Hide those Plasmas Boys and Girls!

cnh

Hey you West-coasters....Put those plasmas away because Guy Montag and his Firemen are coming for "YOU"!!!!

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/154936;_ylt=AndCVZ4QLy7rDrtOKCSUr9mXMJA5

cnh

hearingimpared

The Peoples Republic of Kalafornia strikes again!

Polkersince85

........and related equipment. No more of those power hungry amps?

Why don't they just build a nuke reacter and solve the problem.

Paden501

Amen. Building a new Nuke would keep me in business at least!

nooshinjohn

Cali can kiss my ****.

venomclan

Cali never makes sense to me. They are the masters of excess, yet pull this crap.

mrbofus

ever notice how 49 states have to conform to the policy on 1 state.

bobman1235

venomclan wrote: »

Cali never makes sense to me. They are the masters of excess, yet pull this crap.

Exactly. Guaranteed that they have 20x the national average of plasmas per capita with all of their wealthy people. Ridiculous.

mhardy6647

Tell you what: I'll give up Class A tube amps if they let me keep Class AB tube amps ;-)

Think of the opportunity this could represent for the manufacturers of high-efficiency loudspeakers! "More sound with less watts!"

bigaudiofanatic

I was somehow under the impression that lcd's and all took less power to run than normal tv's.

billbillw

You won't have to hide anything. The rules will affect new product models that will be manufactured after the 2011/2013 dates.

Kex

This was actually already discussed in another thread, about a month ago: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89841&highlight=California%2C+ban

Also, if you read the article, it states:

Rest assured, this doesn't mean the end of the television as we know it. As the California Energy Commission notes, as of now, over 1,000 televisions already meet the 2011 standards, so many manufacturers won't have to panic in order to comply with the regulations, at least for now.

But then, of course, there's this:

For example, Panasonic's 54-inch VIERA plasma TV would be allowed to draw 281 watts of power in "on mode." Today that set is rated to draw 293 watts of power. Smaller plasmas are generally OK under the 2011 specs, but virtually all of them fall short when put up against the 2013 rules. That same 54-inch plasma will be required to draw only 175 watts once 2013 arrives, a power reduction that just might not be possible.

The justification?

All told, the new rules are expected to save 6,515 Gigawatt-hours annually in the state, save the state $8.7 billion in costs for additional power plants, and save consumers $8.1 billion a year in lower energy bills.

Whether you agree with it or not, unfortunately, a lot of things seem to start of this way. Take the example of cars: would catalytic converters, seat belts, airbags, stability control ... ever have become standard equipment on all cars without a legal requirement? You could always argue that it's a free country and that you don't want to pay for any of those things, but where do you draw the line between freedom and anarchy.

A lot of things may be wrong with California, and it certainly costs far too much to live here for the average American family IMO, but personally, this particular bit of legislation doesn't frighten me.

packetjones

I think that this is ridiculous. who cares how much power it uses if you pay for it.

I understand the whole green movement but what about all the neon signs and other businesses that use way more than this everyday? goes to show how dumb the lawmakers are in this country.

Kex

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

I was somehow under the impression that lcd's and all took less power to run than normal tv's.

A chart with some numbers:

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/?tag=contentBody;nextPage

And also in this article:

Old CRT-based TVs are relatively inefficient, especially compared with LCD TVs; however, since CRT screen size is limited, they often don't use as much power as big flat-screen models. Rear-projection HDTVs are actually the most energy efficient per square inch of the TV technologies, but they're rare nowadays.

apphd

bobman1235 wrote: »

Exactly. Guaranteed that they have 20x the national average of plasmas per capita with all of their wealthy people. Ridiculous.

They were taken care of at the end of the article:

One additional point of note: The new rules currently don't apply to very large TVs, those of 1,400 square inches or larger (roughly a 58" set), although rules are likely to be enacted against these ultra-large sets in the second phase of this legislation.

It will be interesting to see if the second phase takes place, or due to the flack generated by phase 1 they just "forget" about the second phase.

KASR

Looks like my 60" DLP is safe, thank God!

inspiredsports

cnh wrote: »

Hey you West-coasters....Put those plasmas away because Guy Montag and his Firemen are coming for "YOU"!!!!

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/154936;_ylt=AndCVZ4QLy7rDrtOKCSUr9mXMJA5

cnh

Hide Plasma's, Yes, but it's a lot harder for those residents to hide their income where the state is arbitrarily swiping another 10% "withholding". (Yeah, they'll get that back) :rolleyes:

xj4094dg

This is just part of our master plan to keep all you haters from moving here. If any of your relatives are here, please tell them to move back to where they all came from.

inspiredsports

xj4094dg wrote: »

This is just part of our master plan to keep all you haters from moving here. If any of your relatives are here, please tell them to move back to where they all came from.

The bad part is that owning a big screen in Cali will become a moot point soon when there is a sporadic 80 VAC coming out of the breaker panel.

MrGlobe

I vote instead, they change the legislation to limit the electrical consumption of Walmart signs a little. Honestly thought, I understand it would be much more complicated, but maybe try and get America to do something OTHER than watch tv. I kind of feel like this is step one to the goverment enacting "TV Time" regulations.

xj4094dg

We can solve this with a few shiny new nuclear reactors. We haven't built one since the 1970's.

inspiredsports

xj4094dg wrote: »

We can solve this with a few shiny new nuclear reactors. We haven't built one since the 1970's.

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking that won't happen with the current Gore worship and green mindset out there. Well, I'm late, gotta drive my Prius to my private jet and swoop down to Caracas for lunch with Hugo

mhardy6647

xj4094dg wrote: »

We can solve this with a few shiny new nuclear reactors. We haven't built one since the 1970's.

Best of all, they're shiny even in the dark ;-)

zingo

Plama TV?!? You Cali guys better start hiding your OTL amplifiers! :eek:

BlueFox

inspiredsports wrote: »

The bad part is that owning a big screen in Cali will become a moot point soon when there is a sporadic 80 VAC coming out of the breaker panel.

I do believe the big screens are exempt from the regulations. Wait, I just read the article. They are exempt.

"One additional point of note: The new rules currently don't apply to very large TVs, those of 1,400 square inches or larger (roughly a 58" set), "

My current TV is 57". Anything smaller is unacceptable.

Anyway, the point is moot since technology will easily solve this problem in no time. The only thing missing was some 'motivation' to get the manufacturers off their lazy ****.

Remember how the car manufacturers whined and whined that having to install seat belts will cause cars to be priced out of reach? Then they whined and whined that smog controls would price cars out of reach. Then they whined and whined air bags would price cars out of reach. Now they are whining and whining that CO2 regulations are going to price cars out of reach.

No wonder the Japanese, and others, kick our business butts. Instead of whining, they innovate. You will have your TVs, amps, and whatever else. You just will have lower electric bills with the new equipment.

Monster Jam

Well we won't be far behind. Nevada is as California does.

inspiredsports

BlueFox wrote: »

I do believe the big screens are exempt from the regulations. Wait, I just read the article. They are exempt.

"One additional point of note: The new rules currently don't apply to very large TVs, those of 1,400 square inches or larger (roughly a 58" set), "

My current TV is 57". Anything smaller is unacceptable.

Anyway, the point is moot since technology will easily solve this problem in no time. The only thing missing was some 'motivation' to get the manufacturers off their lazy ****.

Remember how the car manufacturers whined and whined that having to install seat belts will cause cars to be priced out of reach? Then they whined and whined that smog controls would price cars out of reach. Then they whined and whined air bags would price cars out of reach. Now they are whining and whining that CO2 regulations are going to price cars out of reach.

No wonder the Japanese, and others, kick our business butts. Instead of whining, they innovate. You will have your TVs, amps, and whatever else. You just will have lower electric bills with the new equipment.

I'm not trying to challenge you, but come on, what part of they want to control every aspect of your life do you not understand. The "fox's nose is in the henhouse". If you own ANYTHING, they will regulate it, EVENTUALLY right down to the 2" screen on your cell phone.

zarrdoss

"its just one more way of reducing your liberties and reminding you that they can f**k with you anytime they want, as long as you put up with it, which of course means, anytime they want"

George Carlin

tonyb

Should be more like hide your wallet if you ask me....crazy ****'s out there.

Kex

We may be crazy mofos down here, but we're still a huge chunk of the U.S economy, so we don't do everything wrong. In fact, only New York and Texas are even in the same league (barely so ... since the GSP of California is about 50% more than the second richest state):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_(nominal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_nominal_GDP

GSP per capita has a few surprises, perhaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

Systems

xj4094dg wrote: »

We can solve this with a few shiny new nuclear reactors. We haven't built one since the 1970's.

If building were to begin now they might be done in 15-20 yrs,and ofcourse over budget by many times the original estimated cost to build.Atleast thats what happened with our latest nuke plant.