California Proposes Ban on Power Hungry TVs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

solymnar

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2006
84
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Why should we? When all is said and done, recycled plastic costs more than non-recycled and is of lower quality.[/citation]

The plastic situation has to deal with the chemistry. Most people think that two different plastics if you melt them will combine. This unfortunately is not the case at all. So often you get something similar to particle board out of recycled plastic efforts but less sturdy and far less bio degradable.

The "correct" way to recycle plastics is to make them biodegradable to begin with or create processes that can breakdown the individual mers to their building blocks and separate them out cleanly. Not easy tasks to balance when their densities are often very similar.

Recycling paper is far and away more expensive than growing more trees currently and produces quite a bit more pollution. Many types of paper degrade pretty well on their own. So simply using those kinds and having an expedient way for it to breakdown is a better call that trying to turn it back into usable pulp.

Its not that its regionally economical or not. It always not economical regardless of region. But it makes people feel warmer and fuzzier even when (in the case of paper products) it cost more energy and pollution to recycle.

As mentioned metals are a pita to mine and refine and the recycle process is much more effective (owing to very different properties of metals) and yeilds a perfectly equivalent product to being mined in most cases.

Its not the TV that bother's stoner. Its having a decision made for him that "should have been his to make".

There is a fine line in regards to that.

(my own theory based on a bit of study and reading)
I suspect in large part the whole point of getting us more energy efficient is so that when (not if) the oil crash hits we can survive through it without the nation collapsing completely into ruins while we flip to coal/nuclear/etc. Lets face it, if energy is cheap and easy, stoner and everyone else will burn it like its going out of style because its their right to do so. So it has to be made artificially more expensive in stages to push development and changes.

It can (and is) argued about when the oil crash will happen. Some say 10 years, some say 50. No one perfectly knows. But what we DO know is that re-ramping the US to be near completely non-dependent on oil will take a long time and a lot of effort and resources. Better to start now and hopefully be ready than caught with your pants around your ankles.
 

deltatux

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
98
0
18,580
0
This proposal I agree with. This is better for the greater good. Who cares if you can't get true blacks, this is just a minor inconvenience which your children and their children can benefit from.

LCD should be the way to go and this will also push the adoption rate of OLED a lot faster.

deltatux
 

Rogue77777

Distinguished
Feb 26, 2007
13
0
18,560
1
Stoner your name says it all. I'm just happy most of the population dosen't think like you do or we'd all be in a big mess. Just walk to the nearest field or beach and see how clean it is. It doesn't just come down to thow much co2 is in the air. All of these products come from some type of factory with and without regulations. California needs to step-up and insure that were not the leader when it comes to buying these products. We have over 33 million poeple in this state and we need to insure the furture of this state and the next generation that lives in it.
 

scryer_360

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
115
0
18,630
0
I'm a Plasma enthusiast 100%. As the article mentions of us, I will glady take up Plasma's cause at any turn, so far as to invoke Godwin's Law even.

However, if it saves energy, I'm willing to part with Plasma. As much as I hate to see Plasma and my beloved BMW M cars (I
 

scryer_360

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
115
0
18,630
0
Ok, so that last post didn't go through right. I was gonna say:

However, if it saves energy, I'm willing to part with Plasma. As much as I hate to see Plasma and my beloved BMW M cars (I
 

rooket

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
433
0
18,930
0
lol @ guy with 15mpg truck. I drive a car with a V8 and I get 19.1 mpg right now combined driving. I've been in several V6es that get that. Also trucks are slow :)
 

clist

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2008
8
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Square_Head[/nom]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[/citation]

While I also have a philosophical issue with being told what I can and cannot buy, I have an even bigger issue with people who flaunt their love of all things inefficient as if it were some sort of badge of patriotism. As if the ability to waste and squander and revel in one's own ignorance are the qualities that made America great. They are not.

Regardless of whether or not greenhouse gases are a hoax, or whether or not you "buy in to the lie of the carbon footprint", you'd have to be a moron not to understand that the more efficiently each person works and consumes resources, the better off they are and the better off society is. Efficiency lowers demand for resources and therefore lowers their cost while efficient work increases time for other things. Efficiency is a Good Thing(tm) and it's something we should all strive to promote in society and technology - for everyone's quality of life. Computing technology, the increases in efficiency it's brought to markets and the workplace and it's effect on global GDP over the last 50 years is a perfect example of this.

...so while I disagree with a law that says you can't own something that's inefficient, I would support a law that charged a surcharge for buying something that's grossly inefficient compared to other products simply because it provides some luxury value; like better picture quality in the case of a plasma TVs (which I own two of, BTW), or warmer light int he case of incandescent bulbs. Call it an "inefficiency-luxury tax", or even a; "I'm a bad neighbor because I'm wasting resources tax". Either way, you allow people to have an inefficient product while letting them know that what they are doing is wasteful. You also reduce the cost of entry for new , more efficient technologies which currently take forever to get to market.

Blatant and intentional waste in the face of more efficient alternatives is what I see these laws being enacted around - not greenhouse gases or carbon footprints.

Cheers,
CList
 

RADIO_ACTIVE

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2008
275
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]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.citation]

Well this could be what your car looks like in the future as well... lol man you can go on and on...
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/tesla-model-s-sedan-electic,news-3706.html
 

Roffey123

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2008
11
0
18,560
0
Dear oh dear Stoner - you do you country proud (not) - I wonder who YOU voted for. Look, regardless on whether or not you believe in Climate Change the benefits are in other areas - why are you complaining about a more power-efficient TV? If anything, it will force the electronics industry to become more innovative; hell, we have OLED technology - its not going to take decades to modify and make cheap the technology for the mass-market.

Also: "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." Why don't you go look at what some of the European car manufacturers are chucking out (I like the Fiat 500 myself, but you can look at a VW Golf bluemotion if you want, in fact, I'll link it for you http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/volkswagen-world/environment/blue-motion) - time to get thy head out of thy enlarged ass.

Or you can go back to your comfort blanket otherwise known as your copy of the Bible. And bash it. Relentlessly. With your face.

[to clarify - this isn't an attack on religion; more an attack of blithe ignorance]
 

solymnar

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2006
84
0
18,580
0
Be fair guys. Not all of stoner's points are wrong or irrelevant even if his opinion (I feel overly black and white stance) isn't popular. Its possible to dissagree without insulting. These threads could benefit a bit from a heat reduction.

In general though clist nails my general feelings on this matter. Efficiency = joy.

 

Square_Head

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2006
41
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]clist[/nom]While I also have a philosophical issue with being told what I can and cannot buy, I have an even bigger issue with people who flaunt their love of all things inefficient as if it were some sort of badge of patriotism. As if the ability to waste and squander and revel in one's own ignorance are the qualities that made America great. They are not. Regardless of whether or not greenhouse gases are a hoax, or whether or not you "buy in to the lie of the carbon footprint", you'd have to be a moron not to understand that the more efficiently each person works and consumes resources, the better off they are and the better off society is. Efficiency lowers demand for resources and therefore lowers their cost while efficient work increases time for other things. Efficiency is a Good Thing(tm) and it's something we should all strive to promote in society and technology - for everyone's quality of life. Computing technology, the increases in efficiency it's brought to markets and the workplace and it's effect on global GDP over the last 50 years is a perfect example of this....so while I disagree with a law that says you can't own something that's inefficient, I would support a law that charged a surcharge for buying something that's grossly inefficient compared to other products simply because it provides some luxury value; like better picture quality in the case of a plasma TVs (which I own two of, BTW), or warmer light int he case of incandescent bulbs. Call it an "inefficiency-luxury tax", or even a; "I'm a bad neighbor because I'm wasting resources tax". Either way, you allow people to have an inefficient product while letting them know that what they are doing is wasteful. You also reduce the cost of entry for new , more efficient technologies which currently take forever to get to market.Blatant and intentional waste in the face of more efficient alternatives is what I see these laws being enacted around - not greenhouse gases or carbon footprints.Cheers,CList[/citation]

You are an idiot. I have use for everything I have. The plasma is the best TV out there. The truck I drive is used for work. I actually need to haul things. The 100W light bulbs actually light my house. I can see things with a crap CFL or lower wattage bulb. And the Trans fat? I don't care because I work off the calories. So when you decide to pull your head out of my arse you might get some crediblity. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Let liberty rule..fker
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
663
0
18,930
0
Ok. So I will buy my power hungry TV online and have it shipped to California. Big whoop. You saved some watts over the year but forced me to ship an item across the ocean and then several hundred miles across the US. Great job I guess.

California shows us once again why it is bar none the worst run state in the country. The era of big government is upon us. Bush wadded the Bill of Rights and threw it in the trash Obama is here to finish his job with the rest of the constitution.

Anyone see that the White House fired the CEO of GM. Or should I say the CEO of America fired the CEO of GM...
 

JJBB

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2009
14
0
18,560
0
I don't mind efficiency, but I resent the fact that the least efficient thing on planet earth, namely "the government", is trying to force it upon me.
 

jawshoeaw

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2008
40
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Square_Head[/nom]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[/citation]
OK, the plasma tv is probably not the biggest problem here, but you should ditch the trans fat. It's synthetic garbage. If you want to thumb your nose at a liberal, eat butter. It's better for your heart than transfat and mmmmm tastes good.
 

jawshoeaw

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2008
40
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]JJBB[/nom]I don't mind efficiency, but I resent the fact that the least efficient thing on planet earth, namely "the government", is trying to force it upon me.[/citation]
The only thing more inefficient than big government is big business. You have all the same bureaucratic nonsense, plus add profit. And once the business is big enough, it doesn't have to be efficient to succeed.
 

average joe

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2009
24
0
18,560
0
I used to live in Oregon where recycling was very easy to do. They had bins right there for me to sort my trash into. I now live in a very rural area in Minnesota where recycling is much less convenient. If I wanted to recycle I would have to drive my cans and bottle 30 miles to a nearby town and use the bins there. I asked my trash collector about why they didn't provide recycling bins and they told me that all the trash is sorted at the dump and everything they can sell is sold. They burn the rest to generate electricity.
 

Onus

Distinguished
Moderator
Jan 27, 2006
724
0
19,210
63
I think you'd ALL get something out of Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear."
I like being efficient because it's cheap, and often easy. In almost five years, I think I've changed out 3 CFL bulbs in my entire house, two of them older ones I'd had who knows how long. CFL bulbs now produce a much warmer shade, and are smaller and brighter. I don't use them over any concern for my "carbon footprint," I use them because they make my electric bill smaller, I don't need to waste time changing them, and they don't add a lot of unwanted heat (although I've considered using incandescents in the bathroom in winter).
In a few million years, I'm sure this planet will be as lively as ever, possibly with no sign that humans were ever on it.
In the mean time, expect energy prices to rise. I am looking forward to the day that solar energy becomes affordable.
 

Onus

Distinguished
Moderator
Jan 27, 2006
724
0
19,210
63
Oh yeah...
Trans fat is NOT a food. Ants won't carry it off. Not even mold will grow on it. Only humans are gullible enough to eat it. It gets incorporated into cell structures where it doesn't belong, and screws up your cholesterol balance.
I found out this stuff is essentially Industrial Waste some 6-7 years ago, and cut it out of my diet. My cholesterol came down some 30-40 points.
A piece of equipment sits there, breathing hydrogen and drinking vegetable oil. In a high-temperature digestive tract made of metals like nickel and aluminum, it metabolizes the stuff. What oozes out of the machine's rectum is shortening, margarine, and other trans fats. Oooh yummy, machine poop!
 
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