FYIJSYK: TV Energy Regulations…
Mrs. Digitante and I were at birthing class before we had our daughters. The teacher there was giving us some great information on having a baby. After every great piece of information, she felt the need to follow it up with, “FYI, just so you know.”
“If the baby is breach, you’ll probably have to have a C-section, FYI, just so you know.”
“Babies like to eat a lot, so you’ll need to feed and change them every 2-3 hours, FYI, just so you know.”
“Husbands, your wife will probably scream at you quite a bit and tell you she hates you during labor, FYI, just so you know.”
I’ve decided that if I have some information that could affect you in the future, I’ll make a posting called FYIJSYK in which I’ll spell out the effects and what you need to do.
Tonight we are going to talk about TV energy regulations. So far, these items are being discussed in California, but over time you can expect them to trickle out to the rest of the US and other countries around the world.
Where does this come from?
In the past, most televisions were the CRT or tube TVs. They were big, boxy, and heavy. Because of the size and weight of the glass tube contained inside, they could only be as large as 36 inches or so in diagonal measurement. An average CRT television was around 27 inches diagonally. Due to their restricted size, CRTs didn’t take all that much energy to power, relatively speaking.
Enter that sleek, flat-panel televisions of today: plasmas and LCDs. These TVs look great and fit nicely on your wall. However, between the fact that the technology behind them is energy slurping to begin with and the fact that the average size of a television sold today is 46 inches diagonally, televisions today can easily rank in the top few electronic items in your house in terms of energy usage.
California has decided that beginning in 2011, televisions will use a mathematical formula based on screen size to determine how much power they are allowed to use. The standard goes up in 2013 to be even stricter.
What are the outcomes from this?
It does a couple of negative things:
- Television manufacturers are constantly looking to innovate and make better TVs with more features and a better picture. They may forgo future innovation because adding new features may increase the energy usage. It could slowdown the progress of TV technology.
- Increased cost of compliance to the new regulations could cause customers to stop purchasing TVs or purchase smaller TVs. As a result, sales tax and corporate tax revenue will drop as well, which could pinch the government’s pocketbook.
There is also a positive side:
- Less natural resources will be spent on powerplants as energy consumption by TVs is reduced. This is good for the environment.
How does it affect me?
At this point, it doesn’t. It probably won’t affect you for quite a while unless you live in California. Televisions are moving toward more energy efficiency anyway, so this will just help them along.
While I would put it a decent way down the list, be sure to consider the energy efficiency of you next TV when you make a purchase.
If you want some help figuring out what TV to purchase, you can always contact The Digitante by phone or by email to set up a free meeting to talk about your options.
4 Responses to “FYIJSYK: TV Energy Regulations…”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
Leave A Comment...
Email Subscription
Visit Amazon
Blogged.com
Digitante, I think the ban is wrong…
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
This ban is wrong also in an overall energy savings perspective.
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.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
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.
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.
However, as said taxes are wrong too, just better than bans…
———————-
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don’t object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to
be true. It is.
–The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions.
Choice and Quality affected
– The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing
–The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence
–The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs and other
electrical products
Peter,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t want to get into my personal politics since this is not the setting in which I want to share those feelings, however, I tend to agree with you that bans are bad news, taxes are not quite as bad, and that these decisions are best left to the market.
My goal with this post was more to share information rather than to say whether the regulation is right or wrong.
Glad you stopped by and I hope you’ll come back!
Andy
One other item worth mentioning is that typically with this sort of regulation, the manufacturing will have its default settings be set to the point that the contrast is low, brightness is low, and other settings are set to minimum so the TV passes inspection. The customer can then modify the settings to their preference.
While this is advantageous to the customer, it negates any energy efficiency gains and doesn’t remove the cost of testing, inspectors, and other costs related to the regulation.
Thanks Andy,
and good and interesting point about how manufacturers get round the energy using settings issue!
Reminds me a bit of the light bulb ban
- heralded as some sort of blessing for consumers,
yet with unpublicised industrial politics behind it
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
- and again with token if any savings, once all factors are considered