TV's Going Green In Cali......

lonewolfny42 · « **on:** 20 Nov 2009, 03:30 am »

New California standards for TVs, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2011...

Story here.... ...

Wayner · « **Reply #1 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 05:37 pm »

That's interesting. It is always the bartender's rule with California. (Rule #1: The bartender is always right., Rule #2: When the bartender is wrong, see rule #1).

Now, while it probably is a good idea to make things more energy efficient, I did not elect the 5 guys in California to pass new energy laws for the rest of the United States, and that is exactly what is going on. All the other states will follow, or Sony, Samsung, etc. will spend more serious dough to figure out how to make the TVs more efficient. Usually followed by a price increase, acting as yet another tax on the consumer. As the article said, why not make the electrical grid system better, but that would cost the electric company money. They would rather have the consumer pay the bill.

It's all a big ponzi scheme and all of us dopes are on the bottom, paying all the bills.

Wayner

craig223 · « **Reply #2 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 05:58 pm »

What if these guys decide that your home theater/audio gear is using too much energy and set standards that eliminate Class A, tubes, etc.

What if everybody is told to use a laptop instead of a desktop to save energy?

This is a slippery slope that will end with all of us listening to ipods that are charged by solar power.

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #3 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 06:19 pm »

Isn't this the idling circuit being turned off when the off button says OFF? In Europe their TV's take longer to boot up because they aren't in a HOT state for instant picture at the ON button press. So this is a minor inconvenience for us and keeps these circuits truly off and therefore using less watts x millions of units. Isn't this the real technical end of it and we're seeing the political stuff in the news?

ctviggen · « **Reply #4 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 06:25 pm »

Personally, I'd find it hard to manually turn on the TV I have. They made the buttons blend into the front of the panel, and they all look alike. I'd rather have the 1 watt/hour to be able to turn this on with my remote. Plus, my remote turns on the TV and switches it to the correct input for whatever I'm doing. We'd be going back to the stone ages to require an on/off button.

woodsyi · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 06:57 pm »

Thanks to them, I was able to convince my wife that I need a new TV. Now I have a 55" LED LCD coming that will replace a 36" CRT.

Wayner · « **Reply #6 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 07:31 pm »

Being the responsible AC member that I am (hee, hee), I went fishing for my owners manuals on my 3 TVs. 1 is a 36" Sony XBR tube. It draws 265 watts when on and 2 watts in idle.

My TV in the kitchen is a Sony Bravia, 19" LCD. It draws 50 watts on and 1 watt in idle.

The 3rd TV is also a Sony Bravia, 26" LCD. It draws 135 watts on and 2 watts in idle.

In idle mode, the TV is listening for a signal from the remote.

I really wonder if the the power reduction is possible. What about computers and laptops? How about the coffee maker? Here in Minnesota, we'll kill that energy savings at Christmas with all of the Christmas lights!

Well, it will be interesting to see how all this turns out.

Wayner

ctviggen · « **Reply #7 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 08:10 pm »

1 watt running for a year would be 8760 watts, or 8.76 KwHr, which even at the high rate of about 18 cents per kwhr here in CT would be $1.58 in costs to the homeowner.

Want to really lower electricity uses? Have an incentive for homeowners to install efficient central air in New England. That 8.76 kwhr is blown away in a few hours by the four window air conditioners I use during the hot summer month(s). Installing efficient central air would save a heck of a lot more than "off" TVs ever will.

Wayner · « **Reply #8 on:** 20 Nov 2009, 09:12 pm »

So would insulation, Bob

Wayner

cupnoodles · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Dec 2009, 08:06 am »

Energy efficient electronics=poor reliabilty, overheating (which leads to more power consumption) the more complicated the unit is, the more energy it will use (that is once is goes out of specifications in 6 months to a year do to parts too close together) none of these initiatives have ever benefitted the consumer in any way.

Phil A · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 01:51 am »

Quote from: ctviggen on 20 Nov 2009, 08:10 pm

1 watt running for a year would be 8760 watts, or 8.76 KwHr, which even at the high rate of about 18 cents per kwhr here in CT would be $1.58 in costs to the homeowner.

Want to really lower electricity uses? Have an incentive for homeowners to install efficient central air in New England. That 8.76 kwhr is blown away in a few hours by the four window air conditioners I use during the hot summer month(s). Installing efficient central air would save a heck of a lot more than "off" TVs ever will.

I concur they are picking on one product. I had new windows installed in the middle of August to cut energy consumption and take advantage of the tax credit. It they have a new energy credit down the road, I might replace the furnace. I really don't get how they are going to police this. You can bring a TV in from another State (and CA will lose sales tax revenue) and how are they going to track that? I think a better way to do it is to have steep charges and taxes for energy consumption over a certain level. So people have the choice to consume an average amount of power at normal rates and skimp how they wish or pay through the nose for using a disproportionate amount of energy.

geezer · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 02:55 am »

I can see this change would be a pain for many. For me the added inconvenience would be negligible.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 03:02 pm »

Seems to me we're still stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

How much energy would it save if heat from kitchen appliances would vent to the outside? In a midwestern summer, it will reach 100 degrees with near 100% humidity. That central air conditioning unit is HUMPIN'. But at the same time, I've got two refrigerators in the house with compressors and evaporator coils that are heating up the inside of the house. How about when you're finished using the oven. Now you've got several cubic feet of air that's been heated to 400 degrees. When you're finished cooking it would be nice to press a button to evacuate/vent that air to the outside as opposed to allowing it to stay in the house. Let's also talk about the dishwasher and clothes washer. Nothing worse in the house than a couple big boxes full of heat generating electric motors, hot water and humidity. Sure it's nice in the wintertime, but sucks in the summer to think about how much money I've spent to dehumidify and cool this air just to have it humidified and heated a few minutes later.
How about we talk about self cleaning ovens. They reach internal temperatures of 900-1,000 degrees to incinerate themselves clean. Where do you think that heat goes? How many Kw/H does that require, and how many Kw/H does it take for your A/C unit to "battle" that?

Doesn't seem that TVs would be high on the list of places I'd be looking to save the planet.
But that's just me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Bob

ctviggen · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 04:50 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 20 Nov 2009, 09:12 pm

So would insulation, Bob

Wayner

I've already installed R-25 (I believe, can't remember exactly) over the joists in the attic. In my family room, currently under construction, I've replaced the R-11 with R-15. Without ripping down more drywall, that's the best I can do.

Want to really save some energy? Require new homes in New England or other cold climes to be built with R-40 walls, R-60 roofs, etc. My walls were/are R-11 and my attic had R-15 before I installed more insulation. Require windows to have certain levels of U values and the installation to be as air-tight as possible.

These options will blow away reducing TV power, but the govt officials won't be minute savings per TV and exaggerate the effects by multiplying by large numbers.

Phil A · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 10:57 pm »

It is really about power and market share. California is such a big market and that is the reason they have their own emissions standards for autos. A small State does not have the clout.