Telly in Trouble: EU targets large-screen TV sets, other devices to save energy

[remixedcat]

Most LCD/LED screens are made by Samsung or LG or Sharp

[theyarecomingforyou]

The EU is committed to improving energy efficiency, which in turn reduces energy bills for consumers and is better for the environment. That should be applauded, not criticised.

 

We need more legislation like this.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I have my issues with the EU, but if there is one thing they get right, it's their stance on energy efficiency and their long term plans to benefit the environment.

[FunkyMike]

I have my issues with the EU, but if there is one thing they get right, it's their stance on energy efficiency and their long term plans to benefit the environment.

 

Beggars can't be choosers ... but in the irrational world of Brussels this hardly corresponds to reality.

 

Germany imports around 88% of its gas from overseas. Germany's electricity prices are the highest in Europe right now.

 

All these future pipeline projects that are supposed to supply Central and southern are going up in smoke.

 

The benefiting to the environment is surely important but don't for a second underestimate the factor of price, demand and a countries economic survival. 

[HawkMan]

I have my issues with the EU, but if there is one thing they get right, it's their stance on energy efficiency and their long term plans to benefit the environment.

 

Build more nuclear, don't stop energy use. it's backwards. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

Build more nuclear, don't stop energy use. it's backwards. 

Energy efficiency is important regardless of the technology powering it but is critical when so much of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Nuclear is certainly a useful transitionary technology but is not a solution in and of itself, as nuclear waste is extremely expensive to deal with and takes an extreme amount of time to degrade to safe levels - modern reactors dramatically reduce the amount of waste but do not eliminate it. Further, nuclear fission is far too dependent upon government subsidies and the government is on the hook for cleanup costs, which have been extensive.

 

The future is nuclear fusion

[HawkMan]

Fusion is decades away, if not over hundred. Nuclear is here now and it's safe now, with thorium it's a complete non issue.

 

 

and all our devices today use less power thn they used to, we just use more devices, we can't stop that. we use 10% of the power today to light our houses than we did 5 years ago, at least 50% for heating. 

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Fusion is decades away, if not over hundred. Nuclear is here now and it's safe now, with thorium it's a complete non issue.

 

 

and all our devices today use less power thn they used to, we just use more devices, we can't stop that. we use 10% of the power today to light our houses than we did 5 years ago, at least 50% for heating. 

The devices use less power mainly due to pressure from regulators toward energy efficiency...

 

Capping energy use and/or offering extreme pressure to reduce the energy use of devices before they are sold go a long way to ensure lower energy use overall.

[HawkMan]

The devices use less power mainly due to pressure from regulators toward energy efficiency...

 

Capping energy use and/or offering extreme pressure to reduce the energy use of devices before they are sold go a long way to ensure lower energy use overall.

 

Not really, people where switching to CFL bulbs long before the EU regulation. it only affected old people who don't understand the new bulbs. 

 

So if it's ok to ban better TV's because of energy efficiency. would it also be ok to ban powerful PC's since you can do the same job on a slower one, and ban powerful game consoles since, heck you can play games on consoles with PS1 quality graphics that barely use any power at all.

 

Banning power use isn't the answer, we need more power, and the answer is nuclear. 

[SiCKX]

Have these dudes lost their minds or do they have some of the best kush ever?

 

"Hey, let us control what a man can buy now! OH DAMN, great idea!"

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Not really, people where switching to CFL bulbs long before the EU regulation. it only affected old people who don't understand the new bulbs. 

 

So if it's ok to ban better TV's because of energy efficiency. would it also be ok to ban powerful PC's since you can do the same job on a slower one, and ban powerful game consoles since, heck you can play games on consoles with PS1 quality graphics that barely use any power at all.

 

Banning power use isn't the answer, we need more power, and the answer is nuclear. 

My understanding is this isn't being done. They are setting minimum efficiency standards and certain technologies fall outside of those standards so will be banned.

 

So this would allow you to sell the "gaming PC" (to use your distorted example) so long as you can bring down its power use. This has been the trend in graphics cards for a while now, but rules such as this (yes I know it doesn't yet spread to graphics cards) would put serious pressure under companies to push the envelope even more.

 

Sort of how gas mileage on cars in the US set stagnant for decades until the new rules started pushing them hard again. Now cars are becoming more and more efficient at burning gas every day. Heck, my car is capable of completely shutting off its engine when idling and reactivating it instantly to get that last bit of efficiency. Without tighter rules this would have never crossed the engineers minds.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Fusion is decades away, if not over hundred. Nuclear is here now and it's safe now, with thorium it's a complete non issue.

Hence why I said nuclear fission is a useful transitional technology. I just don't agree that we should base entire economies around it.

 

and all our devices today use less power thn they used to, we just use more devices, we can't stop that. we use 10% of the power today to light our houses than we did 5 years ago, at least 50% for heating. 

And why do we use less energy for lighting? Because the EU passed legislation banning traditional lightbulbs, which were significantly cheaper to purchase (but more expensive to maintain). Once more efficient technologies come along the EU pushes to ban the older technologies to improve efficiency. That's not to say those technologies wouldn't have caught on without such legislation but there is no doubt that the transition was significantly quicker as a result. Europe consumes a third less energy per capita than the US, so clearly there is a significant difference and legislation plays a part in that.

[HawkMan]

 

 

And why do we use less energy for lighting? Because the EU passed legislation banning traditional lightbulbs

Which I already explained is a fallacy. And it's also not true as you can find old style lightbulbs still, since there are workarounds, by labelling them "special", and most where replaced by the halogen bulbs, where they simply put an almost equally inefficient halogen bulb inside an old style lightbulb. 

 

But people still mostly buy CFL or LED, because they started doing this long before the EU legislation because they want the savings and mostly they want bulbs they don't have to replace so often. 

[Noir Angel]

I have a 42 inch LCD with LED lighting and it supposedly only consumes 56 watts. I'm in favour of making devices more efficient but I believe it should be done through education and incentives to buy and recycle old equipment, not heavy handed bans. That said not as many plasma displays sell these days anyway.

[Arachno 1D]

Actually in the UK at least the newer energy saving bulbs are a more dangerous health hazard because of the mercury used in their construction

[daorbed9]

Misleading title; they're simply capping the amount of energy used, just like they did earlier with vacuum cleaners. Makes sense, and the earliest the rules can come in is June 2016, so plenty of time to get the energy usage down if need be.

 

They just capped my speakers to go in sleep ever 10 minutes.  So I don't get beeps and other sounds that only take 1-2s to play.  It will take 4-5s come to back awake.  EU sucks and so do their butthead regulations.  Ignorant uninformed people making the decisions.  Don't think there won't be some crappy side effect or power management that will affect the TV's performance.

[HawkMan]

Actually in the UK at least the newer energy saving bulbs are a more dangerous health hazard because of the mercury used in their construction

 

That's only partly true. not all use mercury, or enough of it to matter, and it's only a danger if they break, they're supposed to be handed in for recycling. either way that has nothing to do with energy use or regulations atm. 

They just capped my speakers to go in sleep ever 10 minutes.  So I don't get beeps and other sounds that only take 1-2s to play.  It will take 4-5s come to back awake.  EU sucks and so do their butthead regulations.  Ignorant uninformed people making the decisions.  Don't think there won't be some crappy side effect or power management that will affect the TV's performance.

whaaat?....