California considering banning giant TVs

2009-10-21 19:35:18

#1

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|6715

I think this a great idea and a good start to saving California money on how much they spend on energy...
Computers and cell phones not being used will also help... and the house lights on at night do seem a little much...
Candles are an excellent source of light... but they do create smoke...oh well... stay tuned till we tell you what you can use in your home....
until then....do your part...

"Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's governor, has supported controversial proposals by the California's energy commission to impose strict energy consumption limits on TVs with screens that are more than 40 inches wide.

The commission claims that California's estimated 35 million televisions and related gadgets account for about 10 per cent of household energy consumption in the state.

Experts say that the large LCD or plasma screen sets can use three times as much power as traditional models.

Some TV manufacturers are fighting the plan but have reportedly said little to sway the commission, which could vote on it within weeks.

The new law, the first of its kind in America, would set maximum energy consumption standards for TVs that would be implemented over two years from January 2011."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -TVs.html#

Love is the answer

2009-10-21 19:37:37

#2

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5701|College Park, MD

They wouldn't ban giant TVs. They would only ban giant TVs that use a huge amount of power.

LED and OLED technology uses far less power than plasma technology does. LED TVs are pretty common, OLEDs not so much (and the ones that do exist are very expensive). If they enact it, they ought to make the deadline much later. People will not be happy if they can't buy a $1500 52" TV and instead have to opt for a $3000 11" TV.

Or they'll just buy them out of state and CA will lose out on that potential sales tax income.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-10-21 19:46:28

#3

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6521|...

California

2009-10-21 20:35:29

#4

=NHB=Shadow: hi; +322|6365|California

Actually I would agree with this, I have a 55inch hdtv and a 32inch tv that my dad uses to watch chinese cable and NFL, and then I have my 65inch HDTV w/ a sound system to play my xboxlive(which I don't even play anymore, and yes it is a waste lol! oh well, if you live in a upscale neighborhood you can afford it.

2009-10-21 20:46:08

#5

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6674|Canberra, AUS

It would actually be more intelligent to have a sliding-scale levy/subsidy that levies/subsidies appliances exponentially based on how much power they used compared to a standard.

Not the worst move though.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-21 21:55:20

#6

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6674|Canberra, AUS

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Candles are an excellent source of light... but they do create smoke...oh well... stay tuned till we tell you what you can use in your home....
until then....do your part...

LEDs man. They're awesome.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-21 22:19:50

#7

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

People with higher wattage TVs already spend more money on their monthly energy bill. THAT is their penalty. It's not the governments place to tell you what you can or can not buy for use in your own home.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-21 22:22:22

#8

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6674|Canberra, AUS

Hence why a levy/subsidy scale is better than a straight ban.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-21 22:25:09

#9

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6650|USA

Spark wrote:
Hence why a levy/subsidy scale is better than a straight ban.

Awww, yes, the mother of all solutions, tax the fuck out of the earners. I love you Spark.

2009-10-21 22:27:22

#10

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5701|College Park, MD

JohnG@lt wrote:
People with higher wattage TVs already spend more money on their monthly energy bill. THAT is their penalty. It's not the governments place to tell you what you can or can not buy for use in your own home.

Very good point. Maybe Cali should stop being retarded and build that god damn solar panel array that would provide enough energy for like half the state.

I mean I'm all for ecological conservation but at some point you gotta draw the line and realize that it'd be a major benefit to us despite killing some species.

2009-10-21 22:36:13

#11

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6674|Canberra, AUS

Why aren't they building it?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-21 22:37:37

#12

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5701|College Park, MD

Spark wrote:
Why aren't they building it?

something about how it would kill a couple endangered species I think.

2009-10-21 22:38:45

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

Spark wrote:
Hence why a levy/subsidy scale is better than a straight ban.

That'll surely solve the states budget woes.

A) People will just buy in Nevada/Oregon
and
B) Taxing just removes money from the consumer so that money can not be spent on something else. This will surely help the struggling California businesses as well. Consumption taxes lower consumption which in turn reduce revenues that would've been gained under the previous sales tax. It's robbing tomorrow to fund today and there's far too much of it going on in this country right now.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-21 22:40:16

#14

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Spark wrote:
Why aren't they building it?
something about how it would kill a couple endangered species I think.

Turtles

It's amazing that Feinstein made billions off of selling that land to the Federal government in the first place and now that they actually want to use it for something she's got her panties in a twist.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-21 22:45:13

#15

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|5993|Truthistan

Banning large TVs to save electricty = fail

I read a fun info fact that went like this

"what's white, costs less than $3.00, would save millions of dollars of electricity and is banned by every home owners assocation in California"

answer = A clothes line

Maybe the govt should first strip those probhibitions out of HOA rules to restore peoples' choice to use clothes lines, before looking at TVs

2009-10-21 23:03:43

#16

krazed: Admiral of the Bathtub; +619|6779|Great Brown North

Diesel_dyk wrote:
Banning large TVs to save electricty = fail

I read a fun info fact that went like this

"what's white, costs less than $3.00, would save millions of dollars of electricity and is banned by every home owners assocation in California"

answer = A clothes line

Maybe the govt should first strip those probhibitions out of HOA rules to restore peoples' choice to use clothes lines, before looking at TVs

what the fuck? why did they ban clotheslines? those save a load of money for us in the summer

2009-10-21 23:10:31

#17

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5701|College Park, MD

krazed wrote:
Diesel_dyk wrote:
Banning large TVs to save electricty = fail

I read a fun info fact that went like this

"what's white, costs less than $3.00, would save millions of dollars of electricity and is banned by every home owners assocation in California"

answer = A clothes line

Maybe the govt should first strip those probhibitions out of HOA rules to restore peoples' choice to use clothes lines, before looking at TVs
what the fuck? why did they ban clotheslines? those save a load of money for us in the summer

because they're retards

remember these are the same people who voted on something that basically banned the state from significantly raising taxes. Then they demand the state provide more services. But it can't really fund them without raising taxes.

2009-10-21 23:11:15

#18

Chou: Member; +737|6790

You should see the amount of electricity going wasted on lights around the country each day, stores closed but fuck it, leave every lamp on, same goes for factories.

2009-10-21 23:12:12

#19

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6653

Chou wrote:
You should see the amount of electricity going wasted on lights around the country each day, stores closed but fuck it, leave every lamp on, same goes for factories.

^ Keep in mind that people are working when the stores are closed. Restocking and cleaning, and probably other things too.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2009-10-21 23:12:29)

2009-10-21 23:17:31

#20

Chou: Member; +737|6790

mtb0minime wrote:
Chou wrote:
You should see the amount of electricity going wasted on lights around the country each day, stores closed but fuck it, leave every lamp on, same goes for factories.
^ Keep in mind that people are working when the stores are closed. Restocking and cleaning, and probably other things too.

At night? not where I live but I see a waste of electricity everywhere!
The art galleries where the lights are on 24/7. it's fucked up.
There's even a store that's selling lamps and stuff and they leave every lamp in the store on 24/7.
That shit is only good for the electricity bill, who the fuck goes window shopping at 3 in the morning?

2009-10-21 23:23:25

#21

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5701|College Park, MD

Chou wrote:
mtb0minime wrote:
Chou wrote:
You should see the amount of electricity going wasted on lights around the country each day, stores closed but fuck it, leave every lamp on, same goes for factories.
^ Keep in mind that people are working when the stores are closed. Restocking and cleaning, and probably other things too.
At night? not where I live but I see a waste of electricity everywhere!
The art galleries where the lights are on 24/7. it's fucked up.
There's even a store that's selling lamps and stuff and they leave every lamp in the store on 24/7.
That shit is only good for the electricity bill, who the fuck goes window shopping at 3 in the morning?

lack of dark alleys = lack of good places to mug people = good

2009-10-21 23:26:44

#22

Chou: Member; +737|6790

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Chou wrote:
mtb0minime wrote:

^ Keep in mind that people are working when the stores are closed. Restocking and cleaning, and probably other things too.
At night? not where I live but I see a waste of electricity everywhere!
The art galleries where the lights are on 24/7. it's fucked up.
There's even a store that's selling lamps and stuff and they leave every lamp in the store on 24/7.
That shit is only good for the electricity bill, who the fuck goes window shopping at 3 in the morning?
lack of dark alleys = lack of good places to mug people = good

light shines where it shouldn't be shining, plenty of dark alleys here, come check the red light district at night, you couldn't spot a dog if it bit you in the ass.

2009-10-21 23:33:34

#23

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6809|Nårvei

Uhm ... why are clothes lines banned?

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-10-21 23:52:52

#24

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6674|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Spark wrote:
Why aren't they building it?
something about how it would kill a couple endangered species I think.
Turtles

It's amazing that Feinstein made billions off of selling that land to the Federal government in the first place and now that they actually want to use it for something she's got her panties in a twist.

Do these people not understand the words cost-benefit analysis? If projects like this don't go ahead then I think we need be worried then more than a single species of turtle.

Diesel_dyk wrote:
Banning large TVs to save electricty = fail

I read a fun info fact that went like this

"what's white, costs less than $3.00, would save millions of dollars of electricity and is banned by every home owners assocation in California"

answer = A clothes line

Maybe the govt should first strip those probhibitions out of HOA rules to restore peoples' choice to use clothes lines, before looking at TVs

What the fuck?! Yeah OK maybe these people should ignore TVs for now.

Last edited by Spark (2009-10-21 23:54:11)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-10-22 06:29:28

#25

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6541|Texas - Bigger than France

This smacks of socialism.

What's next? A limit on TVs per household?

lol

BF2S Forums California considering banning giant TVs

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

krazed wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Chou wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Chou wrote:

Chou wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Chou wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Chou wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Board footer