California's Ban on Plasmas

[SarahFair]

I dont think they are trying to "control" us. Just simply looking out for the future..

 

[Mahonri]

...

 

[Intheswamp]

I did a lot of research several years ago before purchasing my plasma. LCD technology is still trying to catch up with the image quality of plasma, but LED just might surpass them both. One of the main negatives with plasmas is that they have a more reflective surface than LCDs do...some plasmas have an "anti-reflective" coating but these sometimes tend to degrade image quality. Viewing angles are much wider than with LCDs. And "motion jitter" isn't as pronounced with plasma as with LCD. Plasma's (though I've seen some mention to the contrary) tend to be more expensive initially with their cost of operating nearing twice as much as LCDs. I love my plasma. Having said that, here's some thoughts...

Browse your Wallyworld, Bestbuy, whatever and compare the number of LCD vs. plasma panels. Wallyworld at times doesn't even carry plasmas. Looking online you'll see that LCDs outnumber plasmas by a large percentage. It's easier and cheaper for a manufacturer to produce LCDs than it is to produce plasmas. Not to say that the manufacturers have much pull with the state of California, but don't you think most of them will be happy to produce the more easily produced and less costly LCDs? Panasonic (which is what I own) will probably be the major manufacturer that this will impact being as they are still strong in plasmas.

Why were A/V receivers not included in the "ruling"? Many (most?) people add a A/V receiver to their flatscreen television for the "surround sound" effect. The very basic, entry-level A/V receivers chug along at around 250 watts...some of the medium level receivers kick in around 600 watts (much more than the televisions). Many people the A/V receiver to listen to music with the television turned off...it's still burning 250-600 watts with no television and some people listen to music all day long.

Anything that creates heat from electricity is indeed burning lot's of energy...resistive heating is one of the worst energy hogs of them all...incandescent light bulbs, for example (though they don't have the mercury issue that flourescents do). Hold your hand above the top of an A/V receiver...it's hot, I've seen some that you could just about roast a hotdog over!

People tend to waste energy by simply not using good conservation practices. A LCD burns a little more energy than two 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs, a plasma basically twice that much. A basic coffee maker left on burns a kilowatt+, curling irons and irons burn...1000-1500 watts (but thankfully most have auto-cutoff circuits these days). Typical desktop computers burn 60-150 watts...and lot's of us leave them running constantly. Ever left a room and *not* turn the lights off?....yeah, everyone of us has done that....the light should follow the person from room to room. Got anything hooked to a wall-wart?...yelp, steadily burning juice. TV has a remote...phantom power is being used by the remote receiver that's built into your tv, stereo, whatever (plug everything into a power strip with an ON/OFF switch on it and you can kill that phantom power sucker). Ever leave the tv on while you're not watching it? Ever leave the shoplight burning while you go inside to fix a sandwich? Etc., etc.,

I do agree that plasma televisions are much more of an energy hog than lcds...but lcds are still culprits. Kinda like "yes your honor, I tied the victim up but Bozo there shot him". The coffee makers, light bulbs, computers, etc., are all suspects to a degree. Will outlawing energy guzzling televisions save the planet...no. It will help a tad to decrease energy use, but the impact will be minor if other areas of use are not decreased.

California has a plethora of problems...health care (like we all do), gangs (that are out of control), illegal immigration (that the politicians are scared to address), a state budget that is bankrupt, energy, etc., etc.,. I tend to think that the television "ruling" is something that used time and resources of the CA government/people that could have been spent on more important issues...but this one was maybe attainable and the authorities can pat themselves on the back for making the ruling.

For some reason "wag the dog" comes to mind...

FWIW (which probably ain't much)
Ed

 

[BarkerChickens]

I took a look at the regulation and it just changes what is being sold. I don't think anything changes if you own a plasma already.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
I'm thinking nuclear power. Unbelievably effecient; safe (yes, I used the word "safe" to refer to nuclear power!); takes up minimal space, unlike solar or wind; and for those who believe in manmade global warming, almost ZERO emissions. Hydropower is great, as well. Personally, I think wind and solar are great on a small scale, as in home use, but on large scale they're total flops. They take up far too much room, and are unreliable, entirely at the mercy of the weather. As for "saving energy," I'm surprised that no nutso legislature has forced us to limit our AC use yet. I'd love to see a politician try to pull THAT off!

Just figure out something to do with the waste and I'm with you. Do you know the 1/2 half life of the spent fuel rods or what to do with the primary reactor cooling water when they must be changed?

Steve in NC
used to glow in the dark now only a dim glow

Actually, I read a great article on it a few weeks ago. I'll see if I can find it, but as for my ideas about the waste, I suggest dumping it on a forsaken mountain in the Nevada desert, burying it in underground steel containers, or (*WARNING: HUMOR*) dump it in Hollywood. With the way half the actors look, nobody should notice a few mutants.

 

[AngieChick]

The other major issue with nuclear power is that it uses a large amount of water for cooling. It uses less than coal does, but it still uses quite a bit. While this may not be a big problem in many areas, CA is just beginning to get a hint at the quickly looming water crisis there. Plus, there is the disposal problem. I'm not anti-nuclear, but it has some major hurdles and may not be the best long term solution for CA. Within a few decades the waste issue would become pretty intense if our entire nation depended on it. One thing that CA has a lot of is sun, solar power is relatively clean as well. Solar wouldn't be the best thing for my current home, but it would have been fabulous for our old house in CA. There may not be a one size fits all solution to our national energy needs, but with some initial investment in infrastructure there are many possibilities. One location can generate geothermal (we have good sources up here), and others wind, wave or solar power. It's going to be interesting to see how things shake down in the next 20 years and what changes are made. I'm kind of excited to see it happen.

I wan't aware that the rolling black outs were still going on, we left a bit over 5 years ago. If I recall, one of the problems was that energy can't be held and "stored" like water can be. That means that there can be a surplus of power during light usage times but during peak times there would still be shortages. So, just because at some points they have extra to sell, that doesn't mean that there isn't major shortages happening at other times.

In short, it's a big major complicated mess and outlawing plasma TVs won't even come close to fixing the problem.

 

[Wolf-Kim]

Quote:
No, it's not a lot to ask. But they aren't "asking" now are they? I'm sure that is the problem most people have with this issue, I know it's what has me a bit on edge. They aren't "asking" you to minimize your energy consumption, rather "telling" you what you can and can't have because of it. Most people wouldn't have a problem with them "asking" you to not buy plasmas. Instead of banning it, they should educate about it.

As for the kids playing video games and those who can't sleep without it, as long as they pay their taxes and energy bill, it's up to them whether they want to be energy efficient or not. Education is the key.

If you give a mouse a cookie, it'll ask for a glass of milk..
If you give the government a television, it'll ask for........

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Actually, having refreshed my mind on nuke power, I remember this little tidbit. The only isotopes with a half-life short enough to be dangerous never leave the reactor. The rest have a half life ranging from 30,000 years to several million, and are thus entirely harmless. If you like, I'll find some plutonium and eat it. Well, I would, but I'm not sure where to find it.

I'm not being sarcastic, either. One guy who's name escapes me offered to eat plutonium if Ralph Nader would eat the same amount of caffeine. Nader had previously said that a pound of plutonium could cause eighty billion cancers. Nader rejected the offer, so the guy offered to do the same thing to most major TV networks, and was again turned down. I wish I could remember the guy's name, but I know he was a major scientist.