[Orangetxguy]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/200911...rnia_tv_energy




Just saw this....and wondered. Would these egotistic priques (did I spell that right?) ban air conditioning in their offices and homes...to reduce electricity demand?


I hardly think so!!


:lol2: :lol2:

Calif. requires TVs to be more energy efficient

• By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer - Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:41PM EST

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -


Power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators Wednesday adopted a first-in-the-nation mandate to reduce electricity demand.
On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient, beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, with only a quarter of all TVs currently on the market meeting that standard.
The commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. The concern is that the energy draw will rise by as much as 8 percent a year as consumers buy larger televisions, add more to their homes and watch them longer.
Commissioners say energy efficiency standards are the cheapest and easiest way to save electricity.
"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, it will help protect public health, and it will spark innovation."
TVs larger than 58 inches, which account for no more than 3 percent of the market, would not be covered by the rule, a concession to independent retailers that sell high-end home-theater TVs. The commission is expected to regulate them in the future.
Environmental groups supported the tougher standards and hoped they will prompt manufacturers to make new energy-efficient models for the rest of the nation. They said the rules would cut California's power bill by $1 billion a year, avoiding the need to build a 500-megawatt power plant.
Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry representatives also have said the standards would force manufacturers to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than those sold elsewhere in the U.S.
The televisions sold in California may simply be the models that already meet the requirements. In many cases, those also happen to be the more expensive ones.
"It could drive up costs," said Dave Arland, who represents the plasma television industry. "The ones that are super energy efficient are the ones that are more pricey."
Energy Commission Chairwoman Karen Douglas downplayed any negative consequences for California consumers, saying she expects the industry to continually increase energy efficiency for a wider variety of models.
"These standards are making TVs better," she said.
The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle less — about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California each year.
Under the rules adopted Wednesday, all new 42-inch television sets must use less than 183 watts by 2011 and less than 116 watts by 2013. That's considerably more efficient than flat-screen TVs placed on the market in recent years.
A 42-inch Hitachi plasma TV sold in 2007 uses 313 watts — slightly more than the power consumed by five 60-watt light bulbs — while a 42-inch Sharp Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TV draws 232 watts, according to Energy Commission research.
Some televisions already meet the early standards imposed under the rule approved Wednesday. About three-quarters of the TVs — more than 1,050 models — sold today comply with the 2011 California standards, and more than 300 comply with the 2013 standard, according to the Energy Commission.
California has previously led the nation in setting efficiency requirements for dishwashers, washing machines and other household appliances as a way to address the state's growing electricity demand.

Utilities and environmental groups say the TV standards should head off steep increases in home electricity use and rising electric bills.
Each energy-efficient TV would save a household roughly $30 a year in lowered electricity costs. If all 35 million TVs watched in the state were replaced with more efficient sets, Californians would save $8.1 billion over 10 years, according to the Energy Commission report.
Televisions account for about 2 percent of California's overall electricity use. Requiring them to be more energy efficient would save enough electricity to power 864,000 single-family homes a year in California by 2023. That's enough for Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale and Palo Alto combined.
The electricity savings could help California meet the goals of its 2006 global warming law, which calls for the state to cut greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the commission's action as another signal of California's leadership on environmental matters. He noted that the state's per-capita electricity consumption has remained flat over the last three decades while energy consumption nationwide has increased. "I applaud the commission for its hard work to enact these and other cost-effective energy efficiency standards that are not only great for the environment, but also good for consumers," the governor said in a statement.

[Malaki86]

See - you already knew the answer before you asked. If someone told the politicians that they had to sit in 20f or 110f temps without the benefit of ac or heating, they'd have the ACLU, OSHA and whatever other government agencies they could suing whoever made the rule as well as collecting punitive damages for stress & migraine headache's caused from it.

We're fine though - truck drivers are supposed to be tough and able to withstand changing from one climate to another on a daily basis and never have heat or cooling.

[GMAN]

I suppose the next thing they will want to regulate is how much water you use when you flush the toilet. This is really getting out of hand. Of course, I felt that when they first came out with these stupid anti idling laws. These people make laws for the rest of us and exempt themselves. I suppose they will bring criminal charges against anyone who brings an older TV across the state lines. They legalize marijuana and make laws about using too much electricity. :roll:

[Bulldog]

Its amazing how much power enviromental nuts have. I mean, if the common man had a say, what would this country be? Oh yeah, it would be the USA, not the enviromentally friendly, gun hating, tax hiking, social change is great for everybody except those who have to pay for it, states of america!

[Windwalker]

Originally Posted by GMAN

I suppose the next thing they will want to regulate is how much water you use when you flush the toilet. This is really getting out of hand. Of course, I felt that when they first came out with these stupid anti idling laws. These people make laws for the rest of us and exempt themselves. I suppose they will bring criminal charges against anyone who brings an older TV across the state lines. They legalize marijuana and make laws about using too much electricity. :roll:

The laws look like they are a result of a "marijuana Party". Looks like someone doesn't have his/her head screwed on straight.

[LightsChromeHorsepower]

Originally Posted by GMAN

I suppose the next thing they will want to regulate is how much water you use when you flush the toilet. This is really getting out of hand. Of course, I felt that when they first came out with these stupid anti idling laws. These people make laws for the rest of us and exempt themselves. I suppose they will bring criminal charges against anyone who brings an older TV across the state lines. They legalize marijuana and make laws about using too much electricity. :roll:

1.They already have laws about how much water you can use when you flush. All toilets are now low flush, as per the plumbing codes, and have been for years.

2. The purpose of the proposed law is to force manufacturers to build energy efficient TV sets, which will benefit all of society in multiple ways. If corporations had a conscience they would already be doing this. Instead of doing something that will benefit all of society they choose to maximize profits, which benefits only their shareholders and executives, even if the rest of us suffer as a result.

3. What's wrong with legalizing marijuana?

[ironeagle_2006]

Ask any of the Families of Ricky Gates. He ran thru 4 sets of Red Signals leading to a massive collison at Gunpow Maryland in 1987. He was HIGH ON MARIJUNNIA and that was it. His actions led to the DEATHS of 16 people injured IIRC over 70 more when a fully loaded Passenger Train hit his set of 3 light locomotives at over 100 MPH on the North East Corridor in Maryland. Here is a link from the UTU about it. Btw this lead DIRECTLY TO Drug Tests for OTR Truckers.

http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_n...rticleid=32572

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by ironeagle_2006

Ask any of the Families of Ricky Gates. He ran thru 4 sets of Red Signals leading to a massive collison at Gunpow Maryland in 1987. He was HIGH ON MARIJUNNIA and that was it. His actions led to the DEATHS of 16 people injured IIRC over 70 more when a fully loaded Passenger Train hit his set of 3 light locomotives at over 100 MPH on the North East Corridor in Maryland. Here is a link from the UTU about it. Btw this lead DIRECTLY TO Drug Tests for OTR Truckers.

http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_n...rticleid=32572

By the way......NO...this accident did not directly lead to drug testing of OTR drivers. It did not even lead to drug testing of railroad workers. The Federal DOT drug testing program started in the mid 1970's, on a limited basis and was a full fledged requirement in 1980. Today's testing is simply more thorough than it was in the 70's and 80's.. The first drug screens were done with the PH strips, the type you still see them using at the doctor's office, for testing urine for sugar, blood...etc.


I took my first "required" DOT drug test, on May 11 1979.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by LightsChromeHorsepower

1.They already have laws about how much water you can use when you flush. All toilets are now low flush, as per the plumbing codes, and have been for years.

2. The purpose of the proposed law is to force manufacturers to build energy efficient TV sets, which will benefit all of society in multiple ways. If corporations had a conscience they would already be doing this. Instead of doing something that will benefit all of society they choose to maximize profits, which benefits only their shareholders and executives, even if the rest of us suffer as a result.

3. What's wrong with legalizing marijuana?

The government would make better use of our tax resources if they tried to pursuade people to want more efficient appliances rather than using a sledge hammer to force people to buy them. Companies respond to consumer demands. If people demanded more efficient appliances these companies would make them.

[geeshock]

Has the anti idleing laws force companies or manufacturers to make trucks that conform to California's laws? Enough said, lol.