flood of people moving "out" of CA to continue.


Just dont move to Nevada! You are welcome to visit but DONT stay!


----------

