|
Giant plasma TVs face ban in battle to green Britain – Green Living, Environment – The Independent — Meanwhile when engineers calculate the energy used per square inch of display — a more meaningful calculation — the difference is either nil, or the plasma has better numbers than a CRT. So the real anti-green thing here is the size, period. Smaller is greener, should be the catch-phrase.
Energy-guzzling flatscreen plasma televisions will soon be banned as part of the battle against climate change, ministers have told The Independent on Sunday.
“Minimum energy performance standards” for televisions are expected to be agreed across Europe this spring, they say, and this should lead to “phasing out the most inefficient TVs”. At the same time, a compulsory labelling system will be drawn up to identify the best and worst devices.
The moves, which follow last week’s withdrawal of the 100W incandescent lightbulb, are part of a drive to slow the rapid growth of electricity consumption in homes by phasing out wasteful devices and introducing more efficient ones. Giant plasma televisions – dubbed “the 4x4s of the living room” – can consume four times as much energy as traditional TVs that used cathode ray tubes (CRTs).
Over the past 30 years, the number of electric appliances and gadgets in a typical home has almost trebled – from 17 to 47 – as a host of devices from scanners to security systems, cappuccino makers to computer game consoles have joined the more traditional kettles, irons, vacuum cleaners and cookers.
Found by Joe Carlson.
#19 – Jägermeister
I like the scar on her tit. Scars and bruises are always hot.
#20 – Mister Mustard
If failed plastic surgery is a turn-on for someone, this lady will give give an instant orgasm…
I would say the main problem with many of these is instant on. That is they draw power even when they are supposed to be off.
If you use electric heat the energy from the giant big screen just means you use less in the heater during the winter. Running the tv should have no impact on your electric bill at all.
Of course if you run one during the summer and use and air conditioner you do run up your power bill more.
One of the unintended consequences of making products more efficient is that energy usage tends to stay the same over time. So when you increase the efficiency of a furnace, for example, people build bigger houses. If you make a more efficient engine, people buy bigger cars.
The only real effective way to get people to decrease energy usage is to increase the price/Joule. The oil shocks and other energy increases in the 1970s are a perfect example, as is the size of houses for most of mankind’s existence, and the sudden increase in the 1990s with the advent of 98% efficient gas furnaces and heat pumps.
#24–Eric==you got things a bit backward there. All other things being equal==bigger houses and cars is better than smaller. The GOAL of thinking green is not to reduce the quality of life but to increase or only maintain the quality of life within available resources. Its a simple equation not meant to reduce quality of life as some sackcloth of virtue.
With more people overpopulating the earth, yes, people will have to live with less impact, smaller houses and such==that is a consequence of too many people, not the purpose set goal of conservation.
This is simply a tax. The UK already taxes it’s citizens beyond sanity so they hide the taxes whenever they can. When I lived in Britain, there was always talk of needing new power -plants to keep up with the demand for electricity. So, tax the big screens to pay for more power and if they stifle the demand at the same time? Well, what the heck? The Brits are good at bunker mentality. Just remember: No new taxes on beer or fags! Go ahead and tax dentistry.
Just to provide some basis:
“Joan Ruddock, the UK’s Minister for Climate Change, said: “In 2006, consumer electronics used 15% of the UK’s total domestic electricity consumption. If we do nothing, that could double by 2020…” See:
http://news.icm.ac.uk/business/retail/standby-for-action/218/
And that’s for devices that are OFF!!!!
So the British government decides the way to cut greenhouse gases caused by electricity production is to outlaw light bulbs and appliances.
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to generate electricity by ways that do not create greenhouse gases?
The British government decides the way to cut greenhouse gases caused by electricity production is to outlaw appliances that use electricity.
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to generate electricity by ways that do not create greenhouse gases?
For TV’s it would be NICE to use better tech..
you TV is always in a STANDBY State to keep the PROGRAMMED channels, and INSTANT ON, charged..
Once we get CHARGED capacitors working. They can use them as Battery backup. AND instant on CHARGING..
I’d like to see the research that shows plasmas son’t use more power than LCDs. I did a quick look-up, and found:
Sony 52-inch LCD: 380 W
Panasonic 42-inch Plasma: 573 W
I have always found that a plasma pulls more power than an LCD, and this difference in consumption will increase as LED-driven LCDs become more prevalent. In addition, a\ properl-made LED-driven LCD has a color gamut superior to a plasma, as the LED light sources involved are closer to the points of the chromaticity chart.
It’s not really down to the British Government taking unilateral action to ban plasma screens.
EU governments are finalising a standard for televisions. There will be an EU mandatory regulation (which even our British government will have to comply with
) to ban worst performers such as large power hungry plasma screens in order to save electricity.
Plasma screens that are eco-friendly will not be banned.
Bobbo, that’s dangerous talk. You might find yourself cast out of the environmentalist movement. For too many of them, the goal is lowering the quality of life, at least in the aspects they don’t care about. So smaller cars and houses, eliminating suburbs and pushing everyone into the city, etc.
29,
smart…
AND what about the NEW Laservue..which is supposed to take 1/2 the power of LED.
31–Mike==yea, you are probably right. Quite often, to do “the right thing” sacrifices must be made. This all too often creates a “movement” that thinks however you sacrifice, you would be doing the right thing. Its a logic error you see happening all the time.
Jeebezus suffered on the cross, so if I beat myself with chains, I too will be virtuous. Its not true–just stupid.
Saving the environment ONLY for wildlife is not virtuous and doesn’t save the earth. All resources should be multi-use with due consideration for all the competing claims. How hoomans can be made to suffer the most will not aid in that analysis.
34,
The laser in laser-driven displays is used just like a high-output LED in any other projection system. THe Laservue TV uses a DLP HD image engine, the same as any LED-driven rear-projection set. The primary power saving is because you don’t have to use as many emitters.