California Proposes Ban on Power Hungry TVs

Status
Not open for further replies.

KyleSTL

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
38
0
18,580
0
For those curious:

Size Watts (2011) Watts (2013)
32 148 78
42 198 115
50 247 153
65 362 242

Seems like pretty strict guidelines only very efficient current LCDs can meet.
 

Square_Head

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2006
41
0
18,580
0
LOL, I'm going to have to steal that line. Green IS the new Red. It just further builds my rage against California. I love my 100W light bulbs and my Plasma TV. I drive a truck that gets 15mpg and I eat trans fat. Suck on that liberals
 

lukeiamyourfather

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2006
52
0
18,580
0
Who gives a crap about the the wattage a television uses. Maybe they should be more concerned with incandescent bulbs and the quality of insulation going into new homes since that would actually make a difference in power consumption for real people. That's my two cents.
 

A Stoner

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2009
72
0
18,580
0
If you need more evidence than this to show you that the "greatest scam in history" is nothing more than a power grab by green activists and politicians, then I am not sure you can be convinced.

CO2 has been in our atmosphere long before life on this planet ever got started. Every living green plant on this planet is fine tuned to operate at maximum eficiency when CO2 in the atmosphere is around 1500 ppm, hence the reason greenhouse operators feed CO2 into their greenhouses, not to keep them warmer, which is caused by the fact that heat cannot move up out of the greenhouse due to a physical barrier.

Over the history of our fine planet, the last 3 million years has had the lowest, by a factor of 3 to 5, CO2 content in the atmosphere than any other time that scientists can determine. Death and ruin are not what happens when CO2 is higher than it is today, but death and destruction are what happens when it is lower than today. Fully 50% of the increased food production on our planet is a direct result of higher CO2 in the atmosphere, and at a certain point, I think around 130PPM if I remember correctly, plants can no longer survive, and that means we cannot survive. CO2 is non toxic to human and animal species up to 50,000 PPM.

If we, as humans, want a better environment to leave our children, what we should be doing is everything possible to create more and more CO2 and releasing it into our atmosphere. We should be turning large amounts of rock into concrete, burning up the sequestered carbon in our coal feilds, and reinvigorating our atmosphere to the levels of 3 million to 200 million years ago. Instead we are working hard at figuring out the most cost effective plan to sequester even more of this life giving nutrient.

The sad fact though, is that no matter how much CO2 we ever figure out to sequester, the oceans will return to the air. The ocean keeps an equilibrium of CO2. For every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, there is a huge multiple stored in the ocean, and like fizz in a soda, it will put that CO2 back into the air. So for every PPM we want to reduce CO2 from the air, we need to take out about 50-100 PPM.

Yesterday they stole your right to a safe and usefull car by demanding that fuel economy goes up to a point where building a car large enough to hold you and your family along with groceries or the family vacation luggage is impposible. This is an ongoing effort, and trust me when I say you should look at the car that was recently released in India if you want to know what a car of the future will look like. Tiny, plastic, no power. Gets great fuel economy, 42MPG, but it lacks in space, safety and comfort.

30 years ago, they stole your right to cheap electricity when they stopped all new nuclear power generation plants in the USA. Nuclear geneartion plants are the second least costly energy resource we have, after hydro-electric dams, which have also been stopped.

Today, they are stealing your right to market driven priced fuel for both your car and to heat your home, by unduly harsh environmental policies, including a new ban on offshore drilling, bans on drilling in ANWR and other places where we know we can get cost effective energy. The inability of power companies to build new coal fired power generation plants. Gasoline prices have come down recently, but a large part of that is the economic collapse which has cut back on energy demands by companies that are not producing as much as they could be. If you want to see what life is like when you cut back on energy use, look no further than any recession or depression from history.

Tomorrow they are planning to take away your light bulbs, TVs, cosmetics, and anything else you, as a voter, allow them to. until one day, you find yourself nothing more than a slave to government, instead of the Government being Of the People, By the People, and For the People.

Spread the wealth, controll the means of production, and set class against class, race against race, and gender against gender. While everyone is angry at everyone else, the government gets to continue stealing your rights one at a time, all in the name of fairness, equality and other things that sound great, until you see the results.

The big bailout, a perfect storm to set the public anger at wall street. Everyone hates the AIG people, so it is ok to take the rights away from them. (The truth is that AIG got suckered into the position it was in by Fannie mae and Freddie Mac, by our government in other words, along with greed of course, but I see greed in shades of gray.) Tomorrow, maybe it will be the company you work for on the hated list, and your rights will be taken away. But is is OK, cause it is for the greater good that the government takes these rights away from you. Just like it is for the greater good you will not be allowed to own a TV of your chosing.
 

eddieroolz

Distinguished
Moderator
Sep 6, 2008
3,485
0
20,730
0
[citation][nom]lukeiamyourfather[/nom]Who gives a crap about the the wattage a television uses. Maybe they should be more concerned with incandescent bulbs and the quality of insulation going into new homes since that would actually make a difference in power consumption for real people. That's my two cents.[/citation]

That works too, or maybe they need to focus on environmentally friendly energy generation like what we have in BC, hydro dams.

California green movement is focusing on the wrong parts, and not the source of the problem.
 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
694
0
18,930
0
I am sure I’ll get flamed…But here goes.

I like what California’s legislation is attempting to do, sure lower wattage TV’s is not the answer to the world’s energy/Carbon footprint problems but at least there trying to make improvements.

California is leading USA to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions…. We need the entire earth to follow suit!

I think Nuclear power plants are far more important than lowering TV wattage… And the Governator is pushing for this as well. Schwarzenegger also has a pretty aggressive plan for car emissions.

 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
694
0
18,930
0
I am far from a Green activist; In fact I don’t take power into consideration when buying anything…My PC has a 1000W power supply.

You would have to be a fool to not relies that lower wattage bulbs, lower wattage TV’s, lower wattage computers, Lower wattage everything is better, they ALL help!! USA is the World’s top energy user, baby steps are better than NO steps. Most people don’t even recycle cans/bottles/Cardboard…

I’m not knocking USA, I just think it is time for everyone to open their eyes and relies WE are the fucking problem because we don’t care…

Here is a nice graph (don’t know how legit or accurate this is), you can Google “worst energy consuming country” and many similar graphs… USA is #1 on all of them, regardless of the actual #’s. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

If California can pass something like this, Awesome!
 

A Stoner

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2009
72
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]I am sure I’ll get flamed…

California is leading USA to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions…. [/citation]

Your right. I will flame you, and I was the first to put you negative. Just want to be up front with everyone. Simply because you are gulible enough to fall into the carbon footprint, we need to cut back on producing green houses gases part of your comment.

yeah, good ol' Arnie is a savior, isn't he? He has certainly put the people of California above his political career. He is an awesome actor too, he had all you Southern Rubes thinking he was a Republican, and he even used Reagan as his rolemodel to make sure you all fell for him.

You sure got a great state there, Kahleefornya. Fastest growing unemployment, fastest growing deficit, fasting moving out of state residents, fastest moving out of state businesses, fastest increasing cost of living, fastest increasing percent of population that is illegally in the USA, and most importantly, fastest growing reputation for being a bunch of lunatic retards. But hey, you got Anrie to worship, so it's all good, along with you're gay nuptuals and weed smoking, you should be all set for a repeat of the 60's.

I think Nuclear power plants are far more important
That is very true, but not for the reason you state, but just in economic sense that it costs less to produce using Nuclear power than anything other than hydro-electric.
 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
694
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]That works too, or maybe they need to focus on environmentally friendly energy generation like what we have in BC, hydro dams.California green movement is focusing on the wrong parts, and not the source of the problem.[/citation]
They are trying to pass a law now allowing them to build nuclear plants again… They are focusing on the larger problem and addressing smaller issues as well.

PS: Hydro Dams will only produce so much power, Nuclear is a better solution… Not to say Hydro is bad, it’s just not enough.
 

A Stoner

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2009
72
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]Most people don’t even recycle cans/bottles/Cardboard…[/citation]

Why should we? When all is said and done, recycled plastic costs more than non-recycled and is of lower quality. Same goes for cardboard, it costs more money to recycle cardboard than it does to make it from virgin materials, and you end up with an inferior product.

Cans are an exception to the rule, they are actually economical to recycle, but, not every place has conveinient places to do so. Glass bottles would be economical, but since almost no one buys soda in glass bottles where I live, I am stuck with plastic or aluminum. Mostly aluminum. I do not recycle them here where I live now, but I did in Utah by giving the cans to a guy I knew who did recycle, and in California by dictate!
 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
694
0
18,930
0
Holy hell A Stoner, how can you be so thick that you are upset you have to buy an efficient TV… LOL, how can you even live with yourself?

I live in Canada; we get money back to recycle bottles and cans. I drink 100 cases of beer and I get $120 back…. Sorry where you live it is not “economical” to recycle. Perhaps your Government should have put some of the 11 Trillion dept into something important and you wouldn’t be faced with buying an energy efficient TV.
 

solymnar

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2006
84
0
18,580
0
As Stoner has basically alluded to, most people don't realize that we're still coming out of the last ice age and will be for a loooooooong time.

It supposed to get warmer. No scientist honestly knows by how much how fast and have only the vaguest ideas. So take it with a grain of salt every time you hear doomsday propositions about how global warming is so terrible and try to tell you that humans alone are causing it. Its utter rubbish. Around 20+years ago there was a similar fad claiming that global cooling was occuring.

News flash...its a friggin planet, since we don't live geologically significant life spans and try to make everything match our own short existences, politicians push bendable scientist to produce data that suggests we can make insane claims on a year to year basis.

That said I'm ALL for reducing actual pollution (CO, SO2, NO2, Hg, etc.) while CO2 in general is fairly harmless it usually comes bundled up with some friends that are not harmless by any stretch of the imagination. So while I don't buy the "carbon footprint" obsession, many aspects have a side effect of reducing the other real pollutants that usually accompany CO2.

So even if their goal is misguided not all the side effects are bad. Consider that if the US gets away from oil dependence it will be in a much stronger position to truly sustain its self. Right now if we didn't have outside oil support the US would be in chaos within a week and people dying and starving left and right in a month despite the ratio of fertile land per person.

Not exactly a strong position to work from. The green effort gets us closer to finding a balance that doesn't need oil to burn as fuel quite so badly. So that combined with generic real pollution reduction will be worth it if they can orient their goals around the things that matter more. Obviously TV's are not as critical as many other targets, but a lighter grid means renewable sources can take on a larger percentage and every bit helps. Though we're a very very long way from actually running on wind/solar etc.

Sometimes efficiency = joy.
 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
156
0
18,630
0
This is stupid it will likely not pass. This is a moronic attempt to make Cali looks more green and apply unnecessary pressure to the electronic industry. The majority of manufactured TVs are LCD. By them time a bill like this would go in too effect Plasmas will probably be gone or already fall with in the guidelines of the energy bill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
H Streaming Video & TVs 4
M Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 16
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 12
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 42
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 32
G Streaming Video & TVs 10
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 25
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 82
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 30
G Streaming Video & TVs 21
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 80
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 25
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 72
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 50
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY