California's eco-Marxists hard at work
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
By Emanuella Grinberg,CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* State says regulations will save consumers $1 billion a year in
energy costs
* Standards mandate that televisions consume 33 percent less
electricity by 2011
* Regulations cover liquid-crystal display, plasma high-definition
TVs smaller than 58 inches
* Retail, trade groups denounce regulations, claim they limit
consumer freedom
(CNN) -- The California Energy Commission voted unanimously Wednesday
to become the first state to impose energy efficiency standards for
televisions. The agency estimates the move will save consumers $1
billion a year in energy costs.
The new standards, which will take effect in January 2011, prevent the
sale of energy-guzzling televisions with a screen size 58 inches or
smaller, mandating that new models consume 33 percent less electricity
by 2011 and 49 percent less electricity by 2013.
The new rules cover liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition
TVs, old-fashioned cathode ray tube and rear-projection sets, but
consumers won't be required to buy new televisions.
"The real winners of these new TV energy efficiencies are California
consumers, who will be saving billions of dollars and conserving
energy while preserving their choice to buy any size or type of TV,"
Energy Commission Chairman Karen Douglas said in a statement.
As televisions have grown in size, residential energy consumption
attributed to televisions has increased from 3 to 4 percent in the
1990s to 8 to 10 percent in 2008.
It is expected to reach 18 percent by 2023, according to the
commission. The standards are expected to reduce energy consumption,
thereby lowering energy bills. It's also expected to help avoid the
construction of a new power plant and reduce carbon dioxide gas
emissions, the commission said.
Some retail groups and trade associations denounced the regulations,
claiming they needlessly limit consumer freedom and may result in the
loss of retail jobs and sales tax revenue.
"Manufacturers are already making energy-efficient models, so imposing
regulations is absolutely unnecessary, " said Jason Oxman, senior vice-
president of industry affairs for the Consumer Electronics
Association, which represents companies within the consumer technology
industry.
A study released by CEA in April responding to California's proposal
estimated that $50 million in state sales tax would be lost as a
result of some models being unavailable in stores, driving consumers
to buy televisions online and out-of-state.
"You have regulators dictating what kinds of TVs people can buy in
California, but they can still buy them online or go across the border
to Nevada and buy them," he said.
The commission acknowledged that more than 1,000 TV models on the
market already meet the 2011 standards, at no greater cost than less-
efficient sets. But the commission's study said there is no evidence
that efficiency standards would send consumers across the border in
search of models that will run up their energy bills.
James
> California approves new energy efficiency standards for televisions
> By Emanuella Grinberg,CNN
> STORY HIGHLIGHTS
>
> * Standards mandate that televisions consume 33 percent less
> electricity by 2011
33% less than what? What they use now? Confusing.
john whine
hopefully, by now you can explain what's so confusing and also perhaps
clarify whatever it is that 33% is what of.
I M @ good guy
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents/2009-09-25_TV_Model_List.pdf
A wattage draw per diagonal inch might be a good way
to rate TVs, I haven't found what criteria was used to compile
the above list.
richp
life costs money and you spent enough you die
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee8e6798-8092-41ac...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
"eco-Marxists"?
You fucking right wing idiots will invent anything to smear what you don't
agree with.
Oh ..... yea .... like the CEA doesn't have a 100% bias.
Who CARES what their paid corporate mouthpiece whines about?
terry
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:59:43 -0800 (PST), john whine
>
> >On Nov 21, 10:29 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> >> $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
>
> >> > California approves new energy efficiency standards for televisions
> >> > By Emanuella Grinberg,CNN
> >> > STORY HIGHLIGHTS
>
> >> > * Standards mandate that televisions consume 33 percent less
> >> > electricity by 2011
>
> >> 33% less than what? What they use now? Confusing.
>
> >hopefully, by now you can explain what's so confusing and also perhaps
> >clarify whatever it is that 33% is what of.
>
>
> A wattage draw per diagonal inch might be a good way
> to rate TVs, I haven't found what criteria was used to compile
> the above list.
==========================================================
But instead of trying to make a political issue out of things which
are obviously technical by sticking labels on (and remember that many
countries with different politics and systems of government are doing
'much better' than the poor old USA has during the last ten-twenty
years). For example the Europeans are much further ahead with other
sources of electric power; there are homes in Germany, not the
sunniest part of the world, for example, that generate more energy,
each 24 hours than they use! The surplus is sold back into their
electrcity grid and used by others!
Interesting. Although why those big TVs are necessary is a mystery! We
sit some ten feet from our average size (second hand TV btw) that cost
$35 some five plus years ago. The room is 13 by 14 feet.
But any thought and development that conserves energy is worth while
of course. For example if I was building this 1970 house again I'd
probaly have the walls three times as well insulated. And use better
insulating (maybe triple glazing in the windows!).
I suppose conserving TV wattage makes sense; in California? But all
this energy business has to be sensibly geared to the surrounding
climate!
Trouble is; organizations etc. come up with products and ideas as
panaceas (e.g. CFLs) and people jump on the bandwagon without
understanding one end of a watt from another!
Here where we live some heating is needed every month of the year
especially at night when the lights and TV tend to be on. So any
'wasted' wattage merely helps to heat our home; most homes here are
heated electrically. By less polluting hydro generated water power.
For example; it doesn't make any difference whether we depend on the
500 watt electric baseboard heater heater in our bathroom, which
rarely cuts in, or the six 'regular' 40 watt bulbs in the vanity light
fixture. The incandescent bulbs cost 25 cents each and when the
occasional one burns out they are not classified as hazardous waste as
are CFLS which each cost ten times as much.
In other words each house needs a certain amount of energy input and
it doesn't matter if it comes from electric heaters or 'inefficient'
appliances etc. Virtually nobody has or needs AC here for the two or
three days a year of high humidity that 'might' justify it. Eighty
(80) degrees here being considered an incredibly hot day!
The two things that really waste electrical energy are the clothes
dryer which just chucks damp hot air outside and any outside lighting
that stays on at night. But motion sensor fixtures costing around $20
can work; but one can buy a lot of electricity for $20; we calculate
some 4000 hours (that's a bit over one year) for our porch light which
we have on some eight to ten hours each night for safety/insurance
purposes.
So instead of wild statements stick to facts eh?
Oh btw our electricity rates actually went down for a while, reason
being that our one and only thermal electrcity generating plant in
this area, which is run in mid winter in case the transmission lines
come down during ices storms etc., used a lesser amount of polluting
fuel oil than expected and our regulatory authority therefore ordered
a rate reduction!
Reg
More of the usual hapless right wing bleating and whining from the
socialist Canadian trailer trash stooge.
Typical rightist. All he does is bitch and complain, probably with
that stupid confused look on his fat face.
Do you even bathe? Pig boy.
Eric Gisin
and import dirty-coal electricity because of their eco-fascist dream world.
What kind of fucking moron would defend them and the green idiots???
"Pepsi...@teranews.com" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:F09Om.17410$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
I M @ good guy
A lot of California doesn't need space heating most
of the year and I think many attempts at efficiency are
really dumb.
Chances are the TV law will do little to help
the capacity problem there, it is air conditioning
that causes the big problem, they need to add
a lot of reserve capacity, and let the consumer
worry about efficiency and cost.
As far as saving energy or money, many if
not most apartments in Texas and California have
electric furnaces, which are no where as efficient
as baseboard heat with zoned heat or a thermostat
in each room.
I have a "cove" heater in my bathroom, it is
like baseboard heat but is safer as it is 10 inches
below the ceiling and is a well designed radiator.
I went to all electric heat when natural gas
went way up in price a couple of years ago,
but the price is real low now, so I am switching
back to natural gas and a couple of heat pumps
I converted from used A/Cs.
I posted the TV list as somebody seemed
to ask for clarification.
Nick Backlash
>
> Oh ..... yea .... like the CEA doesn't have a 100% bias.
> Who CARES what their paid corporate mouthpiece whines about?
>
I never saw anything wrong with saving energy. Ontario gets a hell of a lot of
it's electricity from hydro, nukes and coal fired stations. It had a crisis a
few years ago that threatened brown outs during hot summer days, and an
effective program of conservation has avoided it, and saved the immense cost of
upgrading / refurbishing our nuclear reactors.
He should start complaining when he says that the quality of the old electricty
hogs is better than the mandated efficient ones.
And California is a benchmark and leader for stuff like that, emission controls
and all kinds of stuff. The reason? It's a major market. So, if California
mandates something, it will eventually rub off on the rest of us.
I have no patience for an old fools whining about shit like that. 24 Trillion
lives in Toronto, where electricity is comparatively cheap compared to likewise
places in the USA. The US private power market is more costly than the
government controlled Hydro One in Ontario. Just look it up. And think of
Enron while you're at it.
The old bullshit canard about "private enterprise creates competition and hence
lower prices" does not apply.
And don't forget what caused the big black out of 2003. It was a private power
company in Ohio who were too cheap to do a good job of clearing trees from their
lines. Meanwhile, like 9/11, Republicans were blaming Canada.
whitebread
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>Pepsi...@teranews.com wrote
>>
>> Oh ..... yea .... like the CEA doesn't have a 100% bias.
>> Who CARES what their paid corporate mouthpiece whines about?
>>
>
>I never saw anything wrong with saving energy. Ontario gets a hell of a lot of
>it's electricity from hydro, nukes and coal fired stations. It had a crisis a
>few years ago that threatened brown outs during hot summer days, and an
>effective program of conservation has avoided it, and saved the immense cost of
>upgrading / refurbishing our nuclear reactors.
>
>He should start complaining when he says that the quality of the old electricty
>hogs is better than the mandated efficient ones.
>
>And California is a benchmark and leader for stuff like that, emission controls
>and all kinds of stuff. The reason? It's a major market. So, if California
>mandates something, it will eventually rub off on the rest of us.
>
>I have no patience for an old fools whining about shit like that. 24 Trillion
>lives in Toronto, where electricity is comparatively cheap compared to likewise
>places in the USA. The US private power market is more costly than the
>government controlled Hydro One in Ontario.
>[snip]
24 Trillion what?
???????????????
I pay less than 7 cents per kilowatt hour,
what is the rate in Ontario?
Rich
$d94e...@news.iglou.com:
It's like a laundry detergent claiming to make clothes 25% cleaner.