For those curious:

Size Watts (2011) Watts (2013)
32 148 78
42 198 115
50 247 153
65 362 242

Seems like pretty strict guidelines only very efficient current LCDs can meet.

Green is the new red, communism is alive once again.

I wonder how much power my DLP takes, never really thought about it.

LOL, I'm going to have to steal that line. Green IS the new Red. It just further builds my rage against California. I love my 100W light bulbs and my Plasma TV. I drive a truck that gets 15mpg and I eat trans fat. Suck on that liberals

Who gives a crap about the the wattage a television uses. Maybe they should be more concerned with incandescent bulbs and the quality of insulation going into new homes since that would actually make a difference in power consumption for real people. That's my two cents.

If you need more evidence than this to show you that the "greatest scam in history" is nothing more than a power grab by green activists and politicians, then I am not sure you can be convinced.

CO2 has been in our atmosphere long before life on this planet ever got started. Every living green plant on this planet is fine tuned to operate at maximum eficiency when CO2 in the atmosphere is around 1500 ppm, hence the reason greenhouse operators feed CO2 into their greenhouses, not to keep them warmer, which is caused by the fact that heat cannot move up out of the greenhouse due to a physical barrier.

Over the history of our fine planet, the last 3 million years has had the lowest, by a factor of 3 to 5, CO2 content in the atmosphere than any other time that scientists can determine. Death and ruin are not what happens when CO2 is higher than it is today, but death and destruction are what happens when it is lower than today. Fully 50% of the increased food production on our planet is a direct result of higher CO2 in the atmosphere, and at a certain point, I think around 130PPM if I remember correctly, plants can no longer survive, and that means we cannot survive. CO2 is non toxic to human and animal species up to 50,000 PPM.

If we, as humans, want a better environment to leave our children, what we should be doing is everything possible to create more and more CO2 and releasing it into our atmosphere. We should be turning large amounts of rock into concrete, burning up the sequestered carbon in our coal feilds, and reinvigorating our atmosphere to the levels of 3 million to 200 million years ago. Instead we are working hard at figuring out the most cost effective plan to sequester even more of this life giving nutrient.

The sad fact though, is that no matter how much CO2 we ever figure out to sequester, the oceans will return to the air. The ocean keeps an equilibrium of CO2. For every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, there is a huge multiple stored in the ocean, and like fizz in a soda, it will put that CO2 back into the air. So for every PPM we want to reduce CO2 from the air, we need to take out about 50-100 PPM.

Yesterday they stole your right to a safe and usefull car by demanding that fuel economy goes up to a point where building a car large enough to hold you and your family along with groceries or the family vacation luggage is impposible. This is an ongoing effort, and trust me when I say you should look at the car that was recently released in India if you want to know what a car of the future will look like. Tiny, plastic, no power. Gets great fuel economy, 42MPG, but it lacks in space, safety and comfort.

30 years ago, they stole your right to cheap electricity when they stopped all new nuclear power generation plants in the USA. Nuclear geneartion plants are the second least costly energy resource we have, after hydro-electric dams, which have also been stopped.

Today, they are stealing your right to market driven priced fuel for both your car and to heat your home, by unduly harsh environmental policies, including a new ban on offshore drilling, bans on drilling in ANWR and other places where we know we can get cost effective energy. The inability of power companies to build new coal fired power generation plants. Gasoline prices have come down recently, but a large part of that is the economic collapse which has cut back on energy demands by companies that are not producing as much as they could be. If you want to see what life is like when you cut back on energy use, look no further than any recession or depression from history.

Tomorrow they are planning to take away your light bulbs, TVs, cosmetics, and anything else you, as a voter, allow them to. until one day, you find yourself nothing more than a slave to government, instead of the Government being Of the People, By the People, and For the People.

Spread the wealth, controll the means of production, and set class against class, race against race, and gender against gender. While everyone is angry at everyone else, the government gets to continue stealing your rights one at a time, all in the name of fairness, equality and other things that sound great, until you see the results.

The big bailout, a perfect storm to set the public anger at wall street. Everyone hates the AIG people, so it is ok to take the rights away from them. (The truth is that AIG got suckered into the position it was in by Fannie mae and Freddie Mac, by our government in other words, along with greed of course, but I see greed in shades of gray.) Tomorrow, maybe it will be the company you work for on the hated list, and your rights will be taken away. But is is OK, cause it is for the greater good that the government takes these rights away from you. Just like it is for the greater good you will not be allowed to own a TV of your chosing.

That works too, or maybe they need to focus on environmentally friendly energy generation like what we have in BC, hydro dams.

California green movement is focusing on the wrong parts, and not the source of the problem.

I am sure I’ll get flamed…But here goes.

I like what California’s legislation is attempting to do, sure lower wattage TV’s is not the answer to the world’s energy/Carbon footprint problems but at least there trying to make improvements.

California is leading USA to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions…. We need the entire earth to follow suit!

I think Nuclear power plants are far more important than lowering TV wattage… And the Governator is pushing for this as well. Schwarzenegger also has a pretty aggressive plan for car emissions.

In California, car drives you!

I am far from a Green activist; In fact I don’t take power into consideration when buying anything…My PC has a 1000W power supply.

You would have to be a fool to not relies that lower wattage bulbs, lower wattage TV’s, lower wattage computers, Lower wattage everything is better, they ALL help!! USA is the World’s top energy user, baby steps are better than NO steps. Most people don’t even recycle cans/bottles/Cardboard…

I’m not knocking USA, I just think it is time for everyone to open their eyes and relies WE are the fucking problem because we don’t care…

Here is a nice graph (don’t know how legit or accurate this is), you can Google “worst energy consuming country” and many similar graphs… USA is #1 on all of them, regardless of the actual #’s. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ [...] onsumption

If California can pass something like this, Awesome!

Your right. I will flame you, and I was the first to put you negative. Just want to be up front with everyone. Simply because you are gulible enough to fall into the carbon footprint, we need to cut back on producing green houses gases part of your comment.

yeah, good ol' Arnie is a savior, isn't he? He has certainly put the people of California above his political career. He is an awesome actor too, he had all you Southern Rubes thinking he was a Republican, and he even used Reagan as his rolemodel to make sure you all fell for him.

You sure got a great state there, Kahleefornya. Fastest growing unemployment, fastest growing deficit, fasting moving out of state residents, fastest moving out of state businesses, fastest increasing cost of living, fastest increasing percent of population that is illegally in the USA, and most importantly, fastest growing reputation for being a bunch of lunatic retards. But hey, you got Anrie to worship, so it's all good, along with you're gay nuptuals and weed smoking, you should be all set for a repeat of the 60's.



That is very true, but not for the reason you state, but just in economic sense that it costs less to produce using Nuclear power than anything other than hydro-electric.

California is ridiculous. Anyone who lives there and thinks the restrictions are legitimate is insane.

They are trying to pass a law now allowing them to build nuclear plants again… They are focusing on the larger problem and addressing smaller issues as well.

PS: Hydro Dams will only produce so much power, Nuclear is a better solution… Not to say Hydro is bad, it’s just not enough.

Why should we? When all is said and done, recycled plastic costs more than non-recycled and is of lower quality. Same goes for cardboard, it costs more money to recycle cardboard than it does to make it from virgin materials, and you end up with an inferior product.

Cans are an exception to the rule, they are actually economical to recycle, but, not every place has conveinient places to do so. Glass bottles would be economical, but since almost no one buys soda in glass bottles where I live, I am stuck with plastic or aluminum. Mostly aluminum. I do not recycle them here where I live now, but I did in Utah by giving the cans to a guy I knew who did recycle, and in California by dictate!

Holy hell A Stoner, how can you be so thick that you are upset you have to buy an efficient TV… LOL, how can you even live with yourself?

I live in Canada; we get money back to recycle bottles and cans. I drink 100 cases of beer and I get $120 back…. Sorry where you live it is not “economical” to recycle. Perhaps your Government should have put some of the 11 Trillion dept into something important and you wouldn’t be faced with buying an energy efficient TV.

As Stoner has basically alluded to, most people don't realize that we're still coming out of the last ice age and will be for a loooooooong time.

It supposed to get warmer. No scientist honestly knows by how much how fast and have only the vaguest ideas. So take it with a grain of salt every time you hear doomsday propositions about how global warming is so terrible and try to tell you that humans alone are causing it. Its utter rubbish. Around 20+years ago there was a similar fad claiming that global cooling was occuring.

News flash...its a friggin planet, since we don't live geologically significant life spans and try to make everything match our own short existences, politicians push bendable scientist to produce data that suggests we can make insane claims on a year to year basis.

That said I'm ALL for reducing actual pollution (CO, SO2, NO2, Hg, etc.) while CO2 in general is fairly harmless it usually comes bundled up with some friends that are not harmless by any stretch of the imagination. So while I don't buy the "carbon footprint" obsession, many aspects have a side effect of reducing the other real pollutants that usually accompany CO2.

So even if their goal is misguided not all the side effects are bad. Consider that if the US gets away from oil dependence it will be in a much stronger position to truly sustain its self. Right now if we didn't have outside oil support the US would be in chaos within a week and people dying and starving left and right in a month despite the ratio of fertile land per person.

Not exactly a strong position to work from. The green effort gets us closer to finding a balance that doesn't need oil to burn as fuel quite so badly. So that combined with generic real pollution reduction will be worth it if they can orient their goals around the things that matter more. Obviously TV's are not as critical as many other targets, but a lighter grid means renewable sources can take on a larger percentage and every bit helps. Though we're a very very long way from actually running on wind/solar etc.

Sometimes efficiency = joy.

This is the dumbest idea ever. Arnie, how could you let this go through? You have failed me.

Actually, this has not gone through yet but if it does than it will be a fail.

This is stupid it will likely not pass. This is a moronic attempt to make Cali looks more green and apply unnecessary pressure to the electronic industry. The majority of manufactured TVs are LCD. By them time a bill like this would go in too effect Plasmas will probably be gone or already fall with in the guidelines of the energy bill.

The plastic situation has to deal with the chemistry. Most people think that two different plastics if you melt them will combine. This unfortunately is not the case at all. So often you get something similar to particle board out of recycled plastic efforts but less sturdy and far less bio degradable.

The "correct" way to recycle plastics is to make them biodegradable to begin with or create processes that can breakdown the individual mers to their building blocks and separate them out cleanly. Not easy tasks to balance when their densities are often very similar.

Recycling paper is far and away more expensive than growing more trees currently and produces quite a bit more pollution. Many types of paper degrade pretty well on their own. So simply using those kinds and having an expedient way for it to breakdown is a better call that trying to turn it back into usable pulp.

Its not that its regionally economical or not. It always not economical regardless of region. But it makes people feel warmer and fuzzier even when (in the case of paper products) it cost more energy and pollution to recycle.

As mentioned metals are a pita to mine and refine and the recycle process is much more effective (owing to very different properties of metals) and yeilds a perfectly equivalent product to being mined in most cases.

Its not the TV that bother's stoner. Its having a decision made for him that "should have been his to make".

There is a fine line in regards to that.

(my own theory based on a bit of study and reading)
I suspect in large part the whole point of getting us more energy efficient is so that when (not if) the oil crash hits we can survive through it without the nation collapsing completely into ruins while we flip to coal/nuclear/etc. Lets face it, if energy is cheap and easy, stoner and everyone else will burn it like its going out of style because its their right to do so. So it has to be made artificially more expensive in stages to push development and changes.

It can (and is) argued about when the oil crash will happen. Some say 10 years, some say 50. No one perfectly knows. But what we DO know is that re-ramping the US to be near completely non-dependent on oil will take a long time and a lot of effort and resources. Better to start now and hopefully be ready than caught with your pants around your ankles.

This proposal I agree with. This is better for the greater good. Who cares if you can't get true blacks, this is just a minor inconvenience which your children and their children can benefit from.

LCD should be the way to go and this will also push the adoption rate of OLED a lot faster.

deltatux

Stoner your name says it all. I'm just happy most of the population dosen't think like you do or we'd all be in a big mess. Just walk to the nearest field or beach and see how clean it is. It doesn't just come down to thow much co2 is in the air. All of these products come from some type of factory with and without regulations. California needs to step-up and insure that were not the leader when it comes to buying these products. We have over 33 million poeple in this state and we need to insure the furture of this state and the next generation that lives in it.

I'm a Plasma enthusiast 100%. As the article mentions of us, I will glady take up Plasma's cause at any turn, so far as to invoke Godwin's Law even.

However, if it saves energy, I'm willing to part with Plasma. As much as I hate to see Plasma and my beloved BMW M cars (I

Ok, so that last post didn't go through right. I was gonna say:

However, if it saves energy, I'm willing to part with Plasma. As much as I hate to see Plasma and my beloved BMW M cars (I

WTF? Two posts and neither posts right?

lol @ guy with 15mpg truck. I drive a car with a V8 and I get 19.1 mpg right now combined driving. I've been in several V6es that get that. Also trucks are slow

While I also have a philosophical issue with being told what I can and cannot buy, I have an even bigger issue with people who flaunt their love of all things inefficient as if it were some sort of badge of patriotism. As if the ability to waste and squander and revel in one's own ignorance are the qualities that made America great. They are not.

Regardless of whether or not greenhouse gases are a hoax, or whether or not you "buy in to the lie of the carbon footprint", you'd have to be a moron not to understand that the more efficiently each person works and consumes resources, the better off they are and the better off society is. Efficiency lowers demand for resources and therefore lowers their cost while efficient work increases time for other things. Efficiency is a Good Thing(tm) and it's something we should all strive to promote in society and technology - for everyone's quality of life. Computing technology, the increases in efficiency it's brought to markets and the workplace and it's effect on global GDP over the last 50 years is a perfect example of this.

...so while I disagree with a law that says you can't own something that's inefficient, I would support a law that charged a surcharge for buying something that's grossly inefficient compared to other products simply because it provides some luxury value; like better picture quality in the case of a plasma TVs (which I own two of, BTW), or warmer light int he case of incandescent bulbs. Call it an "inefficiency-luxury tax", or even a; "I'm a bad neighbor because I'm wasting resources tax". Either way, you allow people to have an inefficient product while letting them know that what they are doing is wasteful. You also reduce the cost of entry for new , more efficient technologies which currently take forever to get to market.

Blatant and intentional waste in the face of more efficient alternatives is what I see these laws being enacted around - not greenhouse gases or carbon footprints.

Cheers,
CList

[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Yesterday they stole your right to a safe and usefull car by demanding that fuel economy goes up to a point where building a car large enough to hold you and your family along with groceries or the family vacation luggage is impposible. This is an ongoing effort, and trust me when I say you should look at the car that was recently released in India if you want to know what a car of the future will look like. Tiny, plastic, no power. Gets great fuel economy, 42MPG, but it lacks in space, safety and comfort.citation]

Well this could be what your car looks like in the future as well... lol man you can go on and on...
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/tesla- [...] -3706.html

Dear oh dear Stoner - you do you country proud (not) - I wonder who YOU voted for. Look, regardless on whether or not you believe in Climate Change the benefits are in other areas - why are you complaining about a more power-efficient TV? If anything, it will force the electronics industry to become more innovative; hell, we have OLED technology - its not going to take decades to modify and make cheap the technology for the mass-market.

Also: "Yesterday they stole your right to a safe and usefull car by demanding that fuel economy goes up to a point where building a car large enough to hold you and your family along with groceries or the family vacation luggage is impposible. This is an ongoing effort, and trust me when I say you should look at the car that was recently released in India if you want to know what a car of the future will look like. Tiny, plastic, no power. Gets great fuel economy, 42MPG, but it lacks in space, safety and comfort." Why don't you go look at what some of the European car manufacturers are chucking out (I like the Fiat 500 myself, but you can look at a VW Golf bluemotion if you want, in fact, I'll link it for you http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/volksw [...] ue-motion) - time to get thy head out of thy enlarged ass.

Or you can go back to your comfort blanket otherwise known as your copy of the Bible. And bash it. Relentlessly. With your face.

[to clarify - this isn't an attack on religion; more an attack of blithe ignorance]

Be fair guys. Not all of stoner's points are wrong or irrelevant even if his opinion (I feel overly black and white stance) isn't popular. Its possible to dissagree without insulting. These threads could benefit a bit from a heat reduction.

In general though clist nails my general feelings on this matter. Efficiency = joy.

You are an idiot. I have use for everything I have. The plasma is the best TV out there. The truck I drive is used for work. I actually need to haul things. The 100W light bulbs actually light my house. I can see things with a crap CFL or lower wattage bulb. And the Trans fat? I don't care because I work off the calories. So when you decide to pull your head out of my arse you might get some crediblity. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Let liberty rule..fker