California bans power-hungry tv's?

[S13_love]

Yeah, this came to me as a surprise. Im not saying this is a huge deal but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/nu...ments I understand this is about saving power consumption, but I didn't know a state could dictate something like this . Im kinda curious to see what you guys think or what your opinions are about this.

Edit: Aaaannnnddd in other news, while on topic of the saving energy crap, U.S. residents are apparently fighting for the right to hang their.....laundry?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...undry
Modified by S13_love at 3:32 AM 11/19/2009

[Jesda]

Ask government to create a safety net, it chokes you with it.

[seang]

(with bloodshot eyes) OMG! I can't BREATHE without my TV! AHHAHAHHHH!

[numbnuts240]

does that lady have to string up her granny panties in front of her house? why can't she dry them in the back yard? or inside? i wouldn't want to step out of my house and see someone else's underwear waving in the wind as some testament to the fact that they survived, yet another menstrual cycle.

[marlin29311]

I don't think it's that big of a deal. Plasma is on it's way out. LED TV's are coming in, and they use about 40% less power than conventional LCD's, so there's a big savings there.

I mean, we have the means to be more efficent...why not?

[Jesda]

I don't think it's that big of a deal. Plasma is on it's way out. LED TV's are coming in, and they use about 40% less power than conventional LCD's, so there's a big savings there.

I mean, we have the means to be more efficent...why not?

Because its not the business of the state to dictate my television purchases. If YOU want to reduce consumption, do it yourself.

[seang]

Because its not the business of the state to dictate my television purchases. If YOU want to reduce consumption, do it yourself.

That's what people get when they solicit the government to solve all their problems for them. It's ok to sometimes ask the govornment for assistance, but to grant them dictatorship over your life is another thing entirely. What do people expect to happen? To some, it's a "seemingly unimportant decision".

[93coupe]

Is my house going to get raided if they here of the tube television in my basement?

[AZhitman]

Because its not the business of the state to dictate my television purchases. If YOU want to reduce consumption, do it yourself.

This legislation is a complete load of CRAP. More government intrusion into our lives, for WHAT purpose?

What if someone can AFFORD to waste electricity? How is it the state's business?

All told, the new rules are expected to save 6,515 Gigawatt-hours annually in the state, save the state $8.7 billion in costs for additional power plants, and save consumers $8.1 billion a year in lower energy bills.

So, where is the benefit to the citizen? Do you realize that the difference adds up to less than $30 per year in electricity costs per household? BIG FREAKIN' DEAL.

They're counting on people like you, marlin, to be agreeable to all the "little things"...

...but the little things add up, and before you know it, you're living in a state where you can't smoke outside... can't hang your laundry in the privacy of your backyard... can't even put an aftermarket part on your car unless it's approved by the Gestapo... errr, I mean CARB (which is, and always has been, an unproven and ill-advised waste of money, as well as an unfunded mandate on ALL Californians).

Keep bending over, Californians. For a state that thinks it's SO supportive of personal freedoms, you're sure not doing a very good job of protecting them.

[DrifterXRPS13]

YEA!! SCREW YOU CALI!! and your beautiful weather and amazing ocean and palm trees and hot women and nice cars but with all that said SCREW YOU!! i would not want to live there with all those ghey a$$ laws! nice vacay spot though.

[Dittoz7]

Except For The Ghey Traffic, Florida Is A Nice Cali Substitute.

[marlin29311]

This legislation is a complete load of CRAP. More government intrusion into our lives, for WHAT purpose?

What if someone can AFFORD to waste electricity? How is it the state's business?

They're counting on people like you, marlin, to be agreeable to all the "little things"...

...but the little things add up, and before you know it, you're living in a state where you can't smoke outside... can't hang your laundry in the privacy of your backyard... can't even put an aftermarket part on your car unless it's approved by the Gestapo... errr, I mean CARB (which is, and always has been, an unproven and ill-advised waste of money, as well as an unfunded mandate on ALL Californians).

Keep bending over, Californians. For a state that thinks it's SO supportive of personal freedoms, you're sure not doing a very good job of protecting them.

Not so much.

Im not giving up any rights or freedoms by using a TV that eats lower power than the next one. The vast majority of TV's already conform to the standards, and the old power eaters usually aren't as good either.

Plus, it saves the state money. They don't have to build more power plants and waste more taxpayer money on stuff we don't need (Lord knows we already spend way to much as it is...)

If some TV agency was making a rule for it's members to stay "green" no one would care, but since it's the gov't, we all get up in arms.

In the end, no one is going to see a difference on the Best Buy shelfs when they go to buy their next 60" TV. This isn't the same concept as CARB or any other gay CA rules...

[S13FX]

Yeah Im moving back to Cali in less then a month.

And you know whats best, Im probably going to brake all the stupid retarded laws they have, and whats even better Il probably get away with 99% of them.

Plus by the time 2013 rolls around people are going to be so sick of the government we're going to be more worried about who to shoot next and not whats on TV.

All this stupid s*** they put in these news papers about the bills and laws most of them don't end up happening anyways, and the more we ignore the power that be f***s the better off we'll be.

In other words. F U C K - T H E - M A N

[AZhitman]

Plus, it saves the state money. They don't have to build more power plants and waste more taxpayer money on stuff we don't need (Lord knows we already spend way to much as it is...)

Sure... Instead, they can spend a million dollars to bury a dead pedoph:le.

And there WILL be an impact to consumers. And yes, it WILL be passed on by companies like Best Buy.

Another example:

When they outlawed 2-cycle lawnmowers, I had a perfectly good, very expensive top-of-the-line LawnBoy mower... We bought it maybe 20 years ago.

It needed servicing, and because of some silly emissions law, NO ONE would service it. It was ILLEGAL to fix it.

So, instead of a little puff or two of blue smoke every couple weeks, I discarded a completely functional mower... what's the environmental impact of THAT? Even if you COULD recycle it all? PLUS, I had to replace it with a new one ($400 spent unnecessarily)...

And what was the environmental impact of MAKING that new mower? Lots of petroleum in the plastics and rubber... lots of harmful chemicals to make all the parts... plus the pollution generated by the manufacturing process, as well as transporting it to the store... the big cardboard box HAD to come from somewhere (bye-bye, trees)... Styrofoam packing... all the other packaging, printing... a new 40-page manual...

No, it's well-documented that keeping an old internal combustion engine (whether it be a car, a mower, an industrial machine) maintained and running is FAR LESS damaging to the environment than replacing it with a new one.

But the namby-pambies in the Legislature don't think beyond their own ignorance.

[Jesda]

Im not giving up any rights or freedoms by using a TV that eats lower power than the next one. The vast majority of TV's already conform to the standards, and the old power eaters usually aren't as good either.

Plus, it saves the state money. They don't have to build more power plants and waste more taxpayer money on stuff we don't need (Lord knows we already spend way to much as it is...)

If some TV agency was making a rule for it's members to stay "green" no one would care, but since it's the gov't, we all get up in arms.

WRONG. Let me frame it in a way a Californian would understand:It would be like me saying I'm not losing any freedoms by disallowing gay marriage. Just because its not a freedom I need doesn't mean its okay to restrict it.

Your electricity bill already goes toward the cost of building and maintaining utilities. The more power you consume, the more you pay. There is no money "saved" by the state because users of electricity are already charged for it.

Individual choice is the only ethical option. Anything else requires the FORCE of government upon consumers and manufacturers.

[marlin29311]

Sure... Instead, they can spend a million dollars to bury a dead pedoph:le.

And there WILL be an impact to consumers. And yes, it WILL be passed on by companies like Best Buy.

Another example:

When they outlawed 2-cycle lawnmowers, I had a perfectly good, very expensive top-of-the-line LawnBoy mower... We bought it maybe 20 years ago.

It needed servicing, and because of some silly emissions law, NO ONE would service it. It was ILLEGAL to fix it.

So, instead of a little puff or two of blue smoke every couple weeks, I discarded a completely functional mower... what's the environmental impact of THAT? Even if you COULD recycle it all? PLUS, I had to replace it with a new one ($400 spent unnecessarily)...

And what was the environmental impact of MAKING that new mower? Lots of petroleum in the plastics and rubber... lots of harmful chemicals to make all the parts... plus the pollution generated by the manufacturing process, as well as transporting it to the store... the big cardboard box HAD to come from somewhere (bye-bye, trees)... Styrofoam packing... all the other packaging, printing... a new 40-page manual...

No, it's well-documented that keeping an old internal combustion engine (whether it be a car, a mower, an industrial machine) maintained and running is FAR LESS damaging to the environment than replacing it with a new one.

But the namby-pambies in the Legislature don't think beyond their own ignorance.

I don't disagree with you - there's no reason you shouldn't be able to keep what you have in working order, which is why I hope there would be some sort of "grandfathering" in the bill to allow older sets that don't conform the ability to be serviced and repaired. I think it's garbage that your mower had to be destroyed...

If there is a grandfathering, I don't believe you'll see a consumer impact on the shelf...you'll still see the same shiny LG's and Sony's sitting next to one another, all looking the same, all at the same prices they would have been even without the law. You'll still be able to get your TV repaired at the local shop or send it in for warranty work.

WRONG. Let me frame it in a way a Californian would understand:It would be like me saying I'm not losing any freedoms by disallowing gay marriage. Just because its not a freedom I need doesn't mean its okay to restrict it.

You are losing a freedom and a right by that arguement. You could turn gay tomorrow and want it. Watching TV is not a right.

Your electricity bill already goes toward the cost of building and maintaining utilities. The more power you consume, the more you pay. There is no money "saved" by the state because users of electricity are already charged for it.

If people keep increasing their consumption of energy, then the state needs to figure out ways to increase production of energy to meet the demand. Only way to create new power plants to supply the energy is to charge more money on the standard bill so they have the fiscal resources to create a new plant and operate it, or tax more to do so. In the end, you pay more.

[Jesda]

You are losing a freedom and a right by that arguement. You could turn gay tomorrow and want it. Watching TV is not a right.

If people keep increasing their consumption of energy, then the state needs to figure out ways to increase production of energy to meet the demand. Only way to create new power plants to supply the energy is to charge more money on the standard bill so they have the fiscal resources to create a new plant and operate it, or tax more to do so. In the end, you pay more.

Like every debate I seem to engage in now, I feel like I have to start from scratch with philosophical basics.

Rights are not GIVEN to you by government. They exist in nature (whether one chooses to equate "nature" with "God" is their own business). Governing entities can only "give" the rights they already took away.

The reason government can take away gay marriage is the same reason government can take away your freedom to purchase whatever television you want. Marriage was already regulated by the state, and utilities in California were already state-regulated.

If you want your freedom of choice, whether its the choice to buy a plasma display or start a family with Bruce, you have to keep the government OUT.

As for the cost of building new plants, the short-term increase is followed by a gradual decrease in energy costs as more Californians populate the state and use more energy. Take a managerial accounting class and you'll understand that variable costs go down as more 'units' are created and sold.

[AZhitman]

I don't believe you'll see a consumer impact on the shelf...you'll still see the same shiny LG's and Sony's sitting next to one another, all looking the same, all at the same prices they would have been even without the law.

Well-said, but I don't agree.

See, pricing on certain TV's was dropping consistently... Plasma TV's were super-expensive when they first came out, but competition and efficiency of production meant lower and lower prices... To the point where someone (like me) could buy a 52" plasma for under $800.

Now, fast-forward to 2011. Without this legislation, I could grab up that same TV for $500-$600 (based on extrapolation of pricing trends since they came out).

But not anymore. In fact, the article clearly states, "Smaller plasmas are generally OK under the 2011 specs, but virtually all of them fall short when put up against the 2013 rules. That same 54-inch plasma will be required to draw only 175 watts once 2013 arrives, a power reduction that just might not be possible."

So, either a CHOICE goes away (plasma TV's in general) or the PRICE goes up (additional technology to bring the 2013 TV's into compliance).

Neither is acceptable in a free market society.

[AZhitman]

As for the cost of building new plants, the short-term increase is followed by a gradual decrease in energy costs as more Californians populate the state and use more energy. Take a managerial accounting class and you'll understand that variable costs go down as more 'units' are created and sold.

Jesda has nailed it cleanly.

The lefty scare tactics don't work on those of us who see beyond the rhetoric that the CA Legislature so commonly employs.

It's the old "economies of scale" solution.

Besides, if the hand-wringers would quit opposing nuclear power, and quit chasing their tails looking for the MOST complex solution to a problem, there wouldn't BE a fiscal argument against more power plants.

[numbnuts240]

ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!

[marlin29311]

As for the cost of building new plants, the short-term increase is followed by a gradual decrease in energy costs as more Californians populate the state and use more energy. Take a managerial accounting class and you'll understand that variable costs go down as more 'units' are created and sold.

I understand that quite well - I majored in finance. I'm also a realist and know that the government won't drop it's prices as a company would that's competing in a competitive environment. It's nice to have a monopoly. Economies of scale only pass their benefits on to the monopoly, not the market. If Nissan found a way to make their engines for 20% cheaper, we'd see that benefit passed on through a price reduction because it gives them a competitive advantage - the gov't monopoly doesn't need a competitive advantange because no one is going to take the business.

Well-said, but I don't agree.

See, pricing on certain TV's was dropping consistently... Plasma TV's were super-expensive when they first came out, but competition and efficiency of production meant lower and lower prices... To the point where someone (like me) could buy a 52" plasma for under $800.

Now, fast-forward to 2011. Without this legislation, I could grab up that same TV for $500-$600 (based on extrapolation of pricing trends since they came out).

But not anymore. In fact, the article clearly states, "Smaller plasmas are generally OK under the 2011 specs, but virtually all of them fall short when put up against the 2013 rules. That same 54-inch plasma will be required to draw only 175 watts once 2013 arrives, a power reduction that just might not be possible."

So, either a CHOICE goes away (plasma TV's in general) or the PRICE goes up (additional technology to bring the 2013 TV's into compliance).

Neither is acceptable in a free market society.

With or without the law the Plasma market is shrinking as it is. LED/LCD TV's have major advantages over the plasma TV, and several compaines have even dropped making Plasma. The free market is working here as you describe, and the prices are coming down on all flat panel TV style (thanks to some anti-price fixing measures taken earlier this year). Plasma will more than likely be gone as a choice in the near future, just the same as you can't buy a tube TV anymore either...

[AZhitman]

But those changes are due to market pressures, NOT some artifical government intervention.

Again, regardless of how innocuous it may all seem, why was this such a "must-do" action?

Something tells me there's more to it than we're being told.

[marlin29311]

But those changes are due to market pressures, NOT some artifical government intervention.

Again, regardless of how innocuous it may all seem, why was this such a "must-do" action?

Something tells me there's more to it than we're being told.

Agreed - the market is shrinking because it's an old technology, which is what should happen.

I also agree that it is pretty random to introduce this bill as is. Im interested to see where it goes and why it's being pushed...methinks that Al Gore saw a dead bird the other day and blamed TV's so now we should should conserve energy.

[Jesda]

I'm also a realist and know that the government won't drop it's prices as a company would that's competing in a competitive environment.

Going with this argument, if you DONT build more plants ANYWAY, you'll be subjected to even higher price hikes as California's population grows. [Of course, growth might not be a problem if California continues to push businesses away.] Prohibiting the purchase of certain electronics will not have a significant impact on total energy consumption. Sorry, but the absence of plasma TVs will not prevent California from needing to invest in energy.

[AZhitman]

NOW we're getting somewhere.

All I'm asking is, leave the government out of the market.

Bans, prohibitions, forced restructuring, bailouts, subsidies, unions, mandatory phase-outs and other restrictions serve ONLY to strangle the free market system.

People WILL buy "greener" electronics and cars.

But there's a natural progression of technology that the government should have NO part in.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Hmmm...just imagine the "green" technology that would be floating around if "The Man" didn't give two s***'s about emerging techologies...But I guess that's a different argument.

[AZhitman]

Hmmm...just imagine the "green" technology that would be floating around if "The Man" didn't give two s***'s about emerging techologies...But I guess that's a different argument.

Actually, I can answer that for you.

Working on the Automotive X-Prize project with DesertFuel, I learned a lot about alternative energy technologies...

One - The vast majority of groundbreakers in this field are capitalists. They understand the need to "build a better mousetrap". Contrary to popular belief, they're not the same people you see babbling on about the NEED for such technologies... The real movers and shakers in the field are scientists and engineers and such, and they see the long-term profitability in sustainable tech.

Two - Government mandates do NOT "drive" emerging technologies. They jump on the bandwagon (and start slinging regulations) AFTER those technologies have been developed and have caused a ruckus (like when it threatens Big Oil or an autoworker's union). No government agency put up $10million to build SpaceShip One. No government agency put up $10million for the Automotive X-Prize...

Three - Imagine how advanced "green" technology would be without politicians seeing dollar signs and trying to carpetbag on the hard work of garage engineers and basement inventors. If you think Algore gives a damn about the environment (in his old polluting LearJet and his stretch limo), you've been misinformed.

Four - Alternative technologies are hampered by attorneys more than anything... The regulatory hoops one must jump through, and the bureaucratic red tape is enough to deter all but the most die-hard champions of the movement.

Hope that all helps.

[Looneybomber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgmC_USeoM

Been around the world and foundthat only stupid people are breeding,the cretins cloning and feeding,and I don't even own a tv.

I truly don't. There has not been a TV in this house for months and the only reason we had one, was because it was our roommates.

That will all change in a couple of days though.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Actually, I can answer that for you.

Three - Imagine how advanced "green" technology would be without politicians seeing dollar signs and trying to carpetbag on the hard work of garage engineers and basement inventors. If you think Algore gives a damn about the environment (in his old polluting LearJet and his stretch limo), you've been misinformed.

Four - Alternative technologies are hampered by attorneys more than anything... The regulatory hoops one must jump through, and the bureaucratic red tape is enough to deter all but the most die-hard champions of the movement.

Hope that all helps.

That's more or less what I was referring to. I know full well how hampered the scientific community is by the "well meaning" government.