# Calif. to require greener TVs



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34021207/ns/technology_and_science-future_of_energy/



> SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Most power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand. Given how large the California market is, the regulation could end up as a de facto national standard.
> 
> .....


I am all for greener technology in TV's. There is no doubt that TV's are one of the most used technologies in a home. So as for the goal, I have no problem with it.

After reading the article, here are some of my concerns about this:

- The article is completely correct, that people will just buy via internet and across state lines.

- They make the assumption that they are going to immediately start saving all this energy. With a large portion of America recently purchasing new TV's, how many are going to be buying again in 2011? I am still using one of my tv's from 14 years ago. How long is going to take to phase out all the energy eaters?

- What is going to be sacrificed to get the energy savings?

It is going to take a long time for this to make any major impact.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The first impact will be fewer options everywhere. Since California is a huge market, many products that can't be sold in California are expected to die away altogether. 

At least they stopped at 58". The earlier drafts were going to really shutdown anything bigger than that.

And I expect 59" will become the new standard basic TV. 

Unfortunately they didn't give the manufacturers enough time to really go thru a full design to manufacture to ship cycle. Normally they need 18 months, not 13. Though most likely have items in the cycle that will already meet the January 1, 2011 standards.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, luckily, most manufacturers already have plans in teh works to have lower power consumption. So far, the drive to have better blacks has caused hte Tvs to be more efficient also. LED backlights instead of flourescent as well as local dimming so not all teh screen is fully lit at all times for LCDs and better, more efficent plasma panels mean lower black levels. So, it may not be too hard to tweak things a little.

However, this does likely mean that unless there is only one or two models of a makers line that do not meet the CA spec and they just choose not to sell there, that California will now dictate what TV you can buy in your state also, just like they do with cars now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Here's the CEC press release: http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2009_releases/2009-11-18_tv_regulations.html

One of the sites notes that one in four children under the age of 2 has a television in their room. Another points out that Kahliforneans buy 4 million new televisions per year.

Green can be good, but if they have to start introducing technologies that result in some sort of nasty toxic waste to "go Green", they're rolling backwards.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lee L said:


> Well, luckily, most manufacturers already have plans in teh works to have lower power consumption.


Those plans have included dropping plasma technology and in Pioneer's case, getting out of the display business entirely.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> Those plans have included dropping plasma technology and in Pioneer's case, getting out of the display business entirely.


Pioneer did not get out of the display business entirely, at least not yet.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/PlasmaTVs+Monitors

On your post above, you refer to those who live in California as "Kahliforneans". Why is it that you have to be demeaning when you post?


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

harsh said:


> One of the sites notes that one in four children under the age of 2 has a television in their room. Another points out that Kahliforneans buy 4 million new televisions per year.


Off Topic but:

How was that study done? And what are the other parameters around it?

As in my sub-2 year-old's room, there is in fact a TV.

Her room used to be a guest room, that we converted when she arrived. It had a TV mounted to the corner. We left it, so we had something to watch late in the night during feedings and other times we had to be in the room with her.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

barryb said:


> Pioneer did not get out of the display business entirely, at least not yet.


Pioneer said that they were going to cease production at the end of May 2009. What remains in the retail stream is there because it is not selling.


> On your post above, you refer to those who live in California as "Kahliforneans". Why is it that you have to be demeaning when you post?


I do not confuse what the government of California is thinking and/or doing with what the residents of California want or need. To me, the term "Kahlifornea" represents the government's vision; a vision that I believe it isn't entirely popular with the citizens of California.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> To me, the term "Kahlifornea" represents the government's vision; a vision that I believe it isn't entirely popular with the citizens of California.


To me its a blatant derogatory remark by you Harsh, and does not add anything relevant to the topic at hand. :nono:

Your deflective response doesn't do anything to make you look any better.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

harsh said:


> Those plans have included dropping plasma technology and in Pioneer's case, getting out of the display business entirely.


You must have strong shoulders to hold that sky that is falling up.

I have several Panasonic Plasma Tvs (as well as a couple of LCDs, one LG and one Panasonic) in my home and love them. Panasonic has no intention of doing away with plasma just yet.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

One major way all the electronic company's can do to help to lower everyone's electric bill is to have "OFF" be OFF, instead of standby. If that had been done in the past then we may not have to worry about such laws.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lee L said:


> I have several Panasonic Plasma Tvs (as well as a couple of LCDs, one LG and one Panasonic) in my home and love them. Panasonic has no intention of doing away with plasma just yet.


Panasonic's most efficient plasma model doesn't meet the 2011 CEC (California Energy Commission) standards so I'm pretty sure that they're giving serious thought to the future market for plasma televisions.

Pioneer is not the only company to have dropped their plasma television line. Sony, NEC, Vizio and Fujitsu have already left and several others have exit plans.

I want to be clear that this should not be construed as an indictment of plasma television technology. I'm pointing out that the technology is going to be getting significant pressure from these new policies.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BubblePuppy said:


> One major way all the electronic company's can do to help to lower everyone's electric bill is to have "OFF" be OFF, instead of standby. If that had been done in the past then we may not have to worry about such laws.


Most standalone televisions now consume less than 3W when in standby so the issue you raise is a non-issue.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

harsh said:


> Most standalone televisions now consume less than 3W when in standby so the issue you raise is a non-issue.


I didn't limit my post to just tvs, I included all electronic devices that are on when not in use. It all adds up, besides multiply 3w x the millions of tvs that are out there......major wasted usage.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> I didn't limit my post to just tvs, I included all electronic devices that are on when not in use. It all adds up, besides multiply 3w x the millions of tvs that are out there......major wasted usage.


Exactly BP. You pretty much nailed it.

It's going to be a cumulative effort on behalf of all electronics manufacturers, even those little boxes we so covet enough that we post about them all the day long... right here.

Big plasma displays are just part of the problem.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BubblePuppy said:


> I didn't limit my post to just tvs, I included all electronic devices that are on when not in use. It all adds up, besides multiply 3w x the millions of tvs that are out there......major wasted usage.


TVs are the subject of this thread so you can understand my confusion.

Anything that has a remote needs to consume some power to receive commands. Other devices are expected to "do things" when they're not being actively used and as such, they need to be on too.

Surely our expectations can be very slowly changed, but is it really worth the savings?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

barryb said:


> Big plasma displays are just part of the problem.


If you look at the power consumption numbers for the other technologies, they aren't always saintly either.

To some extent, I see this legislation as not being far from telling a SADS sufferer that they can't use their happy lamp because it consumes too much power.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

harsh said:


> If you look at the power consumption numbers for the other technologies, they aren't always saintly either.
> 
> To some extent, I see this legislation as not being far from telling a SADS sufferer that they can't use their happy lamp because it consumes too much power.


When I lived in OR I had a SADS lamp, I turned it on when I used it, 15-30 minutes a day. It wasn't on at all when I didn't use it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BubblePuppy said:


> When I lived in OR I had a SADS lamp, I turned it on when I used it, 15-30 minutes a day. It wasn't on at all when I didn't use it.


The one's with remote controls are.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Fontano said:


> How was that study done? And what are the other parameters around it?


The study was done by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Google it.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*When America sneezes, the world still reaches for a Kleenex*
Cali-_fornication_ perhaps, but California is firmly in the driver's seat
as this country's most populous state has progressed from rolling
brownouts to leading the way toward the greening of America and,
hopefully, the world.

*From SkyReport*:


> *El Mundo Breckon: A Butterfly Flaps its Wings in California*
> by Alex Breckon, MediaBiz.com
> Posted November 20, 2009
> 
> ...


*SkyReport.com*


----------



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

The Kalifornians will just go to another state or internet to get a a non-green tv. I say get rid of plasma tv's problem solved. We have 2 60" plasmas at work that are used to display charts and status info and I cant believe the heat that radiates from them when you walk by them. Also I hate the glossy screen on plasmas.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

B Newt said:


> The Kalifornians will just go to another state or internet to get a a non-green tv. I say get rid of plasma tv's problem solved. We have 2 60" plasmas at work that are used to display charts and status info and I cant believe the heat that radiates from them when you walk by them. Also I hate the glossy screen on plasmas.


Well if you don't like Plasmas they should certainly be banned! 

I'm curious how they rate the power consumption of a set because if you look at the rated power consumption of the new Pannasonic Plasmas it's 2-2.5X what the typical power consumption is when on (according to both Panny's specs and reviews). For example the new 54" V series is rated at 606W (!!) but they list it's typical consumption at 293W and HDGuru tested it at 216 - 240W. Do they just have to rate them for the most they CAN consume? The delta between rated and typical does not appear to be as large on the LCD specs I've looked at.


----------

