Energy Star 4.0

CptlA

DTVUSA Member
#1
New requirements for TV makers are going to make it more difficult to attain the Energy Star label. Started on May 1, 2010. TV makers are not being forced to meet Energy Star requirements, this is just to earn the label.

- TV makers will have to build TVs that consume 40% less power
- 50-inch HDTV will not earn a Energy Star logo if it burns more than 153 watts for power

and then there's California which I think we've all talked about here in this forum before. They have their own set of standards which will go into effect in 2011 which WILL NOT allow TV manufactures to sell their TVs in California unless they meet minimum requirements close to Energy Star 4.0.

Does the Energy Star label influence you to buy a TV or appliance or would you rather live in a state that does the thinking for you like California and TELLS you what kind of energy usage you're allowed to have when buying electronics.

New, Tougher HDTV Energy Star Standard Takes Effect - PCWorld
 

DiVVy

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#2
I weigh the cost savings of Energy Star efficient items against the extra cost of a non Energy Star item in terms of power usage but sometimes it's really difficult to tell if I'm going to save any money. It's all about the bottom line for me.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#3
Does the Energy Star label influence you to buy a TV or appliance or would you rather live in a state that does the thinking for you like California and TELLS you what kind of energy usage you're allowed to have when buying electronics.
Well so much of these energy star appliances I have seen are no bargains. Example. I don't have the cash to
pay $1500 to $2000 or more for an energy star refrigerator. Then I did the savings on electricity compared to a $300 to $400 fridge. I would never get my money back! It would all be just to do it.

And don't forget that energy star only takes into account energy it takes to operate the devices, not the energy it takes to manufacture the devices.

So short answer is I look at the bargains. And no I don't want the govt to tell me what to buy.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#4
I look at it and consider it, but it's not the deciding factor. I'm in California and looking to somehow finagle enough cash to buy my 50" TV before the end of the year. I'm hoping for lots of sales so I can get one at a good price.
 

SWHouston

Moderator
Staff member
#5
"Does the Energy Star label influence you to buy a TV"...

No, when it comes to a TV, I don't care how much power it uses, as long as I got the best PICTURE possible !

Have a good Day ! :)
S.W.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#6
"Does the Energy Star label influence you to buy a TV"...

I'm with SW on this: I want the best picture for a reasonable cost. If my set uses more than 153 watts that's fine with me because it helps heat my house and reduces my natural gas bill.

Its a similar arguement to the water heater issue: is it better to have a shower and completely empty a 50 gallon tank of 130 degree water and pay to heat another 50 gallons - OR - is it better to use 20 gallons of 165 degree water, not pay to heat 50 gallons but only 20?

Jim
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#7
I take it into consideration, but the math didn't work for me. Given a generous life span of 10 years, I would never get that money back. But this could force plasma tv off the market... 450 watts for 50"! Although the picture is awesome, they are energy hogs.

My new job, maybe, standing on a street corner in California... "Pssst! wanna buy a PLASMA tv?"
 

JoeM

DTVUSA Member
#8
The whole energy/Energy star rating thing is interesting. That seems to be a huge problem with new technology is the massive amounts (potentially) that newer devices require. I laugh to myself whenever I here people talking about not printing something to save a tree or going paperless just because of the amount of energy it takes to cool and maintain the server racks used to store the data.
 

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#9
I think it's better to do something than nothing. A single person can't do everything. If not printing something repeatedly is what a person can do, I applaud and say thank you.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#10
I actually won't mind if the Plasma TV died a horrible death. That thing is a serious RFI generator. It's almost as bad as a spark gap transmitter when you think about it.

But I really don't want the Govt telling me what size of TV I should own. Really. Especially since I plan to put solar panels on the house someday.

On a side note I looked at the label for one of our TVs. It consumes a whopping 550 watts! Yep, for an LCD TV! Jeepers that's like half a kilowatt!
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#11
Orry,

I disagree with you. Doing something rather than nothing isn't necessarily doing the right thing. If Edison (incandescent/filiment) light bulbs must soon (by law) be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs, every woman who wears makeup will scream like a panther if they are forced to 'fix' their faces under that miserable light.

In my small basement shop I currently have seven 200 watt bulbs, ten 100 watt bulbs and one 250 watt halogen fixture for extra bright light for detail work. There is absolutely no way I will be able to work in my shop with CFL light bulbs. If at some point I can no longer buy 'real' bulbs, I will build a 12 volt power supply and install automotive driving lights. Please read the articles below.

Jim
-------------------------
Here is an article showing an 'unintended consequence' from CFL bulbs:
Utilities suffer from CFLs’ poor power factor - PowerSource - Blog on EDN - 1470000147

Philips discontinued research and development of CFL bulbs almost two years ago and they are now developing LED lamps.
Philips launches its first mainstream LED light | Cleantech Group

From the article:

..."Philips says its Calculite LEDs are 80 percent more efficient than incandescent lighting, and 40 percent more (efficient) than compact fluorescent bulbs." ...
 
Last edited:

Piggie

Super Moderator
#12
"Does the Energy Star label influence you to buy a TV"...

I'm with SW on this: I want the best picture for a reasonable cost. If my set uses more than 153 watts that's fine with me because it helps heat my house and reduces my natural gas bill.

Its a similar arguement to the water heater issue: is it better to have a shower and completely empty a 50 gallon tank of 130 degree water and pay to heat another 50 gallons - OR - is it better to use 20 gallons of 165 degree water, not pay to heat 50 gallons but only 20?

Jim
This can be computed. But the amount of heat lost from a 165 degree system insulated the same as a 130 degree system is higher. Hot water is simple. It takes direct resistive element to heat the water. It takes a linear amount of heat to raise the temp of water x degrees.

So it's not the heating that raises efficiency of hot water heaters but it's insulation. The insulation and length of pipes. So to state a case, the higher the temp difference at an interface such as the tank wall, pipe walls , the loss is greater at the higher temp differential.

So it's cheaper to empty 50 gallons of 130 degree water, unless you have super duper insulation of the tank and pipes.

What can be done to increase the hot water from a heater of a given size that doesn't hurt energy much. First you must insulate the tank and the pipes leaving it for several feet where most of the heat is lost form the tank. Then at the output of the tank put a temp moderation valve. So the tank can be at 165, but cold water is mixed in the moderation valve so it outputs 120 degree water. The eliminates the extra energy loss in the pipes due to higher temperature differential. Makes it easy to spend most of the insulation money at the tank, and will increase the "amount" of hot water a family has without a new tank, just buying a moderation valve.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#13
I take it into consideration, but the math didn't work for me. Given a generous life span of 10 years, I would never get that money back. But this could force plasma tv off the market... 450 watts for 50"! Although the picture is awesome, they are energy hogs.

My new job, maybe, standing on a street corner in California... "Pssst! wanna buy a PLASMA tv?"
This is my big problem with many of the Energy Star appliances. The math doesn't work. You can't always believe you will ever get your money back. The last thing I compared were refrigerators, and it was cheaper to buy a very low end model that was not energy star. Also in some devices like refrigerators the low end top freezer run of the mill ones have the fewest things to fail and I have watched my whole life have double to triple the life span of a fancy fridge. So to me it was a not brainer, buy a cheap top freezer unit.

Same with a TV. Look at the best picture for the money, as they all fail in a few years anymore.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#14
The whole energy/Energy star rating thing is interesting. That seems to be a huge problem with new technology is the massive amounts (potentially) that newer devices require. I laugh to myself whenever I here people talking about not printing something to save a tree or going paperless just because of the amount of energy it takes to cool and maintain the server racks used to store the data.
excellent point!
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#15
Orry,

I disagree with you. Doing something rather than nothing isn't necessarily doing the right thing. If Edison (incandescent/filiment) light bulbs must soon (by law) be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs, every woman who wears makeup will scream like a panther if they are forced to 'fix' their faces under that miserable light.

In my small basement shop I currently have seven 200 watt bulbs, ten 100 watt bulbs and one 250 watt halogen fixture for extra bright light for detail work. There is absolutely no way I will be able to work in my shop with CFL light bulbs. If at some point I can no longer buy 'real' bulbs, I will build a 12 volt power supply and install automotive driving lights. Please read the articles below.

Jim
-------------------------
Here is an article showing an 'unintended consequence' from CFL bulbs:
Utilities suffer from CFLs’ poor power factor - PowerSource - Blog on EDN - 1470000147

Philips discontinued research and development of CFL bulbs almost two years ago and they are now developing LED lamps.
Philips launches its first mainstream LED light | Cleantech Group

From the article:

..."Philips says its Calculite LEDs are 80 percent more efficient than incandescent lighting, and 40 percent more (efficient) than compact fluorescent bulbs." ...
LEDs light from my experience rivals halogen, which is one of the best lights for detail. Jewelry work is so much better under halogen. But comparing my good LED single bulb high output flashlights to any thing else I have I can see better detail.

LED light will soon make CFL obsolete once the price gets within reason. I don't care if the bulb lasts 25 years, I won't pay $50 a bulb.

Is the power factor capacitive or inductive created by the CFL? I don't know much about their power supplies. A lot of motors that are inherently inductive, have a running cap to balance it out. Power companies have to add capacitor banks in three phase feeds every so many miles just to over come the wire and the customer loads. So anyone know the power supply in them to know if it's a cap or inductive load to the power company.

and I noticed the same thing running a cfl on a UPS, as I didn't get the life out of the UPS I calculated. I now know why.
 
Last edited:

Orrymain

, Blogger: Orry's Orations
#16
Hey, Jim. I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I was responding to the criticism of a person doing one thing and yet something else they do is destructive or harmful. It's like a person recycling even though they use all this energy. So my point wasn't that we all have to do this and that, but if a person can recycle, that is doing something and it shouldn't be considered a foul because they also happen to have watt-sucking appliance or whatever. I think we all do what we can, but what we can is sometimes limited.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#17
Hey, Jim. I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I was responding to the criticism of a person doing one thing and yet something else they do is destructive or harmful. It's like a person recycling even though they use all this energy. So my point wasn't that we all have to do this and that, but if a person can recycle, that is doing something and it shouldn't be considered a foul because they also happen to have watt-sucking appliance or whatever. I think we all do what we can, but what we can is sometimes limited.
I understand what you mean. It was probably your paper example that threw me off, maybe Jim. It really does turn out that our computers, servers we use on the internet are not all that green. But before I cause a dispute it's relative I realize. Compared to computing years ago they are green. But we use more and more servers, more and more bandwidth, routers, switches. It is all getting better.

But to your point I agree. If you own an old car, appliance, and you can't afford to replace them nor not inclined for your own economics, but you recycle aluminum cans, then that is good. Any little thing is good.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#18
Power Factor of CFL

I'm still trying to find more information on the power supply, and google results are swamped with debate without the type of real technical details that allows analysis for me.

However I did find this Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , then following links to ballasts and SMPS show that most of the CFL ballasts are switching power supplies.

Now also from reading, I found SMPS (switching mode power supplies) are capacitive reactance which causing a leading current compared to voltage because the current rushes into the capacitor after the rectifiers in the input of the power supply.

Now if I have this correct this is the opposite of inductive reactance of a motor, which causes a lag in the current with it's coil causing an inductive resistance to the current as voltage increases.

So that would mean (again if I have my tech concepts correct) that a CFL would actually balance out some of the motors in the house!

As I stated above most power factor problems for the power company have traditionally been inductive with a lagging current. And the compensate with large capacitor banks you can see on poles (they might look like transformers to a lot of people).

So it might be too myopic or an agenda against CFLs to call them a problem, but it sure appears to me it that CFLs actually help the power company balance the overwhelming inductive loads.

Either way they I can't see a problem. Lets suppose they are lagging inductive and I am wrong, the power company already compensates for this. If they are leading current capacitive then they help the power company.

Another factor is power meters don't charge you for the VoltAmps but the Watts you use. So even though a .5 PF CFL and is marked 25 watts, yes it does pull 50 VA. What this does cause is the wiring in your house see more current than it would see from a 25 watt Edison bulb, twice actually. But the amount of additional loss due to higher current (lost as heat in the wiring due to resistance) from such a small load is in the pennies per year range.

A 25 watt CFL adds less than a 1/4 of amp to a circuit in your home. A 3 ton Air unit that is not internally compensated with a energy rating of about 10 causes 6 amps more current in it's wiring than if it were purely resistive (PF of 1.0).

(note: Yes I realize the older fluorescent lamps were inductive ballast inputs, but no one complained about them adding to the power factor of a home or building. And they were not that bad compared to a motor, at about .9, where most motors are .7 to .8 lagging current. But if you look large building with a lot of motors even for Air conditioning and loaded with old long tube fluorescent would add to the lagging PF of the building. If it's a large manufacturing plant with long wiring it's not unusual for there to be power factor capacitor banks installed on site.)

So correct me, but my conclusion is this is just a myopic agenda against CFLs based on someone quoting half the science in the situation.
 

SWHouston

Moderator
Staff member
#19
Piggies comment in his Post 17 last paragraph, reminds me of a Catch 22 that happened recently...

Some months ago, here in Texas anyway, they offered ($2K-$3K) several thousand dollars, to have one's older vehicle squashed, and that money to go to a newer car.
Problem with that was, that they set the standards for the newer car so high, that the people that really needed the help, couldn't afford to go into debt to purchase the models they required. The program was generally a flop.

I'm not sure just what this has to do with this thread, it just came to mind.

Have a good Day ! :)
S.W.

PS/EDIT:
I just thought of why this connected...
That being, is the investment in newer technology, worth the cost. One needs to consider just how long that pay back in going to take.
 
Last edited:

CptlA

DTVUSA Member
#20
Piggies comment in his Post 17 last paragraph, reminds me of a Catch 22 that happened recently...

Some months ago, here in Texas anyway, they offered ($2K-$3K) several thousand dollars, to have one's older vehicle squashed, and that money to go to a newer car.
Problem with that was, that they set the standards for the newer car so high, that the people that really needed the help, couldn't afford to go into debt to purchase the models they required. The program was generally a flop.

I'm not sure just what this has to do with this thread, it just came to mind.

Have a good Day ! :)
S.W.

PS/EDIT:
I just thought of why this connected...
That being, is the investment in newer technology, worth the cost. One needs to consider just how long that pay back in going to take.
I think that's a great question, but not only limited to "is it worth the cost", is it worth the effort. TV technology keeps changing, and mandating stricter energy usage standards might be an exercise in futility since most TVs built today will only be sold for a few years on the shelf. LCD and Plasma probably won't even be the TV of choice ten years from now. It'll be tiny projectors mounted on cell phones.
 

Similar threads

Top