Thursday 19 November 2009

Because televisions use a different kind of electricity

From The Metro:

California will ban power-hungry televisions after it became the first US state to pass eficiency standards for sets... (1)

The commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. (2)

The fear is that energy use will rise as people buy bigger, more elaborate TVs, put more of them in their homes, and watch them longer... (3)

"We have every confidence this industry will be able to meet the rule and then some," Energy Commissioner Julia Levin said "It will save consumers money (4), it will help protect public health (5), and it will spark (6) innovation."...

Californians buy about 11 percent of the 35.4 million TVs sold in the U.S. each year, according to industry figures. (7)


1) The first state to take bribes from a large TV manufacturer, which will mean existing stockpiles are obsolete.

2) That seems surprisingly high. Do TV's really use that much, or are US homes otherwise incredibly energy efficient?

3) They already watch four hours a day, allegedly. There's only so much you can watch, surely?

4) If consumers were concerned about saving energy, they'd buy a smaller set, surely? By all means, make it clear on the packaging how much electricity a TV set uses and what that costs per hour, but apart from that, people have to make up their own minds. If we go with 300 watts for an large-ish TV, and $0.12 per kWh price, that means a TV costs, er, less than four cents an hour to run. That's hardly terrifying, is it?

5) Wot?

6) Poorly chosen word, methinks.

7) Wot? California is about 11% of the population of the USA and they buy about 11% of all TV sets? Horrors!

8 comments:

James Higham said...

Will they ban computers too?

Dick Puddlecote said...

5) Your incredulous response was the same as mine.

WOT??!!??

Lighthouse said...

About this California TV ban
Hey, are you guys in Free America or Bureaucratic Europe wannabees ? :-)

All energy efficiency regulations are wrong
whether one is for or against environmental savings...
....with respect, Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!

1. Taxation, while itself unjustified, is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
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 (with emission tax or gas tax), 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.
Also, the energy efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.


2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
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.

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 the bigger 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.



----------------------
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

(From Peter in Ireland)

Lighthouse said...

(cough!)
Methinks you are on this side of the water...
well, they are "of course" banning plasma screens in the EU too

See Energy Commissioner Piebalgs blog about upcoming bans
- and comments...
.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PR, thanks for link to Pieblag blog, it is a joy to behold.

neil craig said...

Breaking government employee's legs would also spark innovation in the wheelchair & medical industries. Particularly if it was done in unusual & creative ways.

Combined with X-Prizes this would be the ultimate carrot & stick approach. I hope some government/fakecharity report will be as receptive to this idea.

Lighthouse said...

Mark thanks..yes and there's
a good entry by The Commissioner not long ago, where he defends his light bulb ban from rising criticism saying it "increases choice" :-)

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/lighting-the-way-to-the-future
.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Panta, that is a must-read 'blog!

For those who haven't the time, what Pieblag said was:

"The phasing out of inefficient lighting will act as a catalyst for further innovation, while at the same time bringing down the cost of modern lighting equipment such as CFL and transparent improved halogen bulbs.

This means consumers will have a wider choice of types of lighting than ever before. Instead of being stuck with one type light produced by old-fashioned light bulbs, they can select the product that suits the atmosphere and the function they are looking for.

Consumers will be able to opt for warm light or cold light, for intimate lighting or flood lighting - whatever tickles their fancy."


What a complete and utter shit.