Plasma TVs to be Banned

"Bill Wright" wrote:

I have today taken delivery of 100 100W light bulbs. See
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5488884.ece

I'm thinking of ordering some.

They've disappeared from the high street without making an acceptable
alternative available. I've not seen dimmable energy saver bulbs in any
shops, and they seem to cost about £12 to £20 each online.

--
Dave Farrance

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:
Energy-Guzzling Plasma TVs will be Banned in Brussels Eco Blitz

By Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail, 12th January 2009.

So a discussion document becomes a 'will be'.
Nice to see the Mail being consistent on things European.

To be fair to the Daily Salem, in this one case, the other newspapers
presented the story in the same way as this article, with headlines
saying plasma TVs are to be banned.

Of course, it's unlikely that any legislation would be
technology-specific, but would probably just assign energy-rating
categories to all TVs in the same way as those applied to refrigerators.
This does seem to work in practice, killing the sale of
energy-inefficient models, probably because it makes people think about
the energy costs as part of the expense of ownership rather than because
many people worry about the environment.

--
Dave Farrance

"Dave Farrance" wrote in
message ...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:
Energy-Guzzling Plasma TVs will be Banned in Brussels Eco Blitz

By Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail, 12th January 2009.

So a discussion document becomes a 'will be'.
Nice to see the Mail being consistent on things European.

To be fair to the Daily Salem, in this one case, the other newspapers
presented the story in the same way as this article, with headlines
saying plasma TVs are to be banned.

Of course, it's unlikely that any legislation would be
technology-specific, but would probably just assign energy-rating
categories to all TVs in the same way as those applied to
refrigerators.
This does seem to work in practice, killing the sale of
energy-inefficient models, probably because it makes people think
about
the energy costs as part of the expense of ownership rather than
because
many people worry about the environment.

--



I'd have to disagree there Dave, I doubt 'cost of ownership' even comes
into it. Most people don't even think that far ahead - if they did I
doubt the desktop computer would exist as everyone would by laptops. Oh,
sorry, they are, aren't they?

What is more likely is the comfort factor of the buyer thinking they are
being a bit green, and if anyone of a greenish tinge says anything the
buyer can brag about it - a bit.

"Simon Slavin" wrote in message
...
In article
wrote:
The old 28 inch widescreen Crown CRT TV I used to own consumed 90W
of power, the 32 inch Lexsor LCD TV which replaced it has a power
consumption of 200W.

I don't need to replace my 28" CRT TV yet, and you just quoted the
reason I don't intend to get a newer better LCD TV. My TV is on for
about four hours a night and I see no reason to use more than 400WH
extra per day.And yes, I do turn the TV off every night, not leave it
on standby.

When the next generation come in and use a reasonable amount of
power,I'll get one.


As I said in the other post , look at the power consumption of decent
brands - like for like they can be better than crts

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:53 pm, Bigguy wrote:

[snip]
This is why I don't read newspapers et al - I try to ignore the
Political Punch and Judy show that Britain's establishment (which
includes newpapers) puts on in order to keep the brainless masses busy
while it invades countries for oil, turns Britain into a police state,
and quietly pushes public money around into places it really
shouldn't.

A 42in LCD TV uses similar amounts of energy to a much smaller
traditional set.

Again which LCD, which CRT?

All the LCD's I've ever tested with my plug in power meter have used
more than twice as many watts as the CRT's they replaced.
Good riddence to plasma sets though - they were even worse, and I hate
how you can feel the heat from them, too.

You must have never put your hand over the back of an LCD tele then.
Everyone I looked at a few months back was quite warm to the touch. My
plasma on the other hand expells nothing but room temp air.

--

WCZ

Dave Farrance wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:
Energy-Guzzling Plasma TVs will be Banned in Brussels Eco Blitz
By Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail, 12th January 2009.
So a discussion document becomes a 'will be'.
Nice to see the Mail being consistent on things European.

To be fair to the Daily Salem, in this one case, the other newspapers
presented the story in the same way as this article, with headlines
saying plasma TVs are to be banned.

Of course, it's unlikely that any legislation would be
technology-specific, but would probably just assign energy-rating
categories to all TVs in the same way as those applied to refrigerators.
This does seem to work in practice, killing the sale of
energy-inefficient models, probably because it makes people think about
the energy costs as part of the expense of ownership rather than because
many people worry about the environment.


I read the same article in (I think) the Sunday Times except it was
California banning them.

wrote in message
...

Families have nearly three times as many electrical appliances and
gadgets as a generation ago and the amount of electricity used to power
them has doubled.

That's because we are more affluent, thanks to science and technology and
despite politicians. We have every right to enjoy this affluence.

However, if that 'right' impinges on the future generations, then we
probably ought to be a bit more careful.

Why? What has posterity ever done for us?

--
Max Demian

"Bigguy" wrote in message
...

How could you possibly 'ban' LCD TVs /monitors!?

Everyone will have to pay an LCD/plasma tax unless they allow Government
Inspectors to search their cupboards/attics etc regularly to check that they
don't have any.

--
Max Demian

I really annoys me when governments dictate the "how" instead of the "what".

One aspect they have done correctly (if you buy into the CO2 emissions
thing), is set *targets* on car manufacturers for CO2 emissions, without
specifying *how* those targets must be met. Thus the manufacturers are free
to use any innovative technologies they like to achieve those targets.

On the other hand, the three-way catalytic converter - introduced for petrol
cars in the early '90s - was the very opposite. Governments mandated the
use of the three-way cat (to reduce nitrogen oxides), instead of setting the
appropriately tight emissions target (they'd been doing that already, but
specifying the technology was new).

As you may know, for many years it wasn't possible to use a three-way cat
with a weak fuel-air mixture, so much of the lean-burn technology that had
shown so much promise was abandoned. Almost overnight car fuel consumption
got several mpg worse, and CO2 emissions increased substantially. So we
swapped nitrogen oxides for carbon dioxide - not harmful to humans but
blamed for most global warming.

Instead of considering banning a particular technology such as plasma TVs,
they should set a power consumption target and leave it to the manufacturers
to find ways of meeting them. For all we know, it may be possible to make a
really great plasma TV with only half the power consumption. No need to ban
them, then.

I'm also infuriated by the brain-dead simple thought processes used. As we
all know, in Northern Europe the heat from a plasma TV isn't wasted because
it warms your room, reducing your central heating fuel consumption. Only
when your heating is off - during the summer - is the heat genuinely
"waste".

The same goes for tungsten light bulbs, of course.

Obviously in the summer, and in the southern European countries,
energy-saving bulbs will make roughly the savings expected. But in more
northern climes the case is much weaker indeed. Nowhere have I seen this
recognised in any official government publications.

SteveT

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:33:29 GMT, Clem Dye wrote:

wrote:

However, if that 'right' impinges on the future generations, then we
probably ought to be a bit more careful.

More careful, yes, but live like cave dwellers for the benefit of future
generations?

Even if meant in jest, this is a pathetic illogicality for someone
frequenting a technical ng. Except in very unusual circumstances such
as war or belonging to a terrorist organisation, nobody in the Western
world, that part of it responsible for by far the greater part of
global warming to date, has been asked to live in caves since
thousands of years before the industrialisation responsible for the
global warming came about. Living in caves and global warming are
entirely unrelated.

Given that one's life is a one-shot game I'd to be
reasonably comfortable in what existence I have left, thank you very
much.

Noone's asking any less than reasonably comfortable.

CRTs, LCDs and plasmas in my experience all chuck-out a lot of
heat. Plasmas do seem to be the worst of the bunch, but to ban plasmas
is much like banning filament light bulbs. Oh hang-on, our European
masters have, and HMG, like the drone that it is, has gone ahead and set
this in motion, so panic buying of such light bulbs ensues.

The OP didn't include a link to any actual information emanating from
the EU, just a quote from one of the worst national newspapers, and a
search of the BBC's site has not produced anything more creditable, so
we're a bit short of facts, but as has already been pointed out, they
have not yet been banned. It perhaps is more likely that they will
have to carry energy consumption stickers like fridges and freezers
already have. Did you make the same sort of irrational fuss about
those?

I wonder if this a subtle ploy ...

More hysteria. Yawn ...

rather than educate, under the mantle of global warming,
something that cannot be conclusively proved at present (at least to my
satisfaction)

Then you either genuinely don't understand the science, or more likely
from the tone of your diatribe, don't want to understand it, probably
because you don't want to face the responsibilities such understanding
inevitably brings - behaviour which, to me at least, appears rather
juvenile.

If LCDs are better for the environment then let's see the
evidence.

Yes, for all types of TV, and to get the complete picture not
forgetting to include as an annual overhead on each type the energy
cost of production and disposal written off over the years of its
average lifespan. (BTW, I don't have figures, but I have understood
that plasma TVs don't last too well.)

Given that, IMO, LCD picture quality, especially motion
tracking, is still pretty poor to plasmas

Despite repeated requests over many years for hard *evidence* on this
issue from a technical ng frequented by a number of people who are
probably in a position to supply it, there remains absolutely none
forthcoming, yet you still insist on peddling this myth.

I'd frankly be quite
p*ssed-off if I was forced to endure a second rate solution.

You are already, it's called over-compression.

And you are in another way too, it's called being insufficiently
intelligent. This is supposed to be a technical newsgroup with an
understanding of scientific and technical matters. If this sort of
hysteria is still as prevalent here as it seems to be, than what does
that say about the wider world?

It says to me that there is no hope, not because there is no technical
or social solution, but because, like all the other animals that we
share the planet with and that we are forcing towards extinction, our
own genetic makeup cannot evolve as fast as we are changing the world.

I'm currently writing a poem about this. Here's the current draft.
You may not think much of it as poetry, but I append it on the very
slim chance that perhaps it might, just, make you stop and think,
though I confess I'm not particularly hopeful ...


Cavemen
=======

We are cavemen, the superstitious
Who like the luckless turtle returning to lay her eggs on the beach of
her birth,
Only to make landfall amidst the night-time revelers of our
newly-built resort,
Follow blindly habits of thought and deed formed in our early lives,
no matter how ill they serve us.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
Who, on finding ourselves in an argument, take sides based on emotions
Seeking to rationalise them only when challenged, by which time our
opinions, bad or good, are already formed;
Who'd rather win worthless debating points than the greater prize of
understanding and solving a real, underlying problem.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
Who like the blue-tit that attacks its own reflection in our windows,
fight with neighbours because instead of seeing individuals inside the
glass, We see only our own reflected stereotypes - such as age,
skin, tribe, religion, or politics - that distinguish 'them' from
'us';
And 'they' fight with 'us' for the same reasons, thus proving that
we're really all alike.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
Who, like the albatross, anciently evolved to feed its chick on scraps
of food found floating on the ocean,
Now feeds it toothbrushes, lighters, pens, and all the other plastic
detritus of human thoughtlessness,
We ourselves consume soundbites and slogans floating on the cesspit of
media hysteria, without feeding our minds.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
Who buy on design and looks instead of functionality,
Who'd rather Feng Shui our homes than live in a practical space,
Who decry the inconvenient real science of Climate Change while being
duped by the pseudo-science of cosmetic adverts.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
Who, while organising our lives using all the technology that science
made possible,
Like oiled birds flounder in a toxic slick of absurd myths from an
unenlightened, unscientific past,
Because those myths pander to our self importance, while science tells
us how uncomfortably unimportant we really are.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
The soul-dead who, as the blinded quail sings to entrap others, preach
pursuit of a fairy tale paradise in a make-believe hereafter,
Mistaking ultimate selfishness for ultimate sacrifice by slaughtering
real, innocent lives in the here and now,
Unwilling to accept that all that really survives our death is the
Darwinian payload of our genes in our descendants.

We are cavemen, the superstitious,
Precisely because those genes have come down to us so virtually
unchanged, that, stripped of our technology,
We are just a vagrant's bundle of emotional thought from our most
distant ancestors that first left the trees for the caves;
That is why, until our selfish folly finally achieves our own
extinction, we are condemned to be ...

Cavemen, the superstitious.