-
Ontario considers energy-hog flat screen TV crackdown
Ontario is looking at tougher energy efficiency rules for flat-screen TVs that suck electricity like SUVs guzzle gas, saving consumers money on their hydro bills but possibly forcing television prices higher.
"We're always looking at ways we need to improve standards with appliances," Energy Minister Gerry Phillips said Thursday after California's energy regulator voted to require dramatically lower electricity use in flat-screen TV models starting in 2011.
"Over the next few months we'll be looking at whether we need to set some additional new standards."
With the fast-selling flat-screen TVs using between 50 and 300 per cent more power than comparable older-style tube sets, "this is one of the things that is increasing energy demand," noted Phillips.
The new California rules apply to TVs under 58 inches, which account for about 97 per cent of the market. About 3.3 million flat-screen TVs, in both plasma and LCD versions, will be sold in Canada this year.
As it struggles with electricity challenges, California will require, for example, new 42-inch flat-panel TVs to use no more than 183 watt-hours and less than 116 watt-hours by 2013. Now, the average plasma TV uses 338 watt-hours and LCDs 176 watt-hours.
It's time the Ontario government considered tougher standards on this front, said New Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath, who acknowledged she is like many consumers and never thought to check into how much power her own flat-screen TV uses before buying it two years ago.
"It's a matter of raising awareness and giving people the information they need to make wise choices," she told reporters.
Phillips, who replaced George Smitherman as energy minister last week, said consumers should start thinking about energy consumption when buying TVs, just as they do when looking at fridges, air conditioners and dishwashers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
Ontario Energy Minister Phillips should think twice...
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1. Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives
Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.
2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy
efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.
----------------------
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to
be true. It is.
--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions.
Choice and Quality affected
-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing
--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence
--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs