Yesterday, the California Energy Commission (CEC) made it official, and unanimously adopted new energy requirements for televisions sold in the state. It sets electricity consumption limits for sets up to 58″ diagonal. The first level takes effect January 2011, at which time one source indicates a 42″ must not consumer more than 183 watts. In [...]
I am so angry with the California Energy Commission (CEC); California has the LOWEST energy usage per household of any of the states in the Union, BUT the retards at the CEC still want to impost more restrictive standards on us.
Then they have the gall to tell us that this is going to save us money and offer better products. No way, this is going to cost us more and give us TVs with lower brightness levels that won't look as good. This is what we get for voting for stupid liberals who put bone head environments on the CEC.
Try this, do a search on the term, "Global Cooling" and you'll see that the news media is feeding us lies about Global Warming. If "Global Warming" is real, then why has the Earth not gotten warmer for the past 11 years? Why has 2007, 2008, and 2009 shown a drop in the temperature? Why is it that 1/2 the scientific papers published in the Scientific Journals say the change in temperature is due to emissions from the sun, NOT CO2?
These types of rules have NOTHING to do about "saving the Earth", it has to do with CONTROLLING THE MASSES. Here's what's coming next....
UPDATE: Paul Semenza and Paul Gagnon of DisplaySearch have also <a href="http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2009/11/the-cea-fails-to-dissuade-the-cec/">written about this decision</a>, and provide <b>an excellent graph </b>showing how many existing models are already below the 2011 limits, and a significant number <b>already meet the 2013 requirements</b>.
Sorry, but this is a politically oriented stand on global warming.
I know a scientist who is anything but a radical liberal and has been tracking temperatures since well before my time. During the second world war they were monitoring temperature in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. I has been noted that the temperatures have been increasing over decades.
I didn't believe it until I was shown the tables containing the data that had been recorded over the decades before and since my birth.
I do agree that it would be useful to look at the industry figures and they seem to show that the devices are going to be within easy reach of the requirements.
As to claims regarding the lack of brightness... I have been working in theatre for years and we have been making brighter and brighter light sources that use less and less power. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't find that I need the full power of my display. In fact, I use the low power setting and never have my brightness setting past the mid point. As long as the color temperature is screwed up by the lower power outputs I don't care if my display uses less power. I don't need a space heater, which by the way most of our monitors are. By the way, the improvements in technology used in power supplies for the light sources have made it easier to modulate and accurately control the output levels and color temperature.
It may be annoying but it is not the end of the world. At least not to TV technology and not yet.
If we consider events and regulations in a rational light it will make discussion and debate easier. Reactionary rhetoric is not going to help in either understanding or coming to an amicable solution. I guess it depends on what we all want to achieve.
A hacker got in to a global warming science database. E-mails within that community confirm numbers were doctored to make global warming look real. If you have an open mind read it. If not, keep thinking global warming is here.
Also doctored thousands of pictures that show how much glaciers have shrunk everywhere over the past 50 years? ...and doctored the water levels on Pacific atolls - many of which are now under water? Try that one.
Always an answer.
Never an admission there has been bad or fraudulent science.
All I can hope for is when things get so bad economically for this country that you help out if you are one of the rich exploiters (banksters)
or if you say "Hey those "alarmists" were right. I effed up in dismissing them. If you are a normal middle class person.
Constitution 3 pages. Health bill 2,000 pages.
We made hundreds of years with one. We will be in big trouble with the other
How and why did the native americans get here wasn't it migration?
Can't people move from those sinking atolls?
portkins, "can't people migrate?" Yes they can, did well for the Israelis didn't it. How many people do you want in your back yard - or is shoving them out into the desert acceptable for you? Despite my mentioning downsides, that is not the issue - given long term dire predictions, approximately 2 billion people are living in future sub-oceanic turf.
Where are they going to go? And of course other dire predictions are more worrysome, ask the Kenyans whose glacial melt is ending, and they are beggining to worry about water, hydro-electric power, and indeed, a spiritual system that is now failing them. The reality is there. It can not be said enough - and again, the permafrost is now melting releasing the really scary stuff, methane and it's implications.
Yes I will have answers, as long as there are deniers of the blatantly obvious. Kinda like arguing with those who still feel we had a reason to invade Iraq, and ignoring Afganistan for the most part.
Iraq and Afganistan have both been a disaster.
You don't seem to push too hard that we need to add troops or get out.
Israel with a democracy has turned a wasteland into a pretty fertile area. It's oppresive governemnts that keep people down and keeps them from migrating.
I wouldn't mind some more people to migrate to this country as long as they were productive and work hard.
We welcome everybody just don't want to pay for them to live here. Despite someone at the top always bowing and apologizing for this country, I know immigrants from all parts off the world. They all say the biggest dream is to get to America.
PS Ya think India and China will be curbing emissions anytime soon. They put lead in toys. Antifreeze in food products. Slave labor in China. But we can trust them to curb emissions?
Wait till they are driving 400 million cars. Even when we are forced into the dark ages and are forced to use lights containing mercury which are (hardly ever disposed of properly) , we will not be doing enough to cut greenhouse gasses.
Will you give Glen Beck a try? 2 nights. I will suffer through Olberman and Matthews if you agree to do that.
Will you give Glen Beck a try? 2 nights. I will suffer through Olberman and Matthews if you agree to do that.
Let me know what you think.
I tried to watch GB and his screed was staggeringly offensive. I was stunned and alarmed by the level of hatred and racism I heard from him in his monologue.
I do find Matthews a bit all over the road and don't really get his "journalism".
I like Olberman's take on things most of the time but I am a Lefty and consider the previous political regime a bit of a wash (on a good day). Nonetheless, I don't always think he is completely accurate. Of course he is a Pundit as well as a Newsman. But at least I know when he is leaving things out and he will admit fault if he makes a big error.
BTW, the science data that I was referring to is in bound note books and isn't on the net and couldn't be hacked. I've seen them in the office of an actual scientist that I know who helped to do the measurements. He didn't believe in global warming at first either. It took years. Same for me.
Now, Can we please get back to what this forum is actually supposed to be about? There are other places for this sort of rhetoric. I don't believe that this forum is that place.
Let me go back and address alfredpoor's comment about many of the sets meet the requirements. If you look at the link, it is true that many of the sets do meet the requirement, but if you look closely at the data, the popular plasma models fall outside of the 2011, 2013 limits. The plasma offers a very high contrast ratio with very good color saturation.
By the time we reach the 2013 limit, many of the regular LCD screens fail to meet the requirement. The more expensive LED back light units appear to be within the range or very close to meeting the requirement. If push comes to shove, a manufacturer will adjust the California units with less brightness in the backlight. Less brightness = less power, but it also results in an image that does not look as good.
... and why are we doing this? Because a bunch of tree-huggers on the CEC can feel like they did something good.
Now, it is a historic fact that the Earth's temperature has shifted up and down for millions of years and it's done it long before humans were on the Earth. The fact that the temperature is changing does NOT prove the CO2 theory. The other theory points to the changes in the sun's emissions causing changes in the Earth's cloud cover. More cloud cover = more cooling, less cloud cover = more warming. Just do a little bit of searching to see the scientific papers on this.
I know this is not a forum for debate on Global warming, but I wanted to point out that our selection of products is being hindered by "Big Brother" Government" that is going to decide for us.... even it it going to cost more and not be as good.
I agree that this discussion is treading perilously close to political debate instead of technical. I don't have a problem with reasoned debate, and it's impossible to separate the political component from any discussion, especially technology. So let's just be careful whose sacred cows we shoot at -- left and right -- and avoid calling each other poopy-heads, okay?
As for government hindering our selection of products, isn't that part of the reason we put it there in the first place? We ask our government to make all sorts of decisions about products on our behalf, from prohibiting lead paint in children's toys to making rules about our food and water supplies. And it's not just the "Big Brother" federal government; for years, California had more restrictive emissions standards for cars. I'm not sure if they still do, but if they don't, it may be because the rest of the country caught up.
My problem is that my positions on many of these topics do not fall all to the left or the right. I sort of start with the premise that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts." And I do not have a problem in principle with the government making decisions about whether fireworks can be sold in my state, or how I buy my alcoholic beverages, or making sure that we all play by the same rules in order to try to reduce pollution of the environment.
Coming back to the specific topic of California's decision about TVs, I firmly expect the question to be moot by the time they are in force. The industry has been moving rapidly toward more efficient devices, and there's proof that the standards can be met using existing technology. I think it's a tempest in a teapot, and we'll find that it has little impact on the market.
Alfred - I heartily agree - except I think the industry will get the message that energy savings is a bit more serious than they thought- and innovation will ensue. I think we will marvel at the combinations of technologies ahead that will deliver us a steadily improved product.
Added: I really hope we end up with an OLED type TV, that is not only efficient but light. Big Screen are still injuries waiting to happen between lifts to hang, or sitting on stands to be tipped over by kids - it'd be nice to seem them down to about 20-30 lbs for a 60" panel.
