TVs may become greener thanks to California mandate

California approves efficiency mandate for TVs [CNET News]

While it might not have an immediate impact on televisions across the nation, California's recent approval of new energy usage standards for large-screen TVs may ultimately change the televisions that consumer electronics manufacturers sell to the rest of us. California's new rules require TVs 58 inches wide and less consume 33 percent less electricity than current models by 2011 and 49 percent less electricity by 2013. Because of the size of California's market, consumer electronics manufacturers may opt to change all their sets to the new "California standard." 

A few months ago, I wrote about the energy usage of HDTVs and that CNET offered ideas for reducing television energy usage. Size of the television's screen is the number one determining factor in its energy usage. Screen brightness also affects how much electricity a TV consumes. California's Energy Commission's new requirements are a response to concerns that as more and more consumers upgrade to large-screen HDTVs, total energy usage across that state will go up. One interest group is estimating that these new regulations will cut California's electricity usage by nearly one percent.

Though consumer electronics manufacturers opposed the energy reduction rules, they've now been adopted, and they have two years to come up with models that meet the new requirements.

Comments

[peter dublin]

Well Michael, in my view all energy efficiency regulations are wrong
whether one is for or against environmental savings

Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!

1. Taxation 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