Australia May Ban Plasma And LCD TVs Over Energy Concerns

from the just-replace-them-with-flourescents dept

Australian politicians are clearly concerned about energy consumption. Earlier this year, they were among the first to look to ban the incandescent bulb in favor of fluorescent bulbs. Now it looks like they’re getting ready to take on televisions. New regulations may end up effectively banning both plasma and LCD TV screens as energy hogs (found via The Raw Feed). We all know that these big screen TVs are the SUVs of the electricity world, but does that really mean they should be banned completely? There are definitely efforts under way to make the systems more energy efficient, and many buyers are certainly aware of these issues (or they are as soon as they get their electricity bills). If anything, this seems like the sort of problem that works itself out without the need for the government to step in and force folks back into the world of big bulky TVs with (gasp!) small screens. Update: As noted in the comments, the Australian gov’t has come out to say that a ban on plasma and LCD TVs is greatly exaggerated.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Australia May Ban Plasma And LCD TVs Over Energy Concerns”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
39 Comments
Chris says:

......

Australia is bigger than the US with half the population of California, yet they’re concered about energy? Guess their hearts are in the right place but their minds are who-knows-where. I fail to see how these people hope to contiue their carreers when they restrict technology from the public. Doing so is almost guaranteed to piss everyone off, and angry people dont re-elect. However, I commend their efforts to “Think Green” no matter how much it may upset everyone. It’s nice to see a goverment who’s concerned about the environment, but I don’t think this is the best way to go about it. Good luck getting people who already have them to give them up willingly.

Shaun says:

Re: ......

Sorry to burst your bubble but our government has proved time and time again that it doesn’t care one little bit about the environment. In fact they were at least partially responsible (along with the US governmentI believe) for weakening the kyoto protocol down to it’s current level and then refusing to sign it. Our Prime Minister John Howard might not have run an oil company like Bush did but he definately is verry cozy with the local coal industry. He only allows relitively small things like this that affect consumers (voters) rather than more effective measure such as carbon trading or mandatory renewable targets that would impact on his buddies in the coal industry.

He won’t provide effective funding for proven renewables that work now and can be seen to be constantly andvancing but gives billions towards the pie-in-the-sky hope of carbon sequestration wich _may_ work in around 10-15 years time. He is also pushing for nuclear power stations obstinately because of global warming (despite the cost and fact that there isn’t enough uranium left to make a signifigant impact) but really to get on the path to nuclear weapons to be more like his idol GW Bush. This may be another case of trying to emulate Bush but in reality if you listen to Howard talk about “Climate Change” (never global warming)it soon becomes clear that he is still in denial.

One of the most effective methods to manage global warming would be putting a price on carbon (which would increase over time) and letting the market sort it out. This would be the most effective method as long as it is properly managed to prevent fraud and meet targets.It would also do less “damage to industry” which Howard claims as a reason for inaction compared to the harsher measures that would be needed later on.

I would really like to see techdirt to do one of their ecconomic analyses covering what all the polititions seem to be doing and what they dismiss etc.

Craig says:

Re: Australia bigger than the US? HUH?

Australia is NOT bigger than the USA. Oz weighs in at 7,686,850 km2 while the USofA is a svelte 9,826,630 km2. It’s people like you who can’t be bothered to do minimal research and yet are so quick to offer what appears to be “informed opinions” that really grind my gears.

If nothing else, politicians tossing around ideas on what to do with sacred cows like the almighty television set should start some people thinking. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is the right thing to do, and taking a lead sets you up for all of the naysayers to come crawling out of their holes to poo-poo everything. Do you really need a 52″ tv to watch American Idol? I guess size does matter for some people.

Have a nice day.

Chris says:

Re: Re: Australia bigger than the US? HUH?

Eh so I was wrong about the size, the point I was making was about the ratio of population to land mass, and the difference is HUGE, 300million versus approx 16million (last I checked). The article says “all current plasma TVs and many LCDs” so I’m assuming this means anything from 15″ to 64″. Moreover with newer technologies in energy effeciency being produced, if you still have older appliances, and were to buy newer better ones, you can weigh out the difference of your new TV.

But no, I do not need a 52″ TV, I do not need a 18mpg v8 truck, I do not need half the things I own, but all the things I own are for the purpose of convenience, and having a flatscreen over a CRT saves me a lot of space.

R. Larson (profile) says:

Re: Yay

Your 200W CRT would be replaced by a 280-480W LCD. That is directly dependent on the backlight brightness you set. I would also think this dependent on the size of the screen. So, which model is it exactly that uses 15 watts?

Here is a good explanation of the backlight on an LCD TV with actual figures of the wattage used.

comboman says:

Re: Re: Yay

Sony’s new 42″ LCD only uses 120W (http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtvreviews/sony-kdl46s2000-review.shtml).

LCD computer monitors use less power than the same sized CRT monitor, which is probably why people assume the same applies to TVs. In fact, the only reason some LCD TVs are power hogs is the backlight. TVs are viewed from farther away than computer monitors and in generally poorer lighting conditions and so must be brighter. Depending on the technology used for the backlight (improving all the time) and the brightness level it’s used at, they can either be more or less efficient than similar sized CRTs. They are always more efficient than similar sized plasmas.

TechNoFear (profile) says:

Panic by Howard

This is just election grandstanding.

Howard looks like this will be his last election. The Howard government will get punished for following GWB in refusing Kyoto and Iraq (if the polls are anything to go by).

Howard is desperate to cling to power and will do anything he thinks will get a vote.

I could care less about a ban on plasma TVs, will just encourage the development of energy saving versions. I suspect if you read the fine print, you will find the legislation actually does nothing….

Raymond L says:

Water

Actually, they may have a good reason for doing this. Most of the country is desert and we have a lack of water.

What does this have to do with electricity? Well, quite a lot, actually. Coal and Nuclear plants both need enormous amounts of water to push around the generators (through heat). Also, a lot of our clean energy is based in hydro.

This is not to say I know their reasons. Just that it *might* not be as idiotic as it looks.

DB says:

Oz big screens - a simple fix?

Howard’s affiliations with the mining industry aside,surely the easiest fix for a country with so much sun is to provide incentives for consumers to fix solar panels to their roofs (facing north)coupled with a sales tax for the purchase of an LCD / Plasma with an energy consumption greater than (say) 200W. If there is one issue that legislators are beginning to discover it is that as tax payers feel good about paying ‘green’ taxes – perhaps it salves their conscience when they jump in their SUV’s…This proposal provides a stick and a carrot and makes the Howard government appear almost virtuous…

fat Tony says:

Not quite right...

Australia is smaller than the US…at least according to the CIA’s website.
But…that’s beside the point. Perhaps this is a good move for the Aussies. This may force technology to be improved to meet more stringent government and public requirements.
FYI
US Area:
total: 9,826,630 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 664,707 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia

Australia Area:
total: 7,686,850 sq km
land: 7,617,930 sq km
water: 68,920 sq km
note: includes Lord Howe Island and Macquarie Island

James says:

....

The sooner we get to personal carbon allowances the better.

That way if I wanna run a 60in plasma an SUV and fly seven times a year I’m going to have to buy the carbon from someone who prefers instead to holiday at home, walk to work and have conversations with friends…. like me :o)

Then the government can concentrate on practical solutions like educating people about how efficient appliances are by getting them labelled, like we do for washing machines, here in the UK (mine is AA rated, I avoided G rated appliances as their more expensive to run) and also raising the bar by either banning low efficient items or taxing them.

me says:

Re: Re:

Instead of forcing unrealistic limitations on individuals, why don’t we just reduced overall emissions? Move away from oil, and coal and towards solar, wind, hydrogen? These things produce no carbon emission. Instead of petroleum burning cars, when they produce toxic gases and use a limited energy source, we could invest in hydrogen or solar or electric vehicles. Hydrogen just happens to be the most abundant element in the universe let alone of our little rock. It produces water as a byproduct, nor smog. Take the billions in tax credits away from the oil companies and subsidize the transition away from oil. It would solve a lot of these problems and, aghast!, actually be renewable, non-polluting, and smart. Everybody complains about carbon emissions when we could simply eliminate them almost completely. Solar power for homes could be heavily subsidized until it’s almost ubiquitous. Stop thinking how to draw out an ever dwindling energy source and invest in alternatives while we still can. JMO.

Anonymous Coward says:

Probably a better way to save money is to regulate cablecard usage, say a discount for use, so that a 250W cable box is not necessary to see Hi-Def, etc. Alot of people leave their cable boxes on all the time, too. Perhaps some smart technology that can sense you are not watching television and put the cable box into standby mode at configurable hours (after 1AM on a weeknight, for example)

I’m not one for governmental man-handling… let the market forces dictate change, but I do realize that government can “nudge” corporations into initially non-profitable changes that are utilitarian and beneficial to society; and usually end up making a profit when people start clamoring for the “new” items.

Gene says:

Why

Why ban them?

Ohhh…yeah…it uses too much power, which is bad. ’cause that means more demand for power which leads to higher prices for power which leads to devices that use less power becoming attactive to consumers.

or is it…to help stop man-made Global warming?

This is just another way the “goverment” tells you what you CAN and CAN’T do…this time it’s not “for the children” it’s for “the planet”

inc says:

Can you say black market? When you ban something people want all you do is create a black market and spend more time trying to enforce some stupid law. They should give to consumer incentives to go green if the government wants to involve itself in that process.

…and not the type they do here in the U.S.; which are just kick backs to big lobbiests.

Raymond L says:

Re: Re:

Yes. Let’s try pumping in sea water into desalination plants and see how that improves the environment, water and our electrical concerns. Of course it’s that simple. Why didn’t we think of that? Would you please lend us you desalination plant for a few months? The low power variety, please. Just while we build ours up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Instead of forcing unrealistic limitations on individuals, why don’t we just reduced overall emissions? Move away from oil, and coal and towards solar, wind, hydrogen? These things produce no carbon emission. Instead of petroleum burning cars, when they produce toxic gases and use a limited energy source, we could invest in hydrogen or solar or electric vehicles. Hydrogen just happens to be the most abundant element in the universe let alone of our little rock. It produces water as a byproduct, nor smog. Take the billions in tax credits away from the oil companies and subsidize the transition away from oil. It would solve a lot of these problems and, aghast!, actually be renewable, non-polluting, and smart. Everybody complains about carbon emissions when we could simply eliminate them almost completely. Solar power for homes could be heavily subsidized until it’s almost ubiquitous. Stop thinking how to draw out an ever dwindling energy source and invest in alternatives while we still can. JMO.

darkbhudda says:

Move away from oil, and coal and towards solar, wind, hydrogen?
All 3 of which environmentalists have protested as destructive to the environment. They don’t want us to use cleaner energy sources, they want us not to use energy at all.

And for the people who keep harping on about not signing the Kyoto treaty, it’s the countries that didn’t sign it that are leading the way in implementing the Kyoto protocols.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...