Say no to the supersized TV, EPA hints
How big is too big when it comes to TV screen size? How much energy does the U.S. gobble up watching television?
If you ask the Environmental Protection Agency, the answers would be (a) anything over 50 inches and (b) about 4 percent of all household electricity.
"There are about 275 million TVs currently in use in the U.S., consuming over 50 billion kWh of energy each year - or 4 percent of all households' electricity use. This is enough electricity to power all the homes in the state of New York for an entire year," according to the Energy Star program, a joint effort of the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Energy Star, which sets the standard for energy efficiency ratings on consumer products, says that televisions will have to become more efficient in order to earn its coveted sticker.
Sharp's 52-inch Aquos LC-52D65U LCD TV consumes 121.6 watts in viewing mode.
(Credit: Sharp)For their products to qualify, television manufacturers will have to meet a new standard by May 2010 and an even stricter standard by May 2012.
The version 4.0 Energy Star sticker, the standard set for May 2010, will require 40 percent greater efficiency, while the version 5.0 sticker will require 65 percent more efficiency than a TV sold today.
Generally, the new requirements put restrictions on the amount of power a TV can consume when it's in use ("on" mode), and when it's figuratively off but downloading programming information (DAM, or download acquisition mode).
The agency has also taken a stand on what it sees as responsible consumerism with regard to energy and the environment.
"EPA has decided to proceed with a requirement that TVs greater than 50 inches in size meet the same On Mode requirements as a screen of 50 inches - 108 watts," Katharine Kaplan, the spokeswoman for the EPA's Energy Star program, said in her cover letter (PDF) to the version 4.0 and 5.0 technical specifications for manufacturers.
(By comparison, past CNET reviews have found that in viewing mode the 52-inch Sony Bravia KDL-52XBR7 consumes 161.11 watts and the 52-inch Sharp Aquos LC-52D65 consumes 121.6 watts.)
Through this new policy, Kaplan and the agency have essentially said that anyone who feels the need to buy a television bigger than 50 inches is being a tad gluttonous. As an agency dedicated to energy savings, it's not going to condone that behavior with a feel-good sticker no matter how comparatively efficient the TV may be for its size.
"The issue in this case is what TV sizes can the federal government credibly designate as preferable from an energy and environmental perspective. This has become an important issue as the sizes of TVs and energy use continue to grow," Kaplan said in her letter.
In a software-driven world, it's easy to forget about the nuts and bolts. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgetry or industrial machines, Candace Lombardi examines the moving parts that keep our world rotating. A journalist who divides her time between the United States and the United Kingdom, Lombardi has written about technology for the sites of The New York Times, CNET, USA Today, MSN, ZDNet, Silicon.com, and GameSpot. E-mail her at candacelombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. 
First they told us that our cars are too big. Then our Corporations spend too much. Now they are telling us that ?bigger than 50 inches is being a tad gluttonous?. When does it stop? When we are all hippies living in communes? Leave us alone! If I want to buy something that consumes that amount then that?s my choice. If it is consuming more that we can spare then raise the price of the electricity that I consume. It is simple supply and demand. I don?t want someone telling me what is too big or too small. It is mine? LEAVE ME ALONE!!
According to who?
Does she work for the EPA or the TV manufacturers?
I agree that we should do our best to purchase energy efficient electronics. My TV, fridge, computer, air conditioner, surround system are all energy star. However, I do not agree with increasing the price of electricity for everyone so a few people can pig out on it. That's not supply and demand, it's supply, demand and super demand. Put the prices up for the people who use more not for everyone. Same with vehicles, charge for the fuel depending on what type of vehicle it is. People using more than their share (eg: people using 4x4s and SUVs in cities where you don't need them) can pay proportionally more for their fuel since they use more. This would be a great incentive to purchase more efficient electronics and vehicles. As products go through their natural cycles, they will get more and more efficient anyway, so the EPA is all bark and no bite here.
So go ahead, continue to use consumer products as you like, nobody is telling you not to. The EPA is doing their job by providing guidelines for consumers to determine which products are best for them.
If it's a required standard then yes they are effectivly telling us what size TV we can have.
Also, my Ford averages about 32 mpg, mostly highway. So yes, you can still buy a small Ford, or a great big Expedition, it depends on what matters most to you.
[Actually, why doesn't CNET put an electric cost on the reviews and summaries next to the price range? Of all the items, you can't choose low power in the CNET review menus.]
While a limit is useful, it just encourages manufacturers to meet the bare minimum, rather than let consumers choose the best price/value including electricity. The new limits are pretty aggressive, though. Some of the TVs use 600W, but the most expensive TV uses less than that but costs more because of the power wasted while turned off.
At least now, the TV manufacturers will try harder to make them power efficient.
Despite your insinuations to the contrary, retaining Hummer production doesn't make a lot of sense. Cheap and fuel efficient vehicles were flying off lots even without the Cars for clunkers program while more expensive vehicles with higher costs of ownership (eg. Hummers) aren't selling very well anymore.
Now think, what other of your assumptions based on which you criticize government (or anything else) might be completely wrong?
You are correct in that GM was going to offload Hummer because of poor sales. You are incorrect, however, in regards to the Hummer being more expensive to own. The Hummer, in the long run, has been shown to be cheaper than many other vehicles people would consider more effecient. Look it up. Because the Hummer is built to last, it has a longer life and also fewer repairs.
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&story=cost-of-ownership&subject=more
Already, LED-backlit panels use just over half the power of conventional flourescent backlit panels, and OLED panels will probably use maybe 10% of the power of conventional LCD panels! That is gigantic power usage savings, to say the least. As such, even a 55" (diagonal) flat panel will use way under the 108 watt reference standard the EPA uses.
The other peoblem is how expensive they will be for the first five or more years. You can bet the manufacturers will do everything they can to keep the price as high as they can for as long as they can. People will be buying less expensive LED backlit LCD TVs for quite a while after the introduction of OLED into the big-screen TV market. This is fine by me. All the wealthy people can buy the first generation clunkers and work all the bugs out for the rest of us.
Why would the manufacturers do everything to keep the price as high as possible? That doesn't make economic sense. If that was so, then Sony would be raking in the dough in regards to the PS3 while Nintendo would be struggling with its Wii. Manufacturers want the price of their products to go down, to a point, where they can generate the most sales. Keeping something expensive just isn't good business. The bottom line is the profit margin, not profit itself.
I'm going to leave my 72" TV on all week.
@murph0613 - The sticker is completely voluntary. A manufacturer does not need to have a sticker. Obviously the companies, in general, feel differently than you do about the stickers.
In honor of the two intellectually challenged conservatives that responded to your post, I will replace the remaining CFL bulbs in my house with LED (Excluding the 3 way bulb I keep in the library), Make a large donation to Greenpeace and probably one to PETA as well.
I'm a liberal leaning independent who voted for Obama. There are plenty of people with mixed platform views, but are consistently mislabeled because of that.
So you're saying that by me having dual 24" widescreen monitors on my computer I'm affecting you in some way? How so? And you can't use that unproven climate change theory.
As for your SUV example, many people who have them need them - farmers, ranchers, large families, people with large dogs, etc. Thank goodness we live in a country where people who can afford it, can buy what they want, whether it be big televisions or SUVs.
Sorta like a mini-theater in your home.
I won't criticize your lifestyle if you don't criticize mine, you sanctimonious snit.
You still don't need a 60 inch TV. It remains nothing more than a want regardless of room size. Some people choose to watch a 13 inch TV where a 27 would easily work.
Also, the "need" for an SUV is fake. Trucks for the farmers and ranchers, station wagons for the large families, and nobody "needs" to take their dog everywhere.
Needs and wants are vastly different things, and you seem to have them confused.
Oh yeah, for the record I drive a Corvette engined AWD SUV and breathe out planet killing CO2 many times per minute :P
That being said big flat screen TVs aren't always worse than the TVs that they replace. One can theoretically replace a CRT with an LCD twice its' size and still consume less energy. Sure there are some people who buy huge plasmas that use quite a bit of energy, but a lot of LCDs aren't nearly as bad.
No, they just propose to tell you you're being a **** if you buy one that uses a lot of energy. You're still welcome to buy whatever TV you want.
I think it's usually by choice. They choose not to examine the facts.
why is it that you can't see that others have different value systems and viewpoints as you, me, my wife, my kids, my mother, whomever. is there really any impact on you if duketg decides to have a 60" TV and uses it for 8 hours a week to watch football? Is he any worse than someone who has a 30" TV and leaves it on to keep the dog company all day long while it's home alone?
When children can't behave then someone has to set rules and limits for them.
When adults act like children then they get treated like children.
People who use more energy should get charged more for it. Simple solution to a simple problem.
All adults that don?t follow the party line they should be treated like children.
You can fool all of the people some of the time.
(Some well intentioned people were duped by the liberal propaganda)
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
(The naive liberals will always march in mindless lockstep)
But you can?t fool all the people all of the time.
(Sanity will return to America in 2010)
The Energy Star label is voluntary. Companies use it for marketing purposes. It's value to sellers of appliances has pushed them to make their devices more energy efficient. What idot actually wants their devices with equal performance to use MORE energy? These manufacturers are geniuses at engineering more performance into their devices. Anything the government or anyone else does that encourages development of better energy efficient equipment is actually good no matter what your political "thought" might be.
The writer is the one who inferred an EPA attitude, it's NOT in the statement. I guess figuring that out requires you to actually read who said what instead of jumping to conclusions due to intellectual laziness. It's simple, if manufacturers want to get the Energy Star label for larger devices, then they need to make them more energy efficient. That's a win-win outcome. If they can't meet the standard, then they sell the units without the label. Wow, that's really a strong arm tactic from the big bad government.
If it does not carry the energy star sticker the price will usually be lower. That is because people like me seek out the energy star sticker on appliances. I am not environmentalist, but I am willing to pay an extra $50 now to save $500 over the next few years.
Oh wait.
You really think speeding fines are there to get people to drive safer? That's hilariously naive.
I remember all the TALK about how the 55 mph Federally mandated speed limit was to save gas and save lives. But I also remember the debates taking place at the state legislature level when that stupid (and unconstitutional) law was lifted.
Did they debate how much gas raising the speed limit would cost? Not really.
Did they debate how many more people would die in higher speed car accidents? Not a whole lot.
No, what where the first words out of their mouths when debating on raising the speed limits? "It will cost us XXX million dollars a year in lost revenue!!!!"
For those slow folks out there, that "lost revenue" they are worried about losing was the fines and fees collected by the assorted speed enforcement agencies. And you thought it was all about safety.
That's up to your elected representative.
What about work safety laws?
Product safety?
What is naive is you morons thinking this standard takes something away from you.
You right wing retards better not use public roads, call 911, etc, etc else you are nothing but hypocritical idiots easily manipulated by the right wing information ministry known as Faux news.
Sort of like the cigarette tax. If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow the Feds and States would be in huge trouble. Something like $9B was collected last year in cigarette taxes alone.
Although many speed limits are for other reasons (gas economy, whatever else you can dream up) especially on straight highways hundreds of miles long, many roads need speed limits to keep idiots from killing each other and innocent drivers and pedestrians.
Of course, those people who drive too fast and injure others could always just receive a bullet to the back of the head. Maybe then we could do without speed limits as evolution would remove the idiots by way of aforementioned bullet. Unfortunately, an innocent would have to be injured or die in order to catch the idiots. Maybe we should just be preemptive and give people an attitude and stupidity test when they apply for a drivers license. That way the people who think "because I'm a good driver I can go as fast as I want" can be weeded out and prevented from getting a drivers license in the first place.
As for the EPA stickers. It's just a sticker, get over it. So what if the TV you buy doesn't have one. It just doesn't matter unless you care about the environment, and so far from what I've seen the people doing most of the complaining are not thge type to give a cr@p anyway.
Don't bother reasoning with these Faux news watchers, they don't have the capacity to think.
You guys are seriously retarded.
I guess we will go back to the freedom of warrantless wiretapping.
How about all the people who can't afford to pay $600 + for an LCD TV (*depending on where you live)? IS the EPA going to fork over bucks so these people can trade in their TVs for shiny new energy efficient LCD TVs? Somehow I doubt it.
Did I remember to mention I HATE the government???
This isn't very complicated. If you want the sticker, meet the standards. That is it, nothing more, nothing less.
Well probably the most dangerous thing you have at home and at the office are those bulbs, they contain 25 miligrams of mercury and if they break the spill is almost imposible to clean (the particles are very small and they tend to become suspended...for you to inhale...
And now the TV sets, I dont know exactly where this guys are going but clearly if they wanted to make you use less power they should hike the price of KW/h, if you want a SUV a huge plasma, and a billion christmas lights at home, its your right and you should pay for it, no energy nazi telling everyone how to shop or whatever.
My 2 centavos.
The problem is if everyone buys a SUV, a huge plasma, and a billion christmas lights that is not sustainable. That is what you people don't understand. Everyone trying to maximize their income, toys, land, homes, is not sustainable.
Encouraging people to use less energy through a sticker(which is not mandated) is a good thing.
No, it isn't. What would be a 'good thing' would be to start building more nuclear power plants, coal power plants, etc. in this country, so that we finally have the power that we need to sustain our daily lives.
Now, encouraging people to 'use less power' is fine.... but NOT when you are surreptiously try to dictate to people what they buy and what size of thing they buy.
Yup, until the oil runs out, all the mountain tops have been destroyed and the environment is ruined.
It is NOT sustainable, these are all finite resources.
I realize you right wingers are retarded, but even simple concepts shouldn't trip you up so easily.
"If "Everyone trying to maximize their income, toys, land, homes, is not sustainable." is true, then would it not in itself provide the motivation for people to conserve?"
No it would not because people are greedy and short-sighted by nature.
"What would be a 'good thing' would be to start building more nuclear power plants, coal power plants, etc. in this country, so that we finally have the power that we need to sustain our daily lives. "
None of that is sustainable. They are all finite.
"but NOT when you are surreptiously try to dictate to people what they buy and what size of thing they buy."
If you actually think that is happening, then their is no hope for you.
You guys are so short-sighted and ignorant. "Drill baby drill" may excite the uneducated trailer trash but it is not a path to a lasting future.
but we see the real you in this post"
"No it would not because people are greedy and short-sighted by nature."
that is everyone but you, right?
I'm stopping reading your posts, it's clear that you can't have an open and honest debate with either side of this issue, unless everyone is as enlightened as you. is there such thing as a kill file on a c-net news post?
People who think our current rate of energy usage is sustainable must be from a different reality. One where coal doesn't pollute, all nuclear disposal problems have been solved, and oil lasts for ever.
@pentest your ideas are, for the most part, correct. Unfortunately no one will listen to people who throw insults around and display the attitude you do. I know it's hard not to get mad at people who can't see the truth right in front of their eyes, and I'm guilty of getting mad about it some times too, but you need an attitude adjustment dude.
How about this, Any of you Green Psycho****s care to come knocking on my door, I'll be sure to exorcise my Second amendment right to bare arms, attached to my hand, on which my middle finger sits waiting for you.
How much more of this can we take? Remember, mid term elections start next month. I think we need to dump ALL-OF-THEM and start over.
Ah, so you want to get rid of your right? Now I understand perfectly.
Bare Arms - As in Sleeveless
Post - As in humor
Political affiliation? F*** Off
Probably not.
It is funny how you people were happy to have Bush and Cheney burn the constitution and bill of rights, and commit war crimes because you are a coward, but if a government that is run by ,*gasp* a black man, sets standards for displaying a optional sticker, or tells children to stay in school and work hard(if you had done this, you wouldn't be so ignorant today) you nutbags start frothing at the mouth.
It is amazing how educated people scare those who worshiped the proudly ignorant war mongering criminal GWB.
You do realize there is a difference between spending money that will return is equal or more into a weak economy and throwing money down the pit in Iraq via Blackwater, Haliburton, etc? Of course you don't, you are not educated, and can only parrot Faux news lies.
- by USDecliningDollar September 9, 2009 9:47 AM PDT
- Pico Projectors - you heard it here first.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Lerianis3 September 9, 2009 10:35 AM PDT
- If the 'smart grid' actually does that.... expect to see the 'smart grid' become dumb again REAL ******* FAST! People will be RIOTING IN THE STREETS if their power costs increase ONE WHIT from the smart grids.
- Like this
-
- by martin1212 September 9, 2009 10:49 AM PDT
- @Lerainis3, please provide a reference for your claim that oil fields are refilling. There are known cases where oil is migrating from a neighboring field at a higher elevation, but that is no net gain, so is not really helping. I'm pretty sure that is what you are referring to. Other claims for refilling oil fields (aboitic oil) are mostly Soviet-era claims that are accepted by almost no petroleum geologists these days. Oil is of course still being created by the same way is was created historically but it is at a very low rate, maybe 1000 barrels per day. With consumption of 85 million barrels per day, that is not going to help much.
- Like this
-
- by pentest September 9, 2009 12:27 PM PDT
- Yeah, leria they are refilling from the magical oil pump.
- Like this
-
- by USDecliningDollar September 9, 2009 3:14 PM PDT
- Should have been more clear in my post regarding "oil". For things like electronics, oil/petroleum provides very little in the way of generating electricity. Coal is the biggie. As NREL's solar division chief Larry Kazmerski pointed out ... solar gets lots of attention when the price of oil goes up, but solar doesn't compete with oil. Long story short, Dr. Kazmerski state that we will have an energy crisis based on the growth of China and India. Dr. Kazmerski pointed out that we need to develop all energy sources because it will take everything that we have to meet the demands. I have heard similar comments from the likes of solar researcher - Vic Dalal of Iowa State University, who essentially said that it will take everything that we have to meet the energy demands of China and India.
- Like this
-
- by Mergatroid Mania September 9, 2009 3:24 PM PDT
- The smart grid is unlikely to restrict how much energy you use, but it might charge you more for it during peak hours. That's fine by me. I've always thought it would be better to charge the people who use the most energy more than the people who use less. For example, people who own 4x4s and SUVs should pay more for their gas.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (178 Comments)Interesting that people say "what business does the government have in telling me how big of a TV I can buy?" Just wait till the smart grid rolls out - maybe you can buy a 60" TV, but you will possibly have to decide between running the TV or the fridge.
In all honesty, I think that we are getting prepped for an energy crisis just down the road. I've listened to a number of sane speakers on alternative energy, and the general consensus was that we need to derive energy from all sources because in the next 5 - 10 years there will be an energy crunch - not simply petroleum.
As to there being a 'energy crunch'... get real! The fact is that we will NOT have an energy crunch in the slightest. We still have enough oil on this planet for the next 500 years, and some oil fields through a method mysterious to people are REFILLING! Only by about 1% or less a year, but they are still refilling.
As for the claim of 500 years supply, well that is pretty well out there and it would be wise not to put too much faith in that number. Instead consider the whole range of possibilities and plan taking into account the more pessimistic cases may be true.
You are seriously unhinged.
I know, people will whine and cry "I can use as much as I want and it's no ones business but my own and government should stay out, it's supply and demand" and further rot. But consider this. One thing these same people hate is communism. Why should we people who use less energy have to pay for the people who use more energy? Isn't that communism making everyone pay for the few people who use heavily? Shouldn't supply and demand mean people with more demand should pay more?
That's right, supply and demand. More demand = higher cost, less demand = lower cost. That's the capitalist American way isn't it?