California Demands TVs Suck Down Less Power

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,383
Points 1,192,350
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2009 5:49 PM
Love the Earth? Sure, we all do--after all, we live here. Love it enough to throw out your current TV and buy one that meets heightened energy requirements? Um....

Just this week California regulators adopted the "nation's first energy-efficiency standards for televisions," with hopes of reducing energy drain during a period where many Americans are looking to buy larger, more energy-dependant sets. Of course, the Golden State has always been one to watch energy usage, and the 5-0 vote by the California Energy Commission isn't all that surprising.

Reportedly, the new rules will be phased in starting in 2011, and given that California residents purchase around 11% of the TVs sold each year in America, this ruling could have a serious impact. When the rules go into effect, all new 42" sets sold in the CA must use less than 183 watts, and less than 116 watts by 2013. Wondering just how wild that is? A sample 42" Hitachi plasma that was sold in 2007 uses 313 watts, while a 42" Sharp LCD drew 232 watts.



This obviously means that television makers will be forced to really take a good, hard look at power consumption, and of course it could end up costing consumers more as they shoulder some of those R&D costs. Oh, and there's also nothing stopping you from heading over to Nevada or ordering a set online, so many are saying these wild new rules will only hurt California's own economy. Needless to say this is bound to be a hot topic, particularly if this idea spills over to other states.
  • | Post Points: 80
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,486
Points 47,175
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Metropolis
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator

News:
When the rules go into effect, all new 42" sets sold in the CA must use less than 183 watts, and less than 116 watts by 2013. Wondering just how wild that is? A sample 42" Hitachi plasma that was sold in 2007 uses 313 watts, while a 42" Sharp LCD drew 232 watts.

I predict LCD's will have no trouble, but this might kill plasma.

 SPAM-posters beware! ®

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 119
Points 1,405
Joined: Oct 2008
Jeremy replied on Fri, Nov 20 2009 7:07 AM

Will OLED be available in larger sizes by that time? I doubt it, and I think Dave's right about it being the death of plasma, at least for California residents.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,109
Points 38,260
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
acarzt replied on Fri, Nov 20 2009 7:11 PM

I really hate California... way to ruin it for the rest of us! A$$holes!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Great, it will drive up costs more.  Customers should want lower power consumption because it saves money on their bill.  If they don't take that into consideration for the research that is their problem.

Hello

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,109
Points 38,260
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
acarzt replied on Fri, Nov 20 2009 11:32 PM

It should be the consumer's choice to buy a low power consumption TV. Just like in the world of computers, you're gonna have to sacrifice capability to get lower power consumption.

You not gonna run a Ion system and expect to game like you would be able to with a Core i7 and a top of the line Nvidia or AMD GPU. Remember... a 300Watt power supply used to be considered big! Now 300watts is barely enough to power anything!

With TVs we're gonna have to sacrifice image quality for lower power consumption. I'd rather have my great image quality and high energy bill.

If there is a silver lining AT ALL around this... it is that it might push OLEDs to market sooner. That or everyone is gonna go the way of LED lit LCDs. But they probably won't have local dimming... i'd imagine that takes a lot of processing power and a lot of LEDs to accomplish... so it would null the benifit is using LEDs to save power.

It wouldn't be cost effective for them to make a California only energy efficient line AND the ones that have great picture quality and ignore power limitations.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,964
Points 25,705
Joined: Sep 2009

Dave, this is just a good way to increase taxes on consumer electronics. while hiding behind a green agenda.

Look for similar limitations on other electronics.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS