California May Ban Big Screen TVs

[Dukes]

California May Ban Big Screen TVs
By Maura Judkis
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/1/6/california-may-ban-big-screen-tvs.html

State legislators in California are drafting regulations that may prevent California retailers from selling power-sucking big screen TVs by 2011. It's a move that, according to EcoGeek, may eliminate plasma screen TVs from the market there, as they're less efficient than LCDs (though, inch-for-inch, both TVs are more efficient than cathode ray TVs - they're just bigger). Retailers are upset that the regulations would send customers to neighboring states, or online, for purchases.

Says the LA Times:

The consumer electronics industry opposes the regulations, expected to pass in mid-2009, and claims that they could remove some TVs from store shelves and slightly boost sticker prices.

But the California Energy Commission is looking for ways to relieve the strain on the power grid. Officials say the standards, once fully in place, would reduce the state's annual energy needs by an amount equivalent to the power consumed by 86,400 homes.

During a peak viewing time when most sets are on, such as the Super Bowl, TVs in the state collectively suck up the equivalent of 40% of the power generated by the San Onofre nuclear power station running at full capacity. Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill.

Tim Haab of Environmental Economics takes issue with a claim that the California economy would be boosted by the move. "How will the economy be boosted? By raising the price on TVs? By decreasing the sales of new TVs? I'm missing something. I don't know, but my economic senses always tingle when I see claims that new regulation will boost economic growth. The logic seems flawed to me."

Jaymi Heimbuch of Treehugger thinks the regulations would help consumers make choices - if you can even call the result of this "choice": "The new rules would go a long way in helping consumers make energy efficient choices - they'd be the only choices available."

Meanwhile, Hank Green of EcoGeek believes that consumer should pay for their eco-unfriendly choices: "Really, if you want your entire living room wall to be a television screen...you should be willing to pay a few extra dollars for it."

Hard to believe there hasn't been more of a fuss from consumers about this yet. Plenty of other appliances have tough energy standards, but we're certainly more sensitive about our home theaters. Should California be able to restrict consumers' choices for the good of the grid?

[spdirty]

LOL you ****ing idiots over there. California and New York are in a race to see who can create as shltty an economy as Detroit has.

[Dukes]

LOL you ****ing idiots over there. California and New York are in a race to see who can create as shlty an economy as Detroit has.

What good is having a healthy economy if the planet is dying?

[cutthemdown]

Stupid. Just build more power plants and sell the energy.

[Bronco Bob]

The newest technology is LED TVs. It still uses a LCD as the display.
But instead of using fluorescent tubes to backlight the LCD, it uses
LEDs, which are more energy efficient, and last longer. Plus they
contain no mercury.

[Dukes]

The newest technology is LED TVs. It still uses a LCD as the display.
But instead of using fluorescent tubes to backlight the LCD, it uses
LEDs, which are more energy efficient, and last longer. Plus they
contain no mercury.

When are those expected to be released?

[Bronco Bob]

When are those expected to be released?

They are already for sale. Samsung has models available from 40" to 55"

http://www.samsung.com/us/productsubtype/led/#

This link gives a little more details.

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/detail.do?group=televisions&type=televisions&subtype=ledtv&model_cd=UN55B7000WFXZA

[Dukes]

Very cool

[watermock]

$3500+

I don't know how long my $800 42" Olivia will last hopefully long enough to see the price decline.

[Meck77]

There are THOUSANDS of idiotic bills that get proposed every year. Legislators just make **** up to bring attention to issues. Many of them are just morons period.

[El Minion]

LOL you ****ing idiots over there. California and New York are in a race to see who can create as shltty an economy as Detroit has.

Yeah the idiots in CA and NY would rank about 8th and 16th, respectively, as the world largest economies if ranked independent. Yeah they don't know what they are doing.

[Crushaholic]

Yeah the idiots in CA and NY would rank about 8th and 16th, respectively, as the world largest economies if ranked independent. Yeah they don't know what they are doing.

Isn't California bankrupt?

[El Minion]

Isn't California bankrupt?

Budget shortfall is not bankrupt. But if that is your definition then over half the union (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=868) is bankrupt.

[watermock]

California's Budget Deficit Grows To $16 BillionSACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) ―
Click to enlarge
CBS

1 of 1
Close




numSlides of totalImages California's fiscal watchdog says the state's budget shortfall has grown to $16 billion, in large part because of falling tax revenue from the depressed housing market.

Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill reported Wednesday the deficit could swell even more in the coming months. She said state revenue from all three major sources -- personal income taxes, corporate taxes and sales taxes -- are coming in below forecast.

A separate economic forecast out Wednesday shows state job growth next year could be even lower than she predicted.

Hill also criticized the governor's proposal last month to reduce spending by 10 percent in most state programs to close the budget deficit.

That would cut more than $4 billion for education, lead to the release of 22,000 state prison inmates before the end of their sentences and force nearly one in five state parks to close.

Hill says the governor's budget fails to advance a plan that prioritizes state spending. She is recommending to the legislature to reject what the analyst sees as "the administration's across-the-board approach."

Hill proposes an alternate approach to closing the budget gap that she says would balance the budget through 2013.

Hill favors eliminating nonessential programs, recalculating education spending and reducing or eliminating several tax credits.

(© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)


16 billion USED to be considered alot of money, now it's like dropping a nickle.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The newest technology is LED TVs. It still uses a LCD as the display.
But instead of using fluorescent tubes to backlight the LCD, it uses
LEDs, which are more energy efficient, and last longer. Plus they
contain no mercury.

Yep, these TVs are Energy Star rated so this is basically a non topic.

The pictures on the new Samsung LEDs are fantasic also!!!!

[cutthemdown]

Yep, these TVs are Energy Star rated so this is basically a non topic.

The pictures on the new Samsung LEDs are fantasic also!!!!

I always tell people Samsung rules. Just got a new 24 inch computer monitor from them I'm digging it.

When I decide to get rid of my 55 inch HDTV projection by Mitsubishi I will get a Samsung. They are just killing it right now IMO with the best picture and pretty good prices.

I do think because the LED LCD is more expensive it will be awhile before people want them. 2400.00 for a 40 inch is a lot more then a regular LCD.

[cutthemdown]

Isn't California bankrupt?

lol California has more money still then any other state. True though we have tons of illegals to pay for, tons of environmental protections, tons of taxes, high cost of living, and of course California will feel the brunt of a countrywide recession.

Funny though some people think the state poor now which isn't the case, they just spend too much and the fed gives us back less money then we pay in income tax. In fact my money in California gets sent to someone in some poor state etc.

[DBruleU]

I always tell people Samsung rules. Just got a new 24 inch computer monitor from them I'm digging it.

When I decide to get rid of my 55 inch HDTV projection by Mitsubishi I will get a Samsung. They are just killing it right now IMO with the best picture and pretty good prices.

I do think because the LED LCD is more expensive it will be awhile before people want them. 2400.00 for a 40 inch is a lot more then a regular LCD.

I have a 42" Panasonic Plasma...guess I'm sucking up energy. Though I don't care.

I agree with you though. When I get a second TV, I'll go with a Samsung. LED is way too pricey considering I can get a great Samsung for half that, or less. LCD probably.

[cutthemdown]

I have a 42" Panasonic Plasma...guess I'm sucking up energy. Though I don't care.

I agree with you though. When I get a second TV, I'll go with a Samsung. LED is way too pricey considering I can get a great Samsung for half that, or less. LCD probably.

I was thinking about another 55 inch but I don't know? Is bigger always better? I was thinking of making the TV area smaller and more intimate, and then sticking a bar on the either end. For that I think a 40 inch would work because the couch would be say 10 feet away.

[elsid13]

Plasma TV are on their way out. So this is non-story.

[Garcia Bronco]

Budget shortfall is not bankrupt. But if that is your definition then over half the union (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=868) is bankrupt.

They aren't just bankrupt. The have to pay for other states to operate. Whihc means they have to keep raising taxes, which in turn has people and businesses leaving the state. All because of the perception that we as a country need to take care of everyone with shotgun solutions that don't work.

[Rigs11]

Funny that anytime someone dares propose being more environmentally friendly, the idiots from the party of NO come out in full force.Just do NOthing!

[cutthemdown]

Funny that anytime someone dares propose being more environmentally friendly, the idiots from the party of NO come out in full force.Just do NOthing!

I think this is where you miss it. It's not that i say no!!!!!! It's that I say no to the extra money. It's just how it is to wait until it's cheaper, once cheaper then i will do it.

I don't feel guilty because I don't like to fly. Tons of people fly around all the time and that spews so much co2 it's not even funny.

It has to be fair, you can't single out certain things and carbon tax them, or ban them, while at same time govt feel the need to light up cities at night because they fear darkness leads to crime. Or people that travel by plane a lot, then come home and say wow your tv is big? or you don't drive a hybrid?

**** that. If you really want to make a difference use nuclear power, solar power, whatever to energize a grid that supports high speed rail all over the USA.

Now that I would happily pay for.

[cutthemdown]

For instance even though I don't like to fly, only do it like 1-2 every 4-5 yrs, I still would not support a tax on airlines tickets. I just feel taxes are B.S because we already have so many. How many more things can they make more expensive before it just crushes us all like bugs.

You go downtown you pay to park, toll roads everywhere, income tax, sales tax, registration, insurance, property tax, education, food, rent, mortgage etc etc, and at the end you hope to have enough to maybe have some fun or save a penny for something bigger.

But no instead of trying to get more money to the people the plan is to find other ways to tax them. Then to top it off the want to add the biggest tax of all, a carbon tax, so all energy goes up.

I just have one question, when does the money we make get to go up? Never?

[Beantown Bronco]

Plasma TV are on their way out. So this is non-story.

This still boggles my mind because the picture is still so much better than LCDs.....especially at an angle. It's not even close.

Though DLPs were supposed to be dead years ago and they're still selling fairly well.....especially in the front projector market. Plasmas still have at least 5-10 years in them unless something crazy happens.

[elsid13]

This still boggles my mind because the picture is still so much better than LCDs.....especially at an angle. It's not even close.

Though DLPs were supposed to be dead years ago and they're still selling fairly well.....especially in the front projector market. Plasmas still have at least 5-10 years in them unless something crazy happens.

Expect all plasma manufacturers are moving to LED/LCD production because they are cheaper to produce and technology makes the pics indifferent between the two types.

[kappys]

This still boggles my mind because the picture is still so much better than LCDs.....especially at an angle. It's not even close.

Though DLPs were supposed to be dead years ago and they're still selling fairly well.....especially in the front projector market. Plasmas still have at least 5-10 years in them unless something crazy happens.

With the older LCD's i would agree but I think the newer ones are definetely equals. That said I have a modet 50' TV and don't plan on getting a larger one so quality differences that are visible only on larger screens may still apply.

The view at an angle with an LCD still sucks though.

[Rigs11]

This still boggles my mind because the picture is still so much better than LCDs.....especially at an angle. It's not even close.

Though DLPs were supposed to be dead years ago and they're still selling fairly well.....especially in the front projector market. Plasmas still have at least 5-10 years in them unless something crazy happens.

BS. the blacks may be better on a plasma,but the colors on an LCD blow the plasma away.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This still boggles my mind because the picture is still so much better than LCDs.....especially at an angle. It's not even close.

Though DLPs were supposed to be dead years ago and they're still selling fairly well.....especially in the front projector market. Plasmas still have at least 5-10 years in them unless something crazy happens.

Whoa, not true!!!!!!! LCDs and now LEDs are superior to plasma quality. I know, I own a Samsung LCD that is unequaled in picture quality (to my eye anyway :wiggle: ).

[watermock]

My 42" LCD has a 174 degree viewing screen altho it's much better from 90 or less.

Woe is me when it burns out. Woe to the dumpster too. If Waste Management wants to send it tro china to melt for a few grams of gold and mercury, so be it.

[cutthemdown]

Whoa, not true!!!!!!! LCDs and now LEDs are superior to plasma quality. I know, I own a Samsung LCD that is unequaled in picture quality (to my eye anyway :wiggle: ).

I just got a new Samsung LCD monitor. They are really making a good product.

[Beantown Bronco]

Whoa, not true!!!!!!! LCDs and now LEDs are superior to plasma quality. I know, I own a Samsung LCD that is unequaled in picture quality (to my eye anyway :wiggle: ).

Go to cnet.com and read some of their takes on this. This is their job.

LEDs perhaps. But they are also over twice as expensive.

And try viewing LCDs from an angle. It is not even debatable, even in the newer models. Plasma were designed for that. LCDs openly admit their faults in this area.

[Rigs11]

Go to cnet.com and read some of their takes on this. This is their job.

LEDs perhaps. But they are also over twice as expensive.

And try viewing LCDs from an angle. It is not even debatable, even in the newer models. Plasma were designed for that. LCDs openly admit their faults in this area.

cnet are really shetti reviewers. yes plasmas are better viewed from the side but they also have worse glare than lcds.both have pros and cons.

[Beantown Bronco]

cnet are really shetti reviewers. yes plasmas are better viewed from the side but they also have worse glare than lcds.both have pros and cons.

Who would you trust for reviews? I've always found cnet helpful, especially their section on professional tv calibrations (which normally would cost you $) that they give you for free.

True, glare can be an issue for plasmas if you are in a room with a lot of direct sunlight. They also consume more power than LCDs (though this year's new Panny models have pretty much done away with that). Those are their two primary flaws. LCDs on the other hand are bad off-center and most that I've seen are still susceptible to motion blur and "jidder". It's not as pronounced as it used to be, but it's still there.

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't care what king of set you have...if the sun is on it, you'll get the glare.

[jhat01]

I just got a 46" Sharp Aquos..1080p 120hz. The dudes are coming out tomorrow with the Directv HD plus thingy for install. Great TV.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Go to cnet.com and read some of their takes on this. This is their job.

LEDs perhaps. But they are also over twice as expensive.

And try viewing LCDs from an angle. It is not even debatable, even in the newer models. Plasma were designed for that. LCDs openly admit their faults in this area.I went to many review sites but settled for my own eyes' interpretation in the end. My Samsung LCD has a better picture than the plasmas in my view (I watch it mainly for movies) and it uses way less energy than plasmas.

I can't get to a radical enough angle in my TV room to get a bad view.

I don't care what king of set you have...if the sun is on it, you'll get the glare.Plasmas produce two to three times as much as a LCD or LED.