I never thought of a TV as being an item that sucks up tons of energy and puts out of tons of pollutants, but apparently the aussies do.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Australia Banning Plasma TVs?
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
Plasma and CRT power usage is pretty similar per inch, but plasmas are generally much bigger than CRTs.
LCDs are definitely the winner for power consumption, though.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,538
It is all part of the Al Gore mentality of what the US and world will become if we listen to him. Global warming!?!? zomg! It doesn't matter what the hell you do, there will still be climate change. It is a cyclical system that has been going on for millions and millions of years. Doesn't anyone know by volume, roughly 95% of greenhouse gases come from water vapor? WE NEED TO STOP EVAPORATION! STOP GLOBAL WARMING. rofl. It is ridiculous.
What you say sounds good for the anti-global warming way of thinking person.
But
Are you honestly telling us that you don't think all the pollutants put into the air/earth have any negative consequences...
That makes no sense...
Please apply that to your everyday way of thinking and see where it gets you.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,538
Of course pollutants harm our Earth. I recycle, plant trees, and only use as much materials for things that I need. I like to be out in the woods hiking and hunting, and if something threatens that experience, I'm not in support of it. On the global scale, the US does a fairly good job with their own environmental policies. I think some of these other nutjobs might want to take a trip to China and other developing countries to see what their environmental policies are. They're basically non-existent.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,538
Global climate change history proves it is a cyclical event. You cannot stop mother nature from its natural course. There will be more ice ages and warm periods no matter what.
1.Proves or Hypothesis's (No certainty)
As to climate changing naturally ?
or
Humans forcing it to become unstable by adding variables ? All guesses at absolute best
2.True, mother nature is the highest force on planet earth.
3.True, but we still are adding unknowns with unknown variables.
D.petersen84
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 181
wow thats crazy
Oh please. This is just a case of the Government protecting the people from a crappy technology (with the exception of those few who can afford plasmas in the 15k+ range).
I'll take an LCoS or a CRT(*) over Plasma, or even worse, an LCD, TV every time.
Aside from the "ooh they're so thin" factor, I've never understood why anyone thinks any of the flat panels are worth owning (especially given the premium that's charged (per inch) over RP (and many FP) sets.
(*) not that you can get RP CRTs or a decent sized direct view CRT.
Yup. My firm switched to all LCD displays as part of a cost cutting maneuver. LCDs use significantly less power than CRT or plasma and are more friendly to the environment disposal-wise as well. I don't know what Aussie government imbecile (apparently they're not US-exclusive) came up with "LCDs are energy hogs"; he must have been drinking Gore-Ade.
OkToBeR[hocp]
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 65
So, we should expect with global warming to be another Ice Age in the far off future? Doubt that. There's nothing cyclical about the earth doing things it's never done before...ever.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,538
Have you ever been to school in your life and taken a earth science course?OkToBeR[hocp];1031534085 said:
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,538
Actually, lets make it a little more simple with graphs. The graphs were taken from Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith's work on global climate cycles taken from 420,000 years of the Vostok ice core samples. There are many other supporting scientists findings as well, I'm just listing one as an example so people can get the general idea. If you want to do more research on your own to expand your mind, I suggest you do. Politicizing 'global warming' to advance agendas is pretty lame, especially when you are taking advantage of citizens who aren't really educated on the subject. 
Zoom: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/wiretap25/Temp/0Master_ClimateChangeGraph_740ka_Do.png
Zoom: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/wiretap25/Temp/0Master_Graph_20000yrs_temperature_.png
Zoom: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/wiretap25/Temp/0Master_ClimateChangeGraph_740ka_Do.png
Zoom: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/wiretap25/Temp/0Master_Graph_20000yrs_temperature_.png
An unprecedented rate of increase
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html
The Vostok core showed that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by approximately 80 ppm over a span of 10,000 years, between the Last Glacial Maximum and the pre-industrial times of the Holocene. In the past 200 years the atmospheric carbon dioxide has again increased by 80 ppm to the present 360 ppm, most of the increase in the past 50 years. "What is new is the rate of increase," Mysak emphasized. Adding that the scientific uncertainties regarding climate change are not limited to the physical processes, Mysak commented, "How robust are ecosystems in handling this carbon dioxide? We don't know."
Stocker, as well, underlines the significance of the rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. He and colleague Andreas Schmittner looked at the problem through experiments with a simple, coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model in which a final carbon dioxide concentration of 750 ppm was attained over different time spans. They found that the thermohaline circulation weakens when the increase in carbon dioxide to 750 ppm is relatively slow, spanning several centuries or more. However, when the rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (expressed as CO2) is similar to today's rate of growth (1% per year)--or the concentration of 750 ppm is reached in 100 years--the thermohaline circulation permanently shuts down (11). The quantitative results are dependent on model parameters and their associated uncertainties. Nonetheless, the lesson from the modeling experiments is that the climate is sensitive not only to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but also to the rate at which this level is attained. This is relevant to policy decisions concerning the timing of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, noted Stocker. "It demonstrates that early reductions of emissions make sense."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7042423.stm
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.[25]
Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.
This Ice core dating isn't a 100% fool proof way of determining anything let alone a possible big obstacle that could possibly lead to the end of the [H].
see
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
Unfortunately, ice cores do present some difficulties and have limitations that scientists must overcome.
It's not an exact science, it's guesstimating what maaaaayyyyy or may not happen
It's not an exact science, it's guesstimating what may have happened 1000's of years ago.
Also, the T-Rex was a scavenger, not a Predator...
But who really knows and would you bet humanity on it.
Maybe w1retap would but thank god you're just you then.
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html
The Vostok core showed that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by approximately 80 ppm over a span of 10,000 years, between the Last Glacial Maximum and the pre-industrial times of the Holocene. In the past 200 years the atmospheric carbon dioxide has again increased by 80 ppm to the present 360 ppm, most of the increase in the past 50 years. "What is new is the rate of increase," Mysak emphasized. Adding that the scientific uncertainties regarding climate change are not limited to the physical processes, Mysak commented, "How robust are ecosystems in handling this carbon dioxide? We don't know."
Stocker, as well, underlines the significance of the rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. He and colleague Andreas Schmittner looked at the problem through experiments with a simple, coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model in which a final carbon dioxide concentration of 750 ppm was attained over different time spans. They found that the thermohaline circulation weakens when the increase in carbon dioxide to 750 ppm is relatively slow, spanning several centuries or more. However, when the rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (expressed as CO2) is similar to today's rate of growth (1% per year)--or the concentration of 750 ppm is reached in 100 years--the thermohaline circulation permanently shuts down (11). The quantitative results are dependent on model parameters and their associated uncertainties. Nonetheless, the lesson from the modeling experiments is that the climate is sensitive not only to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but also to the rate at which this level is attained. This is relevant to policy decisions concerning the timing of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, noted Stocker. "It demonstrates that early reductions of emissions make sense."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7042423.stm
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.[25]
Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.
This Ice core dating isn't a 100% fool proof way of determining anything let alone a possible big obstacle that could possibly lead to the end of the [H].
see
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
Unfortunately, ice cores do present some difficulties and have limitations that scientists must overcome.
It's not an exact science, it's guesstimating what maaaaayyyyy or may not happen
It's not an exact science, it's guesstimating what may have happened 1000's of years ago.
Also, the T-Rex was a scavenger, not a Predator...
But who really knows and would you bet humanity on it.
Maybe w1retap would but thank god you're just you then.
By the way, that's all I got for this topic.
I didn't do this to prove you wrong w1retap.
I just did it so you know you're not right.
There are too many variables that you don't know, care, thought about, heard about, etc.
Plus you want to be right so your evidence will lean that way. But Al Gore is not G. Bush.(DUH)
He makes a lot of sense even if you disagree with it.
I didn't do this to prove you wrong w1retap.
I just did it so you know you're not right.
There are too many variables that you don't know, care, thought about, heard about, etc.
Plus you want to be right so your evidence will lean that way. But Al Gore is not G. Bush.(DUH)
He makes a lot of sense even if you disagree with it.
This is the guy that lets the antifreeze from his car run into the sewer and tosses his NiCad batteries in the garbage.
Actually, lets make it a little more simple with graphs. The graphs were taken from Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith's work on global climate cycles taken from 420,000 years of the Vostok ice core samples. There are many other supporting scientists findings as well, I'm just listing one as an example so people can get the general idea. If you want to do more research on your own to expand your mind, I suggest you do. Politicizing 'global warming' to advance agendas is pretty lame, especially when you are taking advantage of citizens who aren't really educated on the subject.
Zoom: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/wiretap25/Temp/0Master_ClimateChangeGraph_740ka_Do.png
I'm not sure why the red line ends less than halfway through the graph, but if we take certain subsections where the carbon line does exist, it seems to proceed changes (albeit smaller changes.
I'm sure that this guy is qualified, but lets not forget that Guy's livelihood depends on coal mining (though I'm sure he could get work in some other industry).
That doesn't make his research invalid, but there are certainly other researchers that have come to the opposite conclusion. The reality is that this is an incredibly complex area of research that requires many different disciplines (not just paleo-climatology).
I don't think we're going to be 100% sure what's causing it for some time. Nevertheless, I see nothing wrong with green initiatives. Pollution stinks. Go look at a movie form the 50's. Notice how blue the sky is. You don't see that much (if at all) in more in the U.S. I'm pretty sure we can chalk that up to pollution. The Air in L.A. is pretty f***ing disgusting (ironic that CA is filled with so many self-professed green people.
So if reducing carbon (which means pollution will almost certainly be reduced) doesn't work, we still win.
And as I said earlier, this also means less people overpay for bad tv's (though moving to LCD is worse, from a picture POV).
Sony's SXRD projectors FTW
What a tard. A 42" LCD uses about 250 Watts. My dual-cpu server and monitor are using 242 watts according to the UPS. Evidently they think large flat-panel TVs will run off of hopes and wishes. 250 Watts is a few lights bulbs. If they're scared of greenhouse gases they should build some wind plants and quit whining. Outlaw large flat-panel TVs, and only outlaws will have large flat-panels.
I really don't think plasma TVs are a major contributor to global warming. Let's devote our resources to fixing something that really is broken, like cars.
A person could offset the energy usage of his new plasma simply by replacing ten light bulbs with the compact flourescent type (which, BTW, has now been fixed so that it doesn't make everything look green).
Nope, but we shouldn't be helping it change faster, now should we?
If anyone here is mature enough to read the rules, cut the global warming BS and stick to the topic.
"power consumption was increasing at an alarming rate as consumers upgraded from low-power cathode-ray TVs to energy-guzzling plasma and LCD behemoths."
Low power cathode ray... Hah... Lolgasm. My crappy 19" CRT TV uses 200W, I certainly cant imagine an LCD or plasma screen using anywhere near that much, unless they purposly engineerned a waffle maker into it.
"But nearly all the LCD models tested achieved at least one star. A proposed tightening of the system by April 2011 would make it even harder to achieve a single-star rating."
I suppose they will do what is necessary to ban those pesky power-hungry LCDs.
"power consumption was increasing at an alarming rate as consumers upgraded from low-power cathode-ray TVs to energy-guzzling plasma and LCD behemoths."
Low power cathode ray... Hah... Lolgasm. My crappy 19" CRT TV uses 200W, I certainly cant imagine an LCD or plasma screen using anywhere near that much, unless they purposly engineerned a waffle maker into it.
"But nearly all the LCD models tested achieved at least one star. A proposed tightening of the system by April 2011 would make it even harder to achieve a single-star rating."
I suppose they will do what is necessary to ban those pesky power-hungry LCDs.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,538
It all really does come down to the 'global warming' argument. But thus far, it hasn't been proven true, but it has been proven false plenty of times. Blabbering politicians have everyone freaked out so they can advance their agenda of carbon taxing among other things.
For the power consumption, consumer electronics aren't really a big worry, but it does all add up. The coal power plants in operation are the big polluters, but they are supplying most of the energy. If the industry switched over to nuclear, the pollution would be of no concern since there are zero emissions. Then we just need to develop more programs for reprocessing the spent fuel and putting it to good use. It is so valuable and contains so much more energy, yet it just sits at the plant's on site storage facilities year after year.
For the power consumption, consumer electronics aren't really a big worry, but it does all add up. The coal power plants in operation are the big polluters, but they are supplying most of the energy. If the industry switched over to nuclear, the pollution would be of no concern since there are zero emissions. Then we just need to develop more programs for reprocessing the spent fuel and putting it to good use. It is so valuable and contains so much more energy, yet it just sits at the plant's on site storage facilities year after year.
With the exception of rear projection all TV display types use about the same energy per square inch. Only TN LCDs provide any real power savings over a CRT, but even aside from viewing angle issues (much more likely to be an issue with a TV than a PC) they don't seem to scale well to larger sizes.
For power consumption info see:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html
For power consumption info see:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html
That's the pertinent point, right there. The move to plasma or LCD panels has also been a move to larger display devices. We here 'Downunder' deem that manufacturers aren't doing enough to minimise power drain created by those larger devices, and our authorities are willing to address the concern. There is no 'ban' inherent in any of this. It is simply a statement saying "After this point in time these are the minimum standards you will need to meet."
It is excessively extreme to call that a 'ban', but I can understand how people coming from a different national cultural mindset might see it as such. Bully for them. We here are more likely to introduce measures which might impinge upon 'rights' and 'freedoms', in order to protect the rather high quality of life we mostly enjoy.
DanNeely is correct. The various display alternatives consume roughly the same amount of energy per square inch of display. Anyone remember when we were all hoping that they wouldn't? when we were hoping that the move away from electron guns or powerful lamps would have an impact? It hasn't yet.
The measures proposed by Australian authorities don't 'target' one technology over another. They are simply a statement to the effect of "These are the energy consumption standards we expect to be met!"
It seems doublespeak and vauge terms are more of a problem with this topic than I previously thought. To set a date and state, that by a certain date these devices have to get so many "stars" or fall within some kind of power consumption limits, is a ban... A ban against any other technology/device that wont be able to meet those requirements. Disallow, prohibit, ban, etc... theres no need to fuss over wording, unless you are in politics. Though before you hit the reply button and fire off a reply, yes... I do see where your coming from, this isnt a ban on plasmas outright, but a "ban" on anything that cant fit into the set requirements.
I didnt think of this untill now, but what about OLED displays? It will be interesting to see how power consumption regulations for displays, affects avalability/price of OLED displays. Take a look at the sony 11" XEL-1 television, 45W power consumption. To say any regulations tightening up on power consumption of consumer devices does not favor any technology, would be a bit silly. To me, and hopefully to everyone else, its quite obvious what technology is going to have a hard time meeting any strict requirements : CRTs, Plasma on the low end, with LCD and OLED toward the more acceptable side.