1inxs

Jay

Nah, they won't target the auto industry until they're back on their feet financially.

Same Story

Uhh, no kidding. Giving TV manufacures less than 2 years to comply?!?!

HTNut

Then my question is why aren't they going after refrigerators, dishwashers, and washer and dryers too. I mean, at least be fair about it or is it all about who has the deepest pockets? How dumb.

bicker

This isn't a competition between different types of devices.

There is no question that food is more important than (specifically) high-definition television reception. Low-power options can be provided for television reception, and indeed this regulation will prompt serious action by manufacturers in that regard.

HTNut

The point I was trying to make, is why does it stop at TVs if they're going to regulate power consumption of "luxury" appliances. How about receivers, dvd players, or even swimming pools while we're at it. Forcing a TV manufacture to drop power consumption by 49%, (plasma TVs) in 3.5 years is pretty radical.

bicker

They haven't "stopped" at televisions. They are looking televisions now because it is among the fastest growing component of the increase in power consumption, and something for which feasible low-power alternatives exist.

Your comments about receivers and DVD players show that you need to do a lot more research: The average plasma television power consumption is 339 watts. The average power consumption for DVD players is less than 20 watts.

It might make sense to apply this regulation to game systems -- but eventually, not first, because even the biggest power hog among game systems still uses less power than a plasma television.

1inxs

Problem is you can only get so much luminance from a watt of electricity and so much energy from a gallon of gasoline. That's what happens when Government lacking physics experience or counsel gets involved with regulating the industy.

HTNut

haha come on now, don't be so hasty. I said receivers and swimming pool pumps too. One click glance at this Sony ES Series STR-DA6400ES Receiver shows an operational power consumption at 480W well above an average Plasma. Fastest growing? Why stop at TVs then? If I Choose to drive a vehicle suited to my family's needs, and it happens to be a SUV, and it gets 17MPG instead of a economy sedan, is that wrong too? Should California ban all SUVs too? Where do we draw the line. Some of the comments in that article had asked how much paper, time, and energy it's going to take just to put that proposal up for vote?

bicker

The excessive power consumption is not so easily excusable. The Philips 42PFL5603D uses only 91 watts, well within the regulatory limit, while the Panasonic TH-42PX700U uses 464 watts. Surely "luminance" doesn't account for that difference.

It seems to me that the government, in this case, is correct, and, with respect, you're missing something very fundamental regarding the issue.

bicker

Why do you think that they've stopped? Last time I checked, government still was in session, and had plans to continue meeting every year, in perpetuity.

They have noted a very substantial increase in power consumption, something which the state, with its history of power generation and transmission difficulties, cannot reasonably expect to be able sit back and allow to go unchecked. They actually determined what the cause of the recent increase was... televisions -- not receivers, not pool pumps -- televisions... so that's what the regulation was aimed at. This time.

Absolutely, and the government has imposed minimum MPG on the automobile industry.

When we live in a paradise filled with rivers flowing with milk and honey; when energy is so plentiful that providers have to work hard to find someone willing to consume it, just to justify their existence.

As long as we live in the real world, where there are limits, then those limits will be translated into limitations. That's life.