Australia May Ban Plasma And LCD TVs Over Energy Concerns

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

Wed, Oct 10th 2007 11:32pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, energy, lcd, plasma, tv

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris, 11 Oct 2007 @ 12:12am

......
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shaun, 11 Oct 2007 @ 1:04am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jared, 11 Oct 2007 @ 1:25am
    
    Re: Re: ......
    I'm with Shaun, this is headline grabbing B.S. by our current government.
    
    Bring on the election already!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Craig, 11 Oct 2007 @ 1:28am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris, 11 Oct 2007 @ 8:01am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris B, 11 Oct 2007 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: ......
  Australia is bigger than the US with half the population of California...
  
  Actually, the US is larger in land mass than Australia. The US is approximately 9,161,923 SQ KM and Australia is approximately 7,617,930 SQ KM. That's a 1,543,993 SQ KM difference, which is nothing to sneeze at.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike F.M, 11 Oct 2007 @ 12:25am

If it happens there...
...then there will be a higher likelihood that a similar thing will get put into place in other countries.

I suppose, at least, this will spur innovative ideas into getting nice, big, flat TVs that are more efficient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zcat, 11 Oct 2007 @ 12:32am

Yay
and to think I was going to replace my nice, energy-efficient 200W CRT with one of those terrible power-hungry 18W LCD flatscreens!!

Or something... WTF??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Larson, 11 Oct 2007 @ 1:47am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Enrico Suarve, 11 Oct 2007 @ 4:08am
    
    Re: Re: Yay
    Blimey - I too was under the impression LCDs used less (don't know why - just never really thought about it I guess)
    
    Thanks for the pointer
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - comboman, 11 Oct 2007 @ 5:45am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wren, 6 Jan 2008 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: Yay
  YES! Admittedly I don't know specifics... but that's what I was thinking too. Fucking wankers. But if you lived here you'd be far from surprised to hear that. It's possibly a politician thing but I'm convinced they couldn't lie straight in bed if they tried.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shohat, 11 Oct 2007 @ 12:38am

The opposite of idiots
Idiots see the problem coming, create the problem, and then was a lot of time and money trying to solve it.

Smart people just find a simple way avoid the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechNoFear (profile), 11 Oct 2007 @ 12:45am

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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raymond L, 11 Oct 2007 @ 1:14am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB, 11 Oct 2007 @ 2:09am

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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fat Tony, 11 Oct 2007 @ 2:23am

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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 11 Oct 2007 @ 2:47am

....
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danno, 11 Oct 2007 @ 3:43am

Then we'll get High Def OLED and everyone will have to throw out their TV's AGAIN.

The Fucking Electronics industry will *LOVE* it.

I hope the enviro-crusaders will be happy with all those new tons of plastic, metal, lead, and chemicals smoldering somewhere new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- me, 11 Oct 2007 @ 11:09am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Cormier, 11 Oct 2007 @ 4:58am

Political Bribe
A few very small points on this...
- Sony's OLED TV
- First shipments to australia

Could maybe someone be lining their pockets a bit before they get out of office?E

http://www.smh.com.au/news/articles/sony-to-ship-first-oled-ultrathin-tv/2007/10/02/11 91091082710.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 11 Oct 2007 @ 6:12am

Just ban everything electrical - go back to campfires and coal for heat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2007 @ 6:20am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michelle, 11 Oct 2007 @ 6:33am

Australia is bigger than the US with half the population of California, yet they're concered about energy?

Check your facts, please. The US is bigger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_area
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EVIL_BASTARD, 11 Oct 2007 @ 6:37am

Overcast, that would be the big government Australian way. US is following that path right now as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill, 11 Oct 2007 @ 7:17am

Guess you guys in Australia will be using DLP then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2007 @ 7:34am

god australia blows

they tried to ban porn, plasma TVs, video games, whats next a ban on cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene, 11 Oct 2007 @ 8:02am

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"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T-Zombix, 11 Oct 2007 @ 8:13am

@Anonymous Coward
Next ban is actually broaden scope of website filtering. ""The Australian government plans to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to allow the filtering of URLs to include terrorism and crime sites hosted domestically or overseas. The list is maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inc, 11 Oct 2007 @ 9:07am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
geographer, 11 Oct 2007 @ 10:01am

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

What!? Australia is surrounded by water! :-)

Someone please make mass-scale desalinization plants viable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Raymond L, 11 Oct 2007 @ 2:59pm
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2007 @ 11:10am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what, 11 Oct 2007 @ 4:23pm

I'm amazed not one person posting here seems to have picked up on the fact this story is a complete beat up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STFM, 11 Oct 2007 @ 9:39pm

Denied
Environment Minister rules out plasma 'ban'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darkbhudda, 11 Oct 2007 @ 11:47pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr David C Payne, 16 Oct 2007 @ 7:58pm

Ban Plasma and LCD Tvs
Unfortunately, this smacks of electioneering from a government that is desperate to establish its "green" credentials after more than 11 years of being almost everything but green.

By the time any legislation reaches the parliament, technology will have moved on and the issue will be irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Williams, 23 Oct 2007 @ 2:45am

DAB Digital Radios
Plasma and Lcd TV's certainly consume a lot of power but so do the new digital radios , Personally , I much prefer AM/FM ... Far more energy efficient and better quality too !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
samsung plasma tv reviews, 2 Apr 2012 @ 5:05pm

Plasma TVs nowadays may reduce the electricity bill. It was designed so that it will not be banned. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]