California Passes TV Energy Efficiency Standards
Just last week, California passed a set of energy efficiency standards that would improve how energy efficient televisions are. The hope of this new regulation is to ensure that the energy consumption of televisions is reduced 49 percent by the year 2013.
With the prices of televisions going down, more and more people are buying bigger televisions that consumer more energy even though they are slightly more energy efficient than their predecessors. In California, approximately 10% of average home’s electricity consumption comes from televisions. The hope of this legislation is to of course reduce energy consumption, but as save consumers and estimated $1 billion per year.
This goal will not be too difficult to reach as the technology to reduce energy consumption in televisions is already available. As many as 300 televisions on the market meet the standards set by this regulation.
One big issue with this regulation is that it only covers televisions up to 58″. That leaves a huge loophole for televisions that consume the most amount of energy. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense why this was left out, but with televisions getting larger and larger, many televisions could be excluded from this regulation just because of their size.
I think a better way to cut back on energy consumption is to watch less television and not purchase such massive televisions. We do not need to be watching television more hours of the day just because we have larger televisions that display higher quality. Also, not every home needs a 50″ or 60″ tv just because they are more cost effective than in the past. This is like a lot of appliances in our households . We have improved technology and have reduced energy consumption, but actually use more now since we increased their size so much.
It’s good to see California trying to reduce energy consumption with this regulation, but we need to be more practical when it comes to televisions.
Yes cutting on TV watching hours will definitely save energy. People like larger screens because it makes their lounge look hi-tech and it eventually becomes their home cinema. At the end of the day, we indeed are consuming more energy than in the past because we need too many electrical enhancements for our personal pleasures. It is however good to see that California has passed TV energy efficiency standards.
Consuming less energy will only help our planet, our Earth, be greener.
RE “I think a better way to cut back on energy consumption is to watch less television and not purchase such massive televisions.”
Good point..I don’t even have a TV anymore.
Personally, I think the California ban is wrong,
I agree it’s good to let people know how they csn save energy and money, but it should be voluntary.
1.
Where there is a problem – deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers – not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for it…
It might sound great to
“Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products”
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they’d be more energy
efficient already.
There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either,
depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.
Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy as a result of the various bans,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don’t save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.
Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas?
Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing
See http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
The excuse that dealing with emissions like that takes too long does not hold up, as explained,
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc201x
- also because of the taxation alternative……
2.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
This is not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
It’s simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives
Governor Schwarzenegger’s impoverished California Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to cars, buildings, dishwashers, light bulbs etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can’t use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don’t have to buy the higher
taxed products – and at least they CAN still buy them.
Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied nationwide or internationally.
Both bans and taxes are in any case unjustified, taxes just being a comparably better option.
Seriously, california is messed up. It’s great to see improvements like this, but they have so many other problems. I don’t blame Arnold for being done with politics after this.
Well, without a doubt, it is a step in the right direction, let’s hope that this is only the beginning, and it leads to more and better energy efficient standards, because lets all face it, we need it. Hopefully more states follow threw with even better standards.
Till then,
Jean
Televisions become primary needs for many people. It is good to reduce the energy consumption by using television with energy efficiency standard. I really support this action.
I didn’t realize that televisions consumed 10% of a home’s energy. It does seem silly that this bill does not cover tvs over 58″. I thought they were actually banning the sale of tvs that big in california. I think people should have a right to buy whatever tv, appliances or vehicles they want. They should just be taxed accordingly. If a person’s energy use is higher, they should have to pay extra for it.
The size of the televisions isnt the only thing getting bigger, so is the amount of televisions in one household. When i was growing up, we had one television in the house, now the average American home has at least 4 energy hogging televisions in the home. To top it off there are times of the day when all of them are on at the same time.
Yes it’s good to reduce the time we watch TV, but the good news is that TV’s are becoming much more efficient. LCD’s now use much less energy than the old cathode ray tube tv’s we used to have.