backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by Ajax9000.. on Oct 14 at 9:14 PM

Australian government propose regulations that would ban most plasma HDTVs

The popularity of large plasma and LCD HDTV sets is increasing at a swift pace across the world. The bigger and brighter the screens on the HDTVs get, the more power the sets require to operate.

Australian home theater fans looking to buy large screen plasma and LCD HDTVs may find it’s impossible to purchase them by 2011. The Australian federal government commissioned a report that found the popularity of high power drawing TVs like plasmas and LCD TVs are growing.

The government is proposing a new energy rating system based on six stars to alert consumers regarding the power performance of TVs. The Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) is reporting that under this proposed plan the majority of current plasma HDTVs wouldn’t meet requirements and would be removed from sale.

The report further suggests that minimum energy performance standards be adopted to eliminate poor performing products from sale in Australia. According to Tim O’Keefe, Australian Digital Suppliers Industry Forum coordinator, the problem with the plan is that it’s unrealistic to expect manufacturers to meet proposed guidelines so soon. O’Keefe is quoted by ABC as saying, “It's just totally unreasonable considering that we're a very small part of the global market.”

Gene McGlynn, Australian Greenhouse Office spokesman, counters O’ Keefe telling ABC, “By the time the standard came into place, with the industry knowing that the these standards are coming in, they can adjust their supply chains to make sure that the products will [meet the requirements].” By 2011 when the proposed regulations would go into effect plasma HDTVs could be replaced by alternate technology like SED TVs or OLED TVs that could potentially reduce energy requirements.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ron Paul
By Spivonious on 10/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ron Paul
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/11/2007 9:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is many young americans are stupid and still think that stuff will be around. Many older Americans want it because they never planned for their retirement. It's only the current working class 30-50 that seem to recognize that it likely wont be there for them.


RE: Ron Paul
By othercents on 10/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ron Paul
By Oregonian2 on 10/11/2007 2:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Probably is why I get Social Security statements periodically telling me how little I'm projected to get monthly when I retire (still about 15 years off).


RE: Ron Paul
By Haltech on 10/11/2007 6:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
I probably won't even get social security when I hit 65, I recently turned 18


RE: Ron Paul
By bupkus on 10/11/2007 1:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if Congress would stop raiding the social security coffers in order to pay for their pork we wouldn't have this problem.


RE: Ron Paul
By peter7921 on 10/11/2007 10:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ron Paul is the only honest politician, I have ever seen. Being a Canadian myself I can say that seeing my countries politics along with yours. His integrity is without question, his voting record is always consistent, and he's also a great speaker and fast on his feet.

When others use rhetoric he uses facts and the US constitution.

He is a non-interventionist trade with all, conflict with none. Except for in self-defence.

He also tells people about the hidden taxes we pay every year, when the government needs more money they just print more and in turn it lowers the value of our dollar.

He is a fan of the Austrian school of economics, and backs returning of the gold standard. Which will mean the dollar has real backing.

Now I don't agree with all his opinions but I would vote for him just because he is not afraid to tell the truth, knows what he's doing, and above all would make a real change in the US.

It almost makes me want to move to the US just to vote for him.

Watch the Republican debates on Youtube he is just great, my favourite moment is when all the others are following the same old crap line about terrorism "They hate us, because they hate freedom" when he says they hate us because where over there, because we interfere. He uses a great example of Iran when the US over through the government and put in place the Shaw that caused "blowback" and allowed the Iranian Revolution and the hostages of 1979.
Great link that explains it better:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger12...


RE: Ron Paul
By weskurtz0081 on 10/11/2007 10:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to comment on your post.

There are many things that lower the dollar, and negative balance of trade is a very large problem. You really cannot just look at it as the "value" of the dollar. You need to compare it to other currencies, while goes down against some it goes up against others.

Also, are you talking about a 100% gold standard? If so, can you name 1 country in the world that has a 100% gold standard? I don't think that it would be a good idea to base value of a currency on a scarce resource. The gold standard had many weaknesses. Its foremost problem was that its theoretical balancing effect rarely worked in reality.


RE: Ron Paul
By jhinoz on 10/11/2007 10:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
you may know this already, may not, but a reasonably accurate and amusing gauge of relative currency value is the big mac index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index


RE: Ron Paul
By weskurtz0081 on 10/11/2007 11:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's always a good one. Good to see someone throw up a link to it ;)


RE: Ron Paul
By maverick85wd on 10/11/2007 10:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
perhaps instead of gold the US can back it's currency with something else, like goods. A person who wants to turn in their 20 dollars for goods could get perhaps an item worth 20 dollars on the economy. I agree gold is insufficient for the backing of currency, perhaps there is another way. I am no economist so I don't know exactly how all that would work, but I do think changing how we back our money would restore people's faith in the dollar.

An idea I got from Heinlein in "For Us the Living" an outstanding book.


RE: Ron Paul
By weskurtz0081 on 10/11/2007 11:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
Restoring faith in the dollar would be pretty easy(so to speak). If Americans stopped spending so much damn money for one. Last year the US citizens spent 5% more than they made. That is pretty sad imo. If we can try to balance the trade, which China could help us do by valuing their own currency. If China were to do this, then our exports would increase, and our Chinese imports would decrease. With exports increasing the demand for the USD will also increase which will drive the value of the currency up.


RE: Ron Paul
By peter7921 on 10/11/2007 1:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
First let me start by saying that I'm on the fence about the Fiat versus Gold standard debate, and I am not an expert by any means.

I agree that there are many factors that influence the dollar. The problem with the Fiat system is that its not sustainable in the long term, and without a backing for the dollar of some kind you will see more and more problems.

I'm not saying it has to be the gold standard, but some kind of backing is needed to guarantee the stability of the currency.

Here is a link that I found interesting:
http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch17.asp


RE: Ron Paul
By omnicronx on 10/11/2007 10:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
when the government needs more money they just print more and in turn it lowers the value of our dollar.
Are you simply implying the government just makes more money when in dept and never pays it back? I was under the impression they take out loans, whether it be from banks or other countries.


RE: Ron Paul
By weskurtz0081 on 10/11/2007 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
They take the loan out from the Fed. at interest.


RE: Ron Paul
By Darkskypoet on 10/11/2007 11:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, The Fed or Central Bank, whichever, sells bonds, these bonds generate interest, and are used to back the money that is printed. Also, to constrict the money supply they can just as easily buy them back and remove this extra from circulation. The idea of just printing more money is hardly suitable to discuss the amounts were talking, as there isn't nearly enough printed dollars to account for all of the 'money' that exists.

Cash and coin is only a small amount of the money that exists in the system. China has the US 'by the balls' in a sense because they own so many of these bonds and other investment instruments. These bonds are (in the United States' case) very stable. However, If the government keeps increasing the money supply through this, and other methods, then yes they definitely contribute to inflation.

Add to this the threats by more then a few countries to start trading for oil, etc, in Euros, and you have a declining demand for American funds, and an increasing supply via the increasing of the money supply (printing money phenomenon). Thus a declining US dollar relative to other FLOATING currencies.

A special note: if the Chinese currency was FLOATING, then this policy would help American Exports, however since the yuan is simply pegged to the U.S Dollar, it continually decreases the costs to import anything from china for any country with a FLOATING currency that is appreciating against the USD.


RE: Ron Paul
By Felofasofa on 10/12/2007 8:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
Traditionally Japan held the US deficeit in the form of Bonds and US currency, now China pretty much has that role. The crunch will come when and if China's exports to the US slow and they are forced to cash in their bonds. This will put enormous downward pressure on the US dollar effectively curbing US buying power and drastically slowing the world economy. The current weakness in the US dollar reflects market concern about this very fact. The Aussie dollar is trading at record highs to the dollar with some predicting parity next year.


RE: Ron Paul
By jhinoz on 10/11/2007 10:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
I think he's talking abuot minting currency which does lower the dollar, and you're talking about borrowing from the world bank / other countries.

Either way we're all stuffed once China floats it's way undervalued currency.


RE: Ron Paul
By weskurtz0081 on 10/11/2007 11:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
jhinoz,

Chine is going to be in a pickle when they raise the currency. They are going to have a much harder time exporting goods. The Chinese economy is as strong as it is because of the devalued currency, if they raise it to fast, they will be cooked as well. Chinese currency value rises, other countries start to export more goods.

Also, there are many other aspects that drive the value of currency, minting more currency is only a very small reason for the currency fluctuations.


RE: Ron Paul
By jhinoz on 10/12/2007 3:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
the point in the post i was replying to only mentioned issuing currency..

Also, when the currency floats, we pay more for the exports, until other developing countries can get to the production levels needed to meet demand.

And no, China won't be screwed because they don't just export, and it works on the flip side as well, imports will be waaay cheaper, so industries like construction get a leg up. (think what would happen if all of a sudden their bill for coal, iron ore, oil etc was slashed in 1/2???)

Also, when you look at the growth of the Chinese economy, it's not possibly sustainable so the dampening effect of a drop in exports wouldn't be such a bad thing, and you'd get a shift towards other sectors (finance, construction, etc)


RE: Ron Paul
By peter7921 on 10/11/2007 12:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well governments do both.

Here's a couple links to explain what I mean. The first one is from Ron Paul himself.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst071706.ht...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_tax
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/benson0618...


RE: Ron Paul
By Ringold on 10/11/2007 9:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Check the wiki's sources. You mean to say two links from Ron Paul and one from a likely biased gold industry website.

As far as I'm aware, the Civil War was the last time the US printed money willy-nilly to meet funding requirements and even then it was mostly the extremely cash-strapped Confederates. We sell bonds in an open and transparent way to meet all current government funding needs. We ask not, and it matters not, who the buyers are, and the free market determines the value of the bond at a given coupon rate.


RE: Ron Paul
By InsaneGain on 10/11/2007 12:48:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
they hate us because where over there, because we interfere.


I disagree, and I believe this is a naive understanding of the sitauation. I believe that terrorism is primarily motivated by opinion leaders in Islamic society that fear the inexorable assimilation of modern secular western ideas and the eventual and gradual disappearance of Islamic culture and religion. There is a video of a Saudi cleric visiting Osama in Afghanistan soon after 9/11, and one of the first things Osama asked was if the youth in Saudi Arabia are showing renewed and increased enthusiasm for Islam. I believe that Islamic militants will continue to attack the west until they feel the spread of it's secular ideas and influence is no longer an issue. Of course the first step is eliminating obvious western presence, such as western military bases and workers in the middle east.


RE: Ron Paul
By peter7921 on 10/11/2007 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 3
Religious fundamentalism is to often used as an excuse for the reason of terrorism. The 911 commission report clearly states Osama was angered by the US troops and bases in Saudi Arabia.

Did you know the Tamil Tigers a Marxist Secular group is the leader in suicide terrorist bombers.

Iraq did not have one suicide attack before the invasion in Iraq.

2/3 of all terrorist attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed.

Anyways all of these facts i got from this statement from Ron Paul heres the link.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html


RE: Ron Paul
By InsaneGain on 10/12/2007 1:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religious fundamentalism is to often used as an excuse for the reason of terrorism.

It isn't an 'excuse', it is blatantly obvious it is the driving force behind terrorism. To be honest, if this isn't obvious to someone, I would be very skeptical of their abilities to competently make insightful strategic decisions for a world power. The fact is, to the Islamic fundamentalists, the spread of western secular, consumerist, liberal democratic culture is "interfering".
In his latest video, why did Osama vow to attack Americans until they all convert to Islam???? Again, why did a video made right after the 9/11 attacks show Osama asking a visiting Saudi cleric if the attacks caused a renewed interest in Islam? Much to OBL satisfaction,here is part of the response from the Saudi cleric:
"the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that followed the (9/11) operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: "We don't have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam." This event (9/11 attacks) made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly."

Why does Saudi Arabian official school curriculum indoctrinate youths from 1st grade to 12th grade to hate and fight any non-muslims? This is important because Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islamic militancy. If you read about the curriculum, it becomes very obvious it has nothing to do with American foreign policy, but everything to do with the Wahhabi Islam sect which controls Saudi society defending the faith against "infidels".

quote:
The 911 commission report clearly states Osama was angered by the US troops and bases in Saudi Arabia.


To be honest, I put far more faith in my own critical thinking abilities than those of some government committee.

I really don't see how other suicide attacks around the world are relevant to Islamic militancy against the western world.


RE: Ron Paul
By rudy on 10/11/2007 5:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem is that to many people will not do this and you will end up paying for them in some way or another. I personally think the Government should cover medical and retirement, just roll it into our taxes and make it a permanent policy and every one should get it, and if you want extra you save it for yourself or get special add on insurance. The reason is because guess who gets the best medical coverage in the US? Yep its the losers on medicaid not the people who lay down good money for blue cross blue shield. But the guy laying down his own money also is paying for the loser through his taxes. Every time you turn around you see another article about people defaulting on home loans, Americas high debt per person, credit card trouble. Come on, do you think these people have a bleeping clue how to save money for retirement? The reason we have the government take care of it is cause no matter how stupid the politicians are the people who voted for them are far worse. One way or the other in a society like the US where people are moral enough to not let a guy starve to death all the people need to be taken care of, why not have your taxes go back to us in benefits while they are taking care of the losers as well?


RE: Ron Paul
By Spivonious on 10/12/2007 1:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
Give a man a fish and he eats for day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Once the government hand-outs stop, people will realize "hey wait, I actually have to think about what I'm spending."

You bring up defaulting on homeloans and the high debt per person in the US. This is all caused by banks loaning money to people who shouldn't have been able to get money. For example, my wife and I bought our first house this year. We make a combined $60,000 gross income. Using the bank's suggested 33% of income on debt payments, that would give us $1650/mo payments. That ends up being about a $215,000 house including all taxes and insurance. But did they pre-approve us for $215k? Nope - we were pre-approved for $300,000. If we had taken the bank's word for it and bought a house that much we would be eating spaghetti every day for the next 30 years! All of these foreclosures are forcing the money-loaning business to get a reality-check. Most companies have reevaluated their approval processes and as a result it's much harder to get a loan these days.

Do people on welfare actively try to get jobs? Do single moms on welfare stop having more babies? No! The average American has become lazy. We need the government to stop supporting its people and just do its job of protecting its people. These programs were meant to be a temporary way of getting people back on their feet during the Great Depression in the 30s; why are they still here? In 2004 almost $500 billion was paid out to Social Security recipients. If that money had been paid to every person in the country, that comes out to over $1500/person. I'm sure that money could have been used in a better way.

Another post pointed out that SS is just supplemental income to most who receive it, so why give it out at all? If you were stupid enough not to save for retirement, then you don't get to retire. It's the same as now, where we see 70 year-olds working at Walmart. If you can point out someone to me who is retired and is living solely off of SS, then I'll shut up and agree that the system works.

Social healthcare is just a plain bad idea. Look at the UK and their 2 week waits to see a doctor, not to mention the less-than-sterile conditions at the hospitals. Just Google for "british hospital infection" to see what I mean.


RE: Ron Paul
By Ringold on 10/11/2007 9:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Spivonious, you stirred up more gold-backed currency nuts than I've seen in months, and I think it accelerated my hair loss slightly and my loss of faith in the education of the standard American, so I blame you. :P

That comment up there (not by Spiv) about the current monetary system not being sustainable.. I don't know if you are or not, but that's the same sort of mistaken thinking that leads Europeans to tpyically see economics and prosperity as a pie of fixed sized; if the rich benefit therefore the poor must suffer. No; the pie can grow. The Austrian school, so to speak, doesn't get much play because our current system simply works much better. Macroeconomic stability is far easier to promote and if one looks at relevant, publically available data from the Federal Reserve (FRED is a good database) its clear that stability along the long term rate of growth has been improving since the Volcker years. A low rate of inflation helps grease the wheels of economic expansion and economic expansion can continue on indefinitely . Given that government bonds yield more than inflation (if they didn't what fool would buy them?) I don't understand the whining.

Beyond that, the idea there wouldn't be inflation is... mindless. Most of the time, there would be deflation -- far more damaging than inflation! Why? There's only so much gold in existance, but unless we start killing babies and capping the number and value of products in the market place both the population and number of goods will increase. On the flip side, when more gold does enter the market, what is that? Uncontrolled inflation. This devastated Spain when it pulled in all that wonderful gold that it raped from the New World.

His gold-standard nonsense and reluctance to play a little dirty (I can't think of a president widely considered even a minor great that didn't lie through his teeth to the American people and the world in order to keep the country on track), such as his admission on Bill Maher last year that he'd not consider assasinating Osama, places me in the camp that thinks he's a really nice guy but a quack. He's like a Barry Goldwater that takes his own ideology far too seriously.


RE: Ron Paul
By Darkskypoet on 10/11/2007 11:44:22 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed, the gold backed system is not the way the US ought to head. However, stopping the foreign policy linked spending orgy would definitely be something to kill, and kill soon. If your going to deficit spend like that, at least invest it in your own nation for pity's sake. Every kid in the U>S could have had some form of post secondary paid for, for the same price as the extra Iraq spending...

The United States will be caught, and surpassed economically, by the largest industrial / postindustrial revolution this world has ever seen... The sad part is that blaming the undervalued yuan is missing the entire point. Yes, its undervalued. However, even if properly valued, the US would still have a very hard time competing. Well over a billion people are scrambling, fighting, and working their asses off to get close to the life we have, and they aren't as lazy and soft as we have become.

Simply put, they work harder for lower wages, and have been steadily supplementing low Wage rates with increasing capital investment. Add to that the Foreign Direct investment and technology transfers they have been receiving and its boom time.

Also, its kinda nice to see in a way: the developed nations have been fucking over the less developed nations for a long time with declining terms of trade, and IMF/world bank enforcements of SAPs, and comparative advantage rules limiting them to primary exports.

Thanks to China the over inflated price of manufactured goods will drop. Thats been a long time in coming.


RE: Ron Paul
By andrinoaa on 10/12/2007 8:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
you guys need to get out a bit more. See the world, smell the flowers. LOL.


RE: Ron Paul
By Christopher1 on 10/12/2007 2:38:50 PM , Rating: 1
Lazy and soft? Excuse me, but United States people are not 'lazy and soft'. It just happens that we do not have to break our backs in fields and factories anymore because we realized that we were being taken advantage of by business owners, spoke up and made them treat us the way that they should have been treating us.

Is that 'lazy and soft' to you? That is the absolute STUPIDEST thing that I have ever read, that Americans are 'lazy and soft' and only someone who has no idea what lazy truly is would say something like that.

The world has changed in the United States, and we do very good work and are NOT lazy at all. The other people around the world in places like China are just workaholics who haven't realized that they are killing themselves working for very little, if any, benefit to themselves and have not stood up to the big business owners and their governments yet.


RE: Ron Paul
By Spivonious on 10/12/2007 3:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
Pull your head out of the sand!

China (those workaholics who work for little, if any, benefit to themselves) are undoubtedly on top of the world economy. Next time you go shopping for anything , check to see where the parts were made.

Americans have become lazy. Rather than take pride in the product and compete with other markets, our unions just strike so they can continue to get paid more while Toyota sucks up the marketshare and GM continues to go even deeper into red.


RE: Ron Paul
By Davelo on 10/12/2007 6:19:59 PM , Rating: 1
So Ron Paul wants to ban plasma TVs? In that case I'm not voting for him.


Who Writes These Things?
By DaveLessnau on 10/11/2007 8:31:20 AM , Rating: 5
OK. I'm going to pass over commenting on the weenie-fication of the Australian psyche. But, who writes these articles (both here and at the source)? What does it mean by "large screen plasma and LCD HDTVs?" AFAIK, LCDs (and plasma) are far more energy efficient than CRTs. Did something change? Do these marsupials want to replace them with CRTs? Or, is the problem with the HDTV side of things? Are they saying they draw more power than standard definition televisions and HDTV should be banned? Or, is the problem with "large screen" and no one should be able to buy a television bigger than a postage stamp? There are 3 variables in this equation and neither DailyTech nor the linked source differentiate between them. Did someone ban editors because they weren't energy efficient, too?




RE: Who Writes These Things?
By semo on 10/11/2007 9:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
my 28" crt draws less around 100watts.

how much power does a 50" plasma draw? where in the article does it suggest that tvs bigger than a postage stamp would be banned?


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By Boushh on 10/11/2007 10:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
I've a LG 50" Plasma screen and according to the manual it consumes 450 Watt. However, I recon this is only the case when it is set at it's brightest and with a complete white image on the screen.

With a black screen it would consume considerably less (because there is no backlight to feed), the normal use will also be lower.

LCD screens typicaly see less power requirements than a Plasma screen, but generaly use that power continious because (mostly) the backlight is always on.

Low power consumption is generaly for much smaller LCD computer screens. But big screens indeed use much more power. However, looking at the power equirements of AV Receivers (specially those of Onkyo) you'll see that these use even more power than the big screens. So maybe they should outlaw them aswell ?


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By omnicronx on 10/11/2007 11:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
If you receiver says it pulls 500 watts, that doesn't actually mean it continually runs at 500. That would be 500w @ max rms meaning your system would have to be cranked with every channel at max power. Whats more is the max RMS is usually only met when you are listening to music (ever wonder why your 5.1 ht in a box with 500 total watts seems like your satellites are running at 20-30w when watching tv or movies?). Even with my huge speakers and my yami receiver i hardly ever draw more than 300w rms of power, and i can't hear for a week after i do it, so it doesnt happen often.
(p.s most sub's are not passively powered so they do not draw anything from the receiver as they have their own powersource)

So plasmas will eat up a lot more electricity that your receiver ever will, furthermore most people don't have good speakers anyways to utilize the receiver to its full potential.

Worst part is Plasma manufacturers do have the ability to conserve more energy, i am sure of that. Its just probably too costly, considering how much more plasmas cost than lcd's in the first place.


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By lco45 on 10/12/2007 7:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Hi Omnicronx,

I'm pretty sure they use the same power displaying black or white.
The light is always on, but the LCD coils or uncoils in front of each pixel.

Could be wrong though...

Luke


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/12/2007 11:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's correct. The electric impulse to the twisted nematic is virtually nothing as well. It's the backlights that draw the majority of the power.


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By Lonyo on 10/11/2007 10:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
42" plasma draws 250~350w depending on what's going on (based on my experience, and from memory, so it's only a rough range).


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By Oregonian2 on 10/11/2007 2:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
my 28" crt draws less around 100watts.


So how much does a 28" plasma or LCD consume?


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By semo on 10/11/2007 6:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
i think you can expect a 32" lcd tv to draw around 100w, not sure about plasma.

i was just trying to make a point that the op is just ranting and should calm down. i doubt he even lives in australia


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By MrPickins on 10/11/2007 2:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
My 34" CRT HDTV has a max of 280W.

I'm guessing that's more than an lcd, and probably close to plasma.


RE: Who Writes These Things?
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 3:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AFAIK, LCDs (and plasma) are far more energy efficient than CRTs

LCDs yes, plasmas no. The large plasma screens aren't really less energy efficient than CRTs, but they aren't really any better either. It's not unusual for a 40"+ plasma to consume over 400W of power at peak consumption. A similar LCD would probably consume about 200-250W.

The story is pretty light on details so I'm not sure just how the ruling would be applied and what models would be affected.


By BernardP on 10/11/2007 8:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
The global warming collective hysteria has no end. While we in developped countries quibble about small things, China and India keep building coal-fired power plants at record pace.

Of course pets should be forbidden: those critters breathe and thus emit CO2. Also think about all the CO2 emitted in the pet food manufacturing chain.

As for carbonated drinks, it is time governments of the world intervene to stop emissions of the CO2 gas contained in all these tiny bubbles. Sorry, there drinks are no longer socially acceptable. From now on, it's only water and milk. Oops!, no milk either, because of all those methane-producing cow farts. And no bottled water either.

Are you thirsty yet?

As for the original subject, there is already a new wave of plasma TV's coming next year with much reduced power consumption.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/11/2007 8:48:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The global warming collective hysteria has no end. While we in developped countries quibble about small things, China and India keep building coal-fired power plants at record pace.

Because they could care less. Then again, the developed world blew this whole thing way out of proportion. What we are seeing is the government reaction by trying to look like they are doing something important. It will be interested to see the flack they catch in the history books when all of this is shown to be alarmist propaganda in 10+ years.


By fake01 on 10/11/2007 9:08:58 AM , Rating: 4
I'm Australian and I can tell you that our Prim Minister John Howard didn't give a rats ass about global warming until the up coming election started. In fact he rejected it, and even admitted it on TV.

My best bet is that this is just a scam to get more votes. You should hear/see all the crap he has been doing lately, its freaking me out.

Also keep in mind that the biggest CRT's here are about 80cm and the biggest LCD/Plasma is about 160cm. I mean I doubt LCD/Plasma can use less than "HALF" as much powwer as a CRT, so technically since people here these days like to go big, they use more power.


By fake01 on 10/11/2007 9:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
I meant to say ploy not scam, if only there was an edit button, I make myself sound stupid :(


By jhinoz on 10/11/2007 9:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we are seeing is the government reaction by trying to look like they are doing something important.


This has everything to do with the upcoming election, and trying to save some shades of green hue in the govs glowing policy book, given the Gov recently approved a pulp mill in tassie that's going to do a fair bit more damage than a couple of (ok, well a lot of) fancy TVs.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2056...


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/11/2007 9:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I agree. The elections coming up seemed to have put this sort of thing in full swing in several countries.


By dug777 on 10/11/2007 9:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
Just out of interest, if it doesn't turn out to have been alarmist propaganda, will you be glad they tried to do something?

There's a vast body of scientists out there that says it isn't alarmist propoganda, and what do you expect a rational and responsible government to do? Side with the alarmists, the stone cold sceptics, or take a line somewhere in between, but erring on the responsible side of caution?


By Oregonian2 on 10/11/2007 2:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is that doing things to "feel good" and to be able to say that they at least tried, or to just "look responsible" consumes resources and money that could have been used toward something that really made things better.


By Christopher1 on 10/12/2007 2:31:44 PM , Rating: 1
The problem with those scientists is that they have said before their studies that there must be a problem because the polar ice caps are melting and other things are changing, therefore they go about their research with that in mind and don't really look for things to prove them wrong.

That's the same issue with some sex research connected to pedosexuals, they assume it must be an 'abberant sexuality' therefore they don't look for anything that would prove them wrong or prove differently.

I have no respect for the majority of most scientists today, especially connected with global warming, because they are not following the proper scientific method.
If we were to follow that proper scientific method, we would learn that the size of the polar ice caps fluctuates each century, sometimes disappearing totally or near totally, other times getting bigger because the sun puts out less heat and volcanic eruptions around the world put stuff into the atmosphere that keep some of the solar energy from getting to the earth.


By winterspan on 10/12/2007 6:55:32 PM , Rating: 1
"I have no respect for the majority of most scientists today, especially connected with global warming, because they are not following the proper scientific method.
If we were to follow that proper scientific method, we would learn that the size of the polar ice caps fluctuates each century, sometimes disappearing totally or near totally, other times getting bigger because the sun puts out less heat and volcanic eruptions around the world put stuff into the atmosphere that keep some of the solar energy from getting to the earth."


You are a complete moron. First of all, you say you have no respect for the "majority of scientists today" because they "don't follow the scientific method". That's an incredibly bold comment coming from an armchair "climatologist".

And then you try to "disprove" the human effects on climate change by vomiting out some ignorant and dumbfounding pseudo-science bullshit about volcanic eruptions and solar output.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Do you have any scientific training at all? Did you go to "Dumbshit University"? Get a fucking clue!

At least with the right-wing ideological zealots and the amatuer "scientists" paid by the energy companies to inject doubt and misleading commentary, they use complex scientific theory that laymen don't understand so they appear to be "intelligent" to the commoner. In your case, Even Joe six-pack can tell you're an imbecile.


By ADDAvenger on 10/11/2007 10:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It will be interested to see the flak they catch in the history books when all of this is shown to be alarmist propaganda in 10+ years.


Too bad nobody reads those either


By BernardP on 10/11/2007 10:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting how one gets downrated only for expressing semi-humorous disagreement with the Global Warming Orthodoxy. I must have forgotten that The-Science-Is-Settled and that even discussing the subject is now forbidden by the Climate Change Ayatollahs.


This is just following US and UK proposals
By Ajax9000 on 10/11/2007 9:50:45 PM , Rating: 6
This is NOT a proposed regulation (yet), it is a discussion paper about an energy star rating system. Here is the actual discussion paper: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/200710...

What the consultant did was analyse actual power consumption measurements against suggested US EPA and UK MTP standards. These putative standards take the approach that current energy consumption for televisions is not good, is known to be able to be improved, and so must be improved; thus the suggested standard/star-rating is deliberately designed to give poor rankings to what is currently on the market.

In and of itself this is fine (to me), but there is a key problem -- plasmas are inherently much more variable in their power consumption patterns and this makes it hard to give a "fair" energy consumption figure. I.e. it is easy to design a test that will artificially benefit or penalise plasmas. This is fairly well known and the discussion paper has a whole Appendix devoted to the subject. The upshot is that a new international test methodology has been proposed to address the problem.

The discussion paper tested 116 CRT, LCD, and Plasma TVs using the new methodology and they found that when energy efficiency is measured as Watts per square cm:
quote:
The data makes it hard to single out Plasma for special attention although it appears on average that they do not perform as well as LCD. In fact the 2 worst performing televisions are a CRT and an LCD.


They do not publish their raw data but it appears that in statistical terms the average for plasmas falls within the +/- 1 standard deviation range of LCDs and the average for LCDs falls within the +/- 1 standard deviation range of plasmas.

(BTW, this is the result from this data set -- http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html -- which used a methodology that is a crude version of the new international test.)

The implications of the two sets of results are very important:- the energy consumption pattern of plasmas substantially overlaps that of LCDs .

So why then are the reports of this paper scaremongering about plasmas, and make little or no mention of LCD?

It gets back to the fact that the report analysed the measurements against the suggested US EPA and UK MTP standards. Under the MTP proposal roughly two-fifths of LCDs fall below the standard for 1-star, and roughly four-fifths of plasmas fail. I.e. the MTP proposal sets the benchmark between the averages of the two technologies.

Personally I find this deeply suspicious -- it looks like one technology is deliberately being targeted/penalised and the other favoured. Whilst it could be argued that this is a result of the MTP possibly using the average of the whole population and it is simply plasmas tough luck that on average they fall just below the threshold, as someone who has worked in an environment protection department I can say that good policy development tries to avoid such complications.

The US EPA proposal is more balanced in that it places the threshold well below the average for plasma, CRT, and LCD -- i.e. all the technologies are given an equally bad rap. :-)

Interestingly, it would appear that rear projection displays would rate in the range 4-star to 6-star under the suggested US EPA and UK MTP standards.

(See here for graphs of the cNet data:- http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=55466 .)

As I said, I don't mind the suggested standard/star-rating being deliberately designed to give poor rankings to what is currently on the market. But I do mind the standard/star-rating being designed such that two technologies that perform so similarly are treated differently.

I think it would be better if the standard/star-rating was designed such that (say) most current plasmas/LCDs/CRTs rated in the range of 0.5-star to 1.5-star, and most current RP sets rated about 4-stars.




By Ajax9000 on 10/14/2007 9:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
DTV forum moved the link, sorry. Now at: http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=55350...


Projection<LCD<Plasma
By scrapsma54 on 10/11/2007 4:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
Lcd seem like the dominant technology. Its cheaper, has a slightly lower profile, and is dominant in modern Display tech. And now Lc has surpassed Crt in color and response time.
Take the improved contrast ratio's in Samsung and LG.
Plasma can no longer pretend it is superior, the pixel pitches are horrible, after extended use they whine, and upscaling quality is terrible. The 2 superior Technologies available are
LCD and DLP.




RE: Projection<LCD<Plasma
By jajig on 10/12/2007 1:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
Please cite a an LCD tv with better colour and response time than a CRT. I have never seen an LCD that can hold a stick to my HD CRT, only the Sony Bravia line comes close but the dark colours look awful.


RE: Projection<LCD<Plasma
By Christopher1 on 10/12/2007 2:34:18 PM , Rating: 1
Basically, any if you aren't really picky! Some people are just picky about their 'colors' and don't realize that they are being that picky. I was looking at LCD and Plasma TV's at Best Buy recently, and was SHOCKED at how good the pictures were, better than my Phillips CRT TV that my parents bought for me almost 10 years ago.


RE: Projection<LCD<Plasma
By Felofasofa on 10/12/2007 8:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
My 46" Bravia looks pretty damn good across the range including dark colours and typically sony black blacks. According to sony's specs power consumption is 260w. The thing is huge, I call it the "big" screen. A small bar heater chews more juice than that.


I'm quite happy with the proposals ;)
By dug777 on 10/11/2007 8:13:55 AM , Rating: 1
If you can't make the grade, and we're so insignificant on a global scale that you can't be bothered making models to sell here, don't ;)

Someone will, and it's not like 2011 is tomorrow.

You'd be daft to think many other countries won't be going the same way soon enough anyway, I would have thought...




RE: I'm quite happy with the proposals ;)
By clovell on 10/11/2007 11:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
It will happen without government intervention. I fail to see the need to waste taxpayers' money on something so frivolous as pretending to regulate an economy.


By Ringold on 10/11/2007 9:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, a mix on the Soviet joke came to mind, given that Congress' approval rating is in the 20s and turnout still historically low..

Politicians pretend to regulate and voters pretend to care.


In a related story
By jajig on 10/11/2007 9:20:47 AM , Rating: 5
I'ts just a proposed power rating system like us Australians already have on air conditioners, clothes dryers, heaters etc, etc.

quote:
Mr Turnbull says the rating system would not mean the death of flat-screen TVs.

"Reports of the death of LCD and plasma TVs are grossly exaggerated - there is no plan to phase out or ban LCD or plasma TVs," he said.


http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2056313....




By pookemon on 10/11/2007 8:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
The idea behind "banning" Plasma's and LCD's came as a recommendation by the body that prepared the report. Turnbull (The Environment Minister) came out and said that none of the TV's would be banned. Even if they were, it would simply mean you couldn't buy them, not that you'd have to chuck your existing screen.

Personally I'm surprised that LCD are power guzzlers as they are "12V devices" - I can only presume that it's something to do with the back lighting.




Power hungry screens
By andrinoaa on 10/12/2007 7:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
I for one agree that its overdue. Lets not get too carried away with all the latest gadgets. If it means we will get more energy efficient screens, it will mean I can watch and use relatively less power.This is good, no? As for the article, don't hold your breath. Don't believe every thing you read and read carefully! It has so many holes, I for one ain't expecting any changes that wouldn't happen any way.
I am way too cynical, as is most of Australia at the moment, to even think this government has our good at heart. Its just the death throws you can read.




heh
By omnicronx on 10/11/2007 10:21:25 AM , Rating: 1
Instead of banning plasmas they should just deport all the natives like they did for the 2000 sidney olympics.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Related Articles
Legal Battles Put SED on the Rocks
January 1, 2007, 2:29 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki