Posted on 12/15/2004 8:25:41 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Phone rechargers, TVs, CD players, VCRs, and all those other appliances you plug into the wall and forget were called "energy vampires" Wednesday by state regulators, who voted to make them more efficient.
Proponents hope the world's first such regulations force others to the follow the lead of the most populous state. The new standards adopted by the California Energy Commission will be phased in starting in 2006.
Televisions, videocassette recorders and digital video disc players use two- to 10 watts even when they're turned off. California is requiring them to use one- to three watts.
Power adapters, also known as external power supplies - those little black boxes that power phones, razors, toothbrushes, computer components and a host of other ubiquitous appliances - often are warm to the touch, a sign they're wasting electricity by generating heat.
Even when they're not in use, they're drawing power. The California standards will require them to draw a half-watt or less.
The average California household has 10 to 20 of the devices that cost consumers up to $75 a year in wasted electricity, the commission calculated. It projects the regulations will save commercial and residential users more than $3 billion over 15 years.
Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, who chairs the commission's efficiency committee, said the standards mean the state can avoid building the equivalent of three new power plants in the next decade.
Once the standards are fully phased in by 2008, they'll save more electricity than is used by the 350,000-plus households in San Francisco, calculated the Natural Resources Defense Council, which promoted the regulations. The reduced demand on power plants, and a corresponding reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, is the equivalent of pulling 320,000 cars off California's crowded highways.
Commissioners adopted the regulations on a 5-0 vote after extensive negotiations with manufacturers in the U.S. and major supplier nations like China and Australia, said commission spokesman Rob Schlichting. The commission granted manufacturers' requests for delays in phasing in the requirements on some appliances, largely muting the opposition.
Pacific Gas & Electric backed the regulations on behalf of the utility industry, citing the savings to consumers, the environment and the power supply.
Among the appliances affected: incandescent lamps; audio and video equipment; residential pool pumps and portable electric spas; evaporative coolers; ceiling fans, exhaust fans and whole house fans; commercial ice makers, refrigerators and freezers; vending machines; commercial hot food holding cabinets and water dispensers.
"Consumers don't have to sacrifice anything. The soda will still be cold from the vending machine, the swimming pool pump will still circulate the water," said NRDC scientist Noah Horowitz. "We're substituting new, more efficient technologies ... rather than building new power plants."
The federal government already has adopted energy efficiency standards for different appliances, including residential refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers and other appliances. None of those is affected by the new state regulations.
---
On the Net:
California Energy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov
I'm not saying I favor the regulations, or that the benefits will exceed the costs. But I believe that efficient power supplies are presently on the down-sloping side of the supply curve and so the increase in demand will reduce the marginal cost. As to whether the energy savings will justify even the reduced cost, that's debatable, but my point is that the costs aren't as severe as some here would contemplate.
Conservatives often blast Democrats for failing to acknowledge that markets adapt to pressures (e.g. that doubling taxes will shift people's behavior and thus often not double revenue), but this is a case where conservatives need to acknowledge that markets will adapt. The amount of adaptation may not be easily predictable, but I suspect it will be quite significant.
Pretty cocky attitude. I know of a few gun manufacturers who have decided that it wasn't worth the trouble to get a product authorized for sale in California. Check out this frustrated supplier.
I bought one of those front-loading, water efficient washers last Dec and I love it--it is so much more efficient with the water AND the amount of electricity AND detergent that I am saving. I have two sons 14 & 18 who produce a lot of wash and it is amazing how much I can get into the front load machine--you should try looking at them again.
Yup, you can use your "normal" washer, but remember this:
Your "normal" top loading washer uses just under *50* gallons (really, put your drain hose into a 50 gallon drum) to wash a "large* (usually about 15 pounds) load of laundry.
I work in a commercial laundry. If we use *MORE* than 2 gallons of water per pound of product, there is a MAJOR problem, and we have to find it and remedy it BEFORE the local enviro-fascists learn about it. At this moment in time, we are down to just UNDER one gallon of water per pound of CLEAN, PRESSED AND READY FOR USE (sterile)product. This is for HOSPITAL and operating room laundry.
As soon as I can, I'm getting a front loading washer. NOT for the "enviro-weenie's" sake. but because I have really SEEN the difference between what is thought "normal" and the reality of water waste.
We own dry cleaning store so I know what you are talking about. I also know that the front loading machines are much easier on the clothes than the usual agitator of the top-loading machines. I think you will be pleasantly surprised after you begin breathing again after purchasing one the expensive front loaders--I know I felt much better after the first few loads and was breathing normally after only a week!
There are 8,766 hours/year. One watt-year is thus 8.766kW-hours; at $0.10/kWH, that's $0.88. A device that could save 5 watts would thus save about $4.38 in electricity depending upon climate (during the winter, in an electrically-heated home, wasted electricity costs nothing; in a gas-heated home it costs something but less than full value; in the summer, wasted electricity adds to air-conditioning costs and thus costs extra).
From a marketing standpoint, one would thus be faced with the prospect of trying to sell people on the fact that a device uses $5 per year less worth of electricity than its competitors. Somehow I think that's going to fall pretty far down on customers' priority lists.
To suggest a parallel, the government decided a few years ago to require all television sets to include a closed-caption decoder. Somewhat useful device--lets me watch TV while doing something noisy. Prior to the requirement, standalone closed-caption decoders cost hundreds of dollars. If one manufacturer had decided to build them into some of its sets, it would probably have added over $100 to the cost. Today, however, it is clear that such decoders add considerably less than $100 to the cost of a TV set, given that you can get TV sets with decoders built in for under $100.
Down side to this:
We used to get power blink-outs nearly every day, and every time it happened; or any time the set was unplugged, it would auto-reprogram the channels to its memory, and it often missed weaker channels which then had to be hand-programmed. We solved the problem by moving to an area with reliable power.
You're right; those who can, will make a run for the border to buy what they want: Oregon, no sales tax; Nevada, no regulations; Mexico, no guarantees. Others will black market. It is just the rest who will bite the bullet and pay.
The Maytag system your wife bought is a COMPROMISE between genuine efficiency and practical *homeowner* use. Though it was PRICEY now, I do think that you and she will be happy with the overall results from her experiment.
Isn't the free market awesome?
Next: California legislature repeals Laws of Thermodynamics...
Usually, I don't support regulations but it seems to me energy-efficient appliances could cut down significantly on our electric bills. Especially in the winter.
Its better to leave a desktop PC on if you're using it every day. On the other hand, to save on your monitor's backlight life, I shut it off when not in use.
Again, it's a mixed bag. It's better for you mainboard to never turn it off, but it's hell on your hardrive that spins continuously. Bearings wear out.
My hard drive light's seldom on. If it was whirring all the time, I'd be concerned. Life is full of trade-offs and I'm aware of the risks involved in leaving my PC on. Your mileage may vary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.