Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/10/california-appears-set-to-ban-highenergy-bigscreen-tvs-.html

California appears set to ban high-energy, big-screen TVs
Buzz up!Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz
California regulators appear to be on track to pass the nation's first ban on energy-hungry, big-screen TVs, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The newspaper says the influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Association appears to be losing the battle and is asking the California Energy Commission instead to let consumers decide on their own whether to buy the most energy-saving new models of LCD and plasma high-def TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," says the association's Doug Johnson, the newspaper reports. He also warns that too much government interference could boost the cost of TVs for consumers.

But regulators could vote as early as Nov. 4 to set maximum energy-consumption standards for TVs to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011.

That would bring TVs into line with lower energy consumption for refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products that has been standard since the 1970s.

California's 35 million TVs and related gear account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, the commission staff reports, according to the newspaper.

The Times quotes one staff engineer as saying consumers could save $30 per set each year from reduced electricity use and avoid the $600-million cost of building a new power plant.

Manufacturers dispute the figures and argue that manufacturers are already developing new ways to make even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate, the Times says.

Isn't Hollywood in California? I'm sure this is making all those left-leaning, tree-huggies hippies in the entertainment industry conflicted. Save the earth or promote your billion-dollar industry? Hmm....

It's their nature Frazz.

Sorry but I don't see a problem here. If big screen TV's use "excessive" energy, and eliminating them from the marketplace could reduce energy usage, it's a net gain. The government enforces smog free vehicles in California for the same reasons.

GG

It will work as long as it doesn't mean going into houses to get the old power-hungry sets. That would cause a mess that would make the Rodney King riots look like a block party.

generalgrog wrote:Sorry but I don't see a problem here. If big screen TV's use "excessive" energy, and eliminating them from the marketplace could reduce energy usage, it's a net gain. The government enforces smog free vehicles in California for the same reasons.

GG

And yet private planes fly all the time.
Why is it the state's business? Here's the better one-under what authority do they have to do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the first Vegas ad targeting California business. get the monkey off your back!
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/ca-businesses-relocate-to-las-vegas-tv.html#

Wait a minute... is there something in this bill preventing Arnie from driving his hummers? Or did he already trade those for a nice new Lamborghini?

What good does this kind of thing do? Goddamit... I don't even care about the fact that they are big screen TV's, I care about the fact that this an obvious way to appear to be actually making a difference.

I agree with Frazz. Why is this the state's business?

Becoming environmentally friendly is a matter of economics. If energy is more expensive, smart people will look for choices that are more energy-efficient. If energy is still relatively cheap (which, in the US, it is right now), people don't care. We didn't care about fuel mileage until gas was $4 a gallon. Then the car dealers couldn't sell Humvees, SUVs, and full-size trucks.

Now, whether or not we should have cheap energy is up for debate. And cheap electricity may be nearing an end. If the US EPA treats waste products from burning coal (principally flyash, bottom ash, and synthetic gypsum) as hazardous materials and requires the electric utilities to handle it as such, costs will go up. Right now, waste is generally stored on-site in a slurry form in lagoons, if it's labeled as a hazardous material, it will likely have to be handled as a dry product and land-filled.

Why ban something like that when you can tax it? There has to be a way to jump the tax up a bit... but that is bound to go horribly wrong.

Meh... legalize pot, tax it, then start pulling funding out of prisons, while putting it into schools and police instead. This crap makes my damn head spin...

generalgrog wrote:Sorry but I don't see a problem here. If big screen TV's use "excessive" energy, and eliminating them from the marketplace could reduce energy usage, it's a net gain. The government enforces smog free vehicles in California for the same reasons.

GG

Excessive is what? 200 to 300 watts? Spare me.
Imagine if they went after 2000 watt blow dryers for hair. The fashion and entertainment industries would have a hissy fit.

I want to see the study that actually brings any evidence to the assumption that these huge TV's are on for long enough to be anything more than an awesomely easy political target.

To be entirely honest though, if a big-ass TV has a hard time hooking up to a computer directly... they are totally doing it wrong... oh snap, and a Blu-ray too... they are totally doing it right.

Would you like to get this boat... or... would you like to get whatever is in the mystery box. Choose wisely...

Kermit is by far... the best rep for this concept, now rock it Kermit, get down with it hardcore.

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Sorry but I don't see a problem here. If big screen TV's use "excessive" energy, and eliminating them from the marketplace could reduce energy usage, it's a net gain. The government enforces smog free vehicles in California for the same reasons.

GG

And yet private planes fly all the time.

...
...

When permitted by ICAA regulations, etc.

Unless they are drug smugglers coming in under the radar.

The danger of plasma TVs and badly maintained and piloted aircraft are entirely different things, of course.

The market offers an easy solution which is latest generation Japanese and Korean TVs, which have a lower energy consumption (as do the latest generation of fridge-freezers, etc.)

People who don't buy them will just find their electricity bill going up and up due to shortage of power.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Sorry but I don't see a problem here. If big screen TV's use "excessive" energy, and eliminating them from the marketplace could reduce energy usage, it's a net gain. The government enforces smog free vehicles in California for the same reasons.

GG

And yet private planes fly all the time.

...
...

When permitted by ICAA regulations, etc.

Unless they are drug smugglers coming in under the radar.

The danger of plasma TVs and badly maintained and piloted aircraft are entirely different things, of course.

The market offers an easy solution which is latest generation Japanese and Korean TVs, which have a lower energy consumption (as do the latest generation of fridge-freezers, etc.)

People who don't buy them will just find their electricity bill going up and up due to shortage of power.

My admittedly round about point is that the State of California is desiring to reach into people's homes for "energy efficiency" when they are still allow private planes to fly about. One Gulfstream is going to burn more energy than all the biggie sized tvs for a year. But that would impede Tom Cruise from getting to Cannes without having to deal with us commoner scum on a normal airline, so its right out.

I love how the Left conveniently ignores what it wants to. Coal burning is bad. But, wind power is good. How do you build wind turbines? Oh, yeah, in factories that use a lot of electricity from coal burning plants.

Why isn't American ethanol that worthwhile? Because we make it from corn, which is really about a 1:1 efficiency. In other words, for every gallon of ethanol that is put into a private car for going somewhere, it took about a gallon of petroleum products to produce it. How's that worthwhile?

And never mind that to build big batteries, like for electric cars, you have to mine lots and lots of rare metals, including nickel. Nickel mines are pretty notoriously barren wastelands due to pollution. Someone did a paper (with somewhat dubious math) that showed how an electric car is more damaging to the environment than a Humvee.

This is another attempt by the Left to make us all "better people." Tell Barbara Streisand, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all these other Hollywood leftwing "I know what's better for you" types to turn off the freakin' AC in their huge mansions, or better yet, just remove the AC units all together, and it would probably save more energy than big-screen TVs around the world use.

If these idiots keep their policies in their own state I really couldn't care less.

Unfortunately, I don't know that they do.

dietrich wrote:I love how the Left conveniently ignores what it wants to. Coal burning is bad. But, wind power is good. How do you build wind turbines? Oh, yeah, in factories that use a lot of electricity from coal burning plants.

What are we, in China now?

Why isn't American ethanol that worthwhile? Because we make it from corn, which is really about a 1:1 efficiency. In other words, for every gallon of ethanol that is put into a private car for going somewhere, it took about a gallon of petroleum products to produce it. How's that worthwhile?

And never mind that to build big batteries, like for electric cars, you have to mine lots and lots of rare metals, including nickel. Nickel mines are pretty notoriously barren wastelands due to pollution. Someone did a paper (with somewhat dubious math) that showed how an electric car is more damaging to the environment than a Humvee.

There are many problems with many products, but the hybrid in it's current state, is little more than a concept car, which people cling to for their dear little "moralistic" lives. At some point, and this is just common sense, the car industries will address the issues that you are talking about; at any rate though, no one believed in Ethanol from the beginning, it was just a bad idea from the get-go.

This is another attempt by the Left to make us all "better people." Tell Barbara Streisand, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all these other Hollywood leftwing "I know what's better for you" types to turn off the freakin' AC in their huge mansions, or better yet, just remove the AC units all together, and it would probably save more energy than big-screen TVs around the world use.

You really thought they were more than a group of well know shills? Geez, you must be human after all.

Doesn't california suffer roling black outs due to a lack of power sometimes? Isn't power production a quasi-state function at this point? I don't see this is as being ridiculous. It's not even banning big screen TVs, just ineffecient ones.

And Frazz, you wondered what authority they will do this under? Why, your favorite amendment! Yes sir, the 10th amendment leaves the police power to the States, and this is classic legislature for the general welfare.

As for private planes, there's probably a dormant commerce clause problem there. Not to mention the fact that there are legitimate reasons to use a private plane.

The problem that I have is when someone like Streisand tells Californians to turn up their AC to save energy. Hey, Babs, given up the bazillion-square foot mansion, or at least throw out your AC, if you're going to make a statement like that.

I understand the basis. If we all save 1/2% of X, then that's a lot of X. But, the reality is that some of these famous celebrities could save a lot of X all by themselves and just shut up. I'll give DiCaprio credit, he does a pretty good job of putting his money where his carbon-footprint is. I don't agree with all his politics, but he appears to be living what he preaches (unlike any number of left and right wing nuts).

Like I tell my kids, don't worry about what someone else is doing, just take care of yourself and things will work out.

But, energy conservation will only happen to any meaningful degree when it's economically sound. If electricity doubles, energy-efficient devices are worthwhile. In the US, we generally have cheap energy, so people don't worry about conservation as much. Maybe that's right, and maybe it's not. But, if you want to get people to conserve, then get the price of energy to increase. But, no one wants to lead the fight for higher prices for anything, because they know it's political suicide.

Just look at the gas tax, which funds highway construction and maintenance. The amount of the tax hasn't gone up in decades. So, it hasn't kept up with inflation even. And that's why we have under-funded highway system that consistently gets poor grades when reviewed by engineers. There's spotty maintenance. It's one thing to have potholes in the road, it's another to have a concrete bridge deck crumbling. Heck, in Pittsburgh (and other cities), on the Parkway East, they built a structure to catch concrete that was falling off the bridge that went over the Parkway - because they didn't want it to hit any cars. Does that make sense? Why don't - I don't know, this is crazy - replace the bridge that is the problem? Oh, yeah, because there's not enough funding.

The US Army Corps of Engineers wanted to upgrade the New Orleans levee system, they were behind on maintenance and improvements since the 70's. But, Congress wouldn't approve the funds. You know, until the levees overtopped and flooded New Orleans. (yes, despite Kanye West's claims, it wasn't because George Bush hates black people. Bush might or might not hate people, but that's not why New Orleans was flooded).

Oh, anyway, I'm rambling and off-topic. I don't think California should ban inefficient TVs. I'd be fine with them taxing them at a different rate though.

Uhhhhh all this ranting about Streisand and planes have nothing to do with trying to cut down on inefficient appliances. They allready do it for fridges, freezers and even air conditioners. There is no difference here. It's a nonstory.

GG

Private and public planes are a problem because they don't pay tax on fuel consumed on flights outside national territory.

It's tangentially related. The question is - should the government regulate energy efficiency? I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't. But, I'm also of the opinion that the way to affect the desired result (less energy consumption) is by making energy (whether it's electricity, gas, or anything else) more expensive (whether by direct tax or regulations that require the utilities to spend more to generate a unit of energy).

Polonius wrote:Doesn't california suffer roling black outs due to a lack of power sometimes? Isn't power production a quasi-state function at this point? I don't see this is as being ridiculous. It's not even banning big screen TVs, just ineffecient ones.

And Frazz, you wondered what authority they will do this under? Why, your favorite amendment! Yes sir, the 10th amendment leaves the police power to the States, and this is classic legislature for the general welfare.

No I know that P. I meant what authority is the state, under its own constitution, regulating this.

Not to mention the fact that there are legitimate reasons to use a private plane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Spoken like a true evil CEO.

dietrich wrote:I love how the Left conveniently ignores what it wants to. Coal burning is bad. But, wind power is good. How do you build wind turbines? Oh, yeah, in factories that use a lot of electricity from coal burning plants.

Why isn't American ethanol that worthwhile? Because we make it from corn, which is really about a 1:1 efficiency. In other words, for every gallon of ethanol that is put into a private car for going somewhere, it took about a gallon of petroleum products to produce it. How's that worthwhile?

And never mind that to build big batteries, like for electric cars, you have to mine lots and lots of rare metals, including nickel. Nickel mines are pretty notoriously barren wastelands due to pollution. Someone did a paper (with somewhat dubious math) that showed how an electric car is more damaging to the environment than a Humvee.

This is another attempt by the Left to make us all "better people." Tell Barbara Streisand, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all these other Hollywood leftwing "I know what's better for you" types to turn off the freakin' AC in their huge mansions, or better yet, just remove the AC units all together, and it would probably save more energy than big-screen TVs around the world use.

Actually, alcohol has less octane than gasoline, so you would need to burn more. Yes, for the time being we would need to burn gas/coal to manufacture the wind turbines and solar panels, but look at it this way. The faster we blow through all the fossil fuels, the sooner we can get around to using wind and solar all the time. Wind and solar are not going to catch on until other resources run out anyway.

It depends on whether you view the power industry as a natural monopoly (in the economic sense.) Most countries do, and monopolies require more government regulation than competitive markets.

If you are going to regulate the supply side of the power business, it makes sense to regulate the demand side too. It's not actually in anyone's interests to burn extra power you don't have to.

As you say, regulation doesn't have to be done by mandating efficiency ratings on appliances. It can be done by pricing electricity high, which reduces demand and increases demand for energy efficient equipment.

warpcrafter wrote:

dietrich wrote:I love how the Left conveniently ignores what it wants to. Coal burning is bad. But, wind power is good. How do you build wind turbines? Oh, yeah, in factories that use a lot of electricity from coal burning plants.

Why isn't American ethanol that worthwhile? Because we make it from corn, which is really about a 1:1 efficiency. In other words, for every gallon of ethanol that is put into a private car for going somewhere, it took about a gallon of petroleum products to produce it. How's that worthwhile?

And never mind that to build big batteries, like for electric cars, you have to mine lots and lots of rare metals, including nickel. Nickel mines are pretty notoriously barren wastelands due to pollution. Someone did a paper (with somewhat dubious math) that showed how an electric car is more damaging to the environment than a Humvee.

This is another attempt by the Left to make us all "better people." Tell Barbara Streisand, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all these other Hollywood leftwing "I know what's better for you" types to turn off the freakin' AC in their huge mansions, or better yet, just remove the AC units all together, and it would probably save more energy than big-screen TVs around the world use.

Actually, alcohol has less octane than gasoline, so you would need to burn more. Yes, for the time being we would need to burn gas/coal to manufacture the wind turbines and solar panels, but look at it this way. The faster we blow through all the fossil fuels, the sooner we can get around to using wind and solar all the time. Wind and solar are not going to catch on until other resources run out anyway.

No engineer who take a math class over 2+2 is going to rely on wind for anything other than an immaterial amount of energy. Without reliability, anything more is not sane.
Sun, geothermal, and tidewater are much better.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Doesn't california suffer roling black outs due to a lack of power sometimes? Isn't power production a quasi-state function at this point? I don't see this is as being ridiculous. It's not even banning big screen TVs, just ineffecient ones.

And Frazz, you wondered what authority they will do this under? Why, your favorite amendment! Yes sir, the 10th amendment leaves the police power to the States, and this is classic legislature for the general welfare.

No I know that P. I meant what authority is the state, under its own constitution, regulating this.

The basic legislative power? Only the national congress has enumerated powers, state legislatures always have full police power. It's like asking under what authority a state can ban radar detectors.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Doesn't california suffer roling black outs due to a lack of power sometimes? Isn't power production a quasi-state function at this point? I don't see this is as being ridiculous. It's not even banning big screen TVs, just ineffecient ones.

And Frazz, you wondered what authority they will do this under? Why, your favorite amendment! Yes sir, the 10th amendment leaves the police power to the States, and this is classic legislature for the general welfare.

No I know that P. I meant what authority is the state, under its own constitution, regulating this.

The basic legislative power? Only the national congress has enumerated powers, state legislatures always have full police power. It's like asking under what authority a state can ban radar detectors.

I beg to disagree. Many states have limits on their powers under their constitutions-California included. Further, these powers are limited by the Fed Bill of Rights and state versions as well.

All state constitutions have limits, and are limited by federal law, but there base of power starts unlimited, and is then cut back. It's a difference of semantics, maybe, but California doesn't have to show that they have the power to ban these, an opponent would have to show that their power is limited in some way (say by the DCC).

The California consitution states:
"The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum."

Compare to article I of the US constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The key words in the latter being "here-in granted", while the CA legislatures enjoyes the "legislative power of the state."

warpcrafter wrote:Actually, alcohol has less octane than gasoline, so you would need to burn more. Yes, for the time being we would need to burn gas/coal to manufacture the wind turbines and solar panels, but look at it this way. The faster we blow through all the fossil fuels, the sooner we can get around to using wind and solar all the time. Wind and solar are not going to catch on until other resources run out anyway.

I think corn-ethanol is still basically a 1:1 ratio. So, while you may burn more gallons of corn-ethanol than gas, based on per-mile, it's approximately the same.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you are going to regulate the supply side of the power business, it makes sense to regulate the demand side too. It's not actually in anyone's interests to burn extra power you don't have to.

As you say, regulation doesn't have to be done by mandating efficiency ratings on appliances. It can be done by pricing electricity high, which reduces demand and increases demand for energy efficient equipment.

As an engineer, I think it makes a lot more sense to regulate the supply side more than the demand side. And I don't think it necessarily means just putting tax on electricity to make it higher. Production costs are hugely dependent on regulations, from coal mining, to shipping, to disposal of waste products. Historically, in the US, there was very little regulation until about the 1970's. Most of the dam-related disasters in the US were failures of coal tailings dams (built to handle wastewater from underground coal mines) because they weren't designed or built with any (or very minimal) safety standards. Same with ash ponds at utility plants. I can easily see how regulating the design of a tailings dam affects the public health and safety (see the Buffalo Creek failure in West Virginia in the 70s for an example) or the TVA ash pond failure in December 2008.

I can see the argument that if I have energy-hog appliances, I'm hurting the public good. But, to me, it makes more sense to simply make me pay more. As Dennis Leary says, what if I want to drive around in a gas-guzzling convertible car eating Big Macs out of styrofoam containers? I think people should have the ability to do that, but I'm okay with regulations making that prohibitively expensive. Then it forces the consumer to make a choice - do I want to buy a new GW mini or drive around with styrofoam containers? If I'm willing to pay an inflated cost for that ability, I think that's fine, and I think it's a better answer than having the government tell me that I can't drive a gas-guzzling car or eat Big Macs or have styrofoam containers.

I remember when recycling was going to be 'the next big thing'. In the late 80's. It isn't because it wasn't economically feasible. It was too expensive to gather up the stuff, clean the stuff, melt it down, and then transport it to someplace else to make new products out of it. Now, it's more economically feasible, so it's happening.

Polonius wrote:All state constitutions have limits, and are limited by federal law, but there base of power starts unlimited, and is then cut back. It's a difference of semantics, maybe, but California doesn't have to show that they have the power to ban these, an opponent would have to show that their power is limited in some way (say by the DCC).

The California consitution states:
"The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum."

Compare to article I of the US constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The key words in the latter being "here-in granted", while the CA legislatures enjoyes the "legislative power of the state."

Frazzled bows to your intranets mastery, having forgotten not all states are as limited as most southern states.