Zardon

Read Full Story Here.
_________________________

California have adopted a new set of rules to cut the power consumption of TV sets by one third - manufacturers have until 2013 to comply

peter dublin

1. TAXATION is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives the impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.

Notice that this also applies to CARS, BUILDINGS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Schwarzenegger can use the money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
More: 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 electrical 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 - as well as usually costing less, or else they'd be more energy efficient already.
In turn that means that there might not even be running cost savings, depending on usage.

Two more factors contribute to this:
1. If households use less energy, then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.

Conversely,
2. Energy use might rise.
Energy efficiency means cheaper energy, so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower.
shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
New Electric Politics

Either way supposed energy -or money- savings aren't there.

More on why energy efficiency regulations are wrong
- whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation -
New Electric Politics
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

Gastrian

There's always a flipside though and energy efficiencies do bring about their own positives.

The attempt to be more energy efficient has spurred development in LED and OLED technologies for TVs. Of course there are other benefits to these two technologies but one of the big ones being touted is lower power usage.

In PCs we are seeing a trend towards energy efficiency, the 5xxx series is more powerful than the 4xxx series and nVidia cards while drawing less power. This allows for quieter operation, better potential over clocking and doesn't require expensive high-powered PSUs. Without the energy efficiency of the 5xxx series do you think we'd ever see a card as powerful as the 5750 being passively cooled?

For years consumer electronics has always been focused on more power which subsequently raised the power requirements but also caused severe technical limitations. The Xbox 360 is a prime example, the heat generated from the consoles power requirements in standard use kills the product. Laptop manufacturers for years have had to create more powerful batteries to cope with power requirements which are generating more heat making them unsuitable to be on top of the lap.

Im no eco-nut as I believe a lot of the eco warnings have been blown well out of proportion but legal restrictions like these are good for the consumer as they force manufacturers into adopting good practices they normally wouldn't.

__________________

peter dublin

Gastrian

As you say the attempt to be more energy efficient has spurred development in LED and OLED technologies for TVs
= no need for politicians to legislate what people can see as advantages for themselves.

Conversely,
to the extent people DON'T prefere energy efficient products that 's as said because
products that use more energy can (and do) have OTHER advantages for them.

Why should politicians know better than consumers what they want to buy and use?

The ONLY case for banning more energy using products,
is if there was an energy shortage which as said there isn't,
and if there was,
the price would then rise anyway,
and people AUTOMATICALLY see energy efficient products as more and more attractive to buy.

Compare with fuel efficient cars.
Again, no need for legislation.
Sure - there will be companies (think of General Motors) that don't see this consumer demand - but others companies do,
and it doesn't mean stopping consumers from what they want to buy.