Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hi Def Tv Antennas and THE FCC  (Read 892 times)
WM9V
Member

Posts: 106




Ignore
« on: October 10, 2009, 08:12:03 AM »

The FCC specifically grants permission to erect
antennas for UHF TV reception.
Please understand that consumer electronics is under attack from the Nanny state as well as the FCC.
The latest hassle is the wind towers
Neighbors are trying to sue their neighbors for
wind generators.
HOAs are being ignored in some states, which are considering voiding HOA agreeements.
lets hope that continues
From Newsmax by Max Schulz

Los Angeles often is derided as la-la land, but that moniker could apply just as easily to Sacramento, where the nation’s latest example in nanny-state micro-regulation of citizens’ lives has sprung.

Officials in the Golden State’s capital want to ban big-screen televisions as part of their crusade against global warming.

Big-screen TVs are energy hogs, consuming more power than smaller sets. Yet they are extremely popular with consumers. There are an estimated 35 million television sets in the state, and Californians buy about 4 million new TVs a year.

Regulators fear that increasing numbers of big-screen televisions will lead to greater electricity consumption and more greenhouse gas emissions. So the sale of televisions with screens 40 inches or bigger would be banned under a plan the California Energy Commission unveiled to regulate the energy efficiency of TVs sold within the state’s borders.

Sacramento’s mandarins are attempting to sell this scheme by pointing to the money consumers will save. Televisions account for about 10 percent of a home’s energy bill, and regulators say the new measure will save consumers from $18 to $30 a year.

“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money,” said a spokesman for the California Energy Commission.

By and large, however, consumers understand that bigger TVs mean somewhat higher power bills and are happy to make that trade-off. To them, it is worth $1 to $3 a month to enjoy a superior viewing experience. Brisk sales of big-screen TVs show that consumers don’t mind paying the marginal increase in electricity prices in exchange for the benefits, convenience, and pleasure derived from a bigger television.

Claiming that electricity should be rationed to save consumers from their own entirely sensible economic choices is patronizing. Down deep, this is really about California officials’ inability to recognize the realities of markets and human behavior. It is about their unwillingness to adopt policies that accommodate consumers’ habits and desires.

The New York Times noted recently that “Americans now have about 25 consumer electronic products in every household, compared with just three in 1980.” Though our recent energy debates have focused on oil, America’s real energy trends have to do with the increasing electrification of our economy.
The International Energy Agency calculates that electrical gadgets of all sorts account for about 15 percent of households’ electricity bills. More than that, the agency figures that the energy consumed from these gadgets (as well as from the infrastructure that supports information technology) will double by 2020 and triple by 2030.

Policymakers should embrace that reality, not deny it. They should take steps to build more power plants that can produce industrial-scale electricity from reliable sources such as natural gas, nuclear, and coal.

Yet California has it backward, with a moratorium on building nuclear plants in the state, and no large-scale coal plants to speak of in the state. And while the Golden State has imported a significant amount of coal-generated electricity from Western neighbors in recent years, Sacramento is trying to cut off those sources too. Instead, state policies seemed geared only toward building uneconomical wind and solar plants that produce sporadic power ill-suited for a 21st-century economy.

A policy in which the government tells Californians it knows what televisions are good for them is suffused with irony, because it won’t work. The regulations will outlaw the sale of certain TVs within the state. That won’t stop consumers from buying the TVs they want on shopping trips to Las Vegas or Lake Tahoe, or online (or via the black market).

And even if the California Energy Commission’s efforts did succeed in minimizing the growth in the state’s electricity demand, it will have virtually no impact on global temperatures.

So what’s the point? If it is to preen and to strike a green pose, mission accomplished. If it’s to do anything worthwhile for taxpayers, then the California Energy Commission should shelve this ridiculous, paternalistic proposal. Too often California’s environmental ideas travel east and become enshrined in the laws and regulations Washington promulgates.

Let’s hope this idea dies at the Golden State’s border.
The International Energy Agency calculates that electrical gadgets of all sorts account for about 15 percent of households’ electricity bills. More than that, the agency figures that the energy consumed from these gadgets (as well as from the infrastructure that supports information technology) will double by 2020 and triple by 2030.

Policymakers should embrace that reality, not deny it. They should take steps to build more power plants that can produce industrial-scale electricity from reliable sources such as natural gas, nuclear, and coal.

Yet California has it backward, with a moratorium on building nuclear plants in the state, and no large-scale coal plants to speak of in the state. And while the Golden State has imported a significant amount of coal-generated electricity from Western neighbors in recent years, Sacramento is trying to cut off those sources too. Instead, state policies seemed geared only toward building uneconomical wind and solar plants that produce sporadic power ill-suited for a 21st-century economy.

A policy in which the government tells Californians it knows what televisions are good for them is suffused with irony, because it won’t work. The regulations will outlaw the sale of certain TVs within the state. That won’t stop consumers from buying the TVs they want on shopping trips to Las Vegas or Lake Tahoe, or online (or via the black market).

And even if the California Energy Commission’s efforts did succeed in minimizing the growth in the state’s electricity demand, it will have virtually no impact on global temperatures.

So what’s the point? If it is to preen and to strike a green pose, mission accomplished. If it’s to do anything worthwhile for taxpayers, then the California Energy Commission should shelve this ridiculous, paternalistic proposal. Too often California’s environmental ideas travel east and become enshrined in the laws and regulations Washington promulgates.

Let’s hope this idea dies at the Golden State’s border.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20540




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2009, 08:10:55 PM »

Televisions account for 10% of the electric bill?

That has to be some sort of joke.

My electric bill comes from my 50A/240V A/C system, 40A/240V clothes dryer, two refrigerators that consume an average of 500VA 24 hours a day, the spa heater which runs 4000VA about 4 hours a day, pool pump which consumes 1000VA 8 hours a day, about 2000VA of electric lights that run 8 hours a day, clothes washer and dishwasher which consume 1000VA about 1 hour a day, and a lot of other stuff.

I'd be very surprised if my six television sets consume 1% of our electric power.

The data here is flawed.
Logged
W6RMK
Member

Posts: 649




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2009, 10:45:27 PM »

averaged over the state, the number could be close..
'WIK has a much higher "non-TV" load than the average Californian (e.g. electric dryers are getting less common)

And those TVs stay on lots and lots of hours. My cable box used to burn 120W, day and night. A big TV might be several hundred watts, and run for 8 hours a day. A quick check of
http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/
shows the big LCDs coming in at a 100-200W, and the big plasmas at 400-500W.

500W for 8 hr a day is 4kWh/day.. that's about 10-15% of my daily consumption in southern california in a 2300 sf house (30-50 kWh/day, depending on temperature and whether the kids leave the windows open so we A/C the great outdoors), and we're kind of a big power consumer.
Logged
K1DA
Member

Posts: 460




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2009, 11:33:31 AM »

What I have difficulty with is the notion, expressed or implied, that all this nanny state stuff happens without retaliation by the voters.  Could be that TV size, like healthcare is a "third rail (or B+) as it were) that the nanny bureaucrats should be careful about.  OR, the voters may remain in their stupor and happen it will.  Of course these "policy makers" ignore the fact that this stuff will only get more efficient as the technology improves, but just try to get something "unbanned".

    I am reminded of the European halogen E code headlight debate.  BANNED here for years, REQUIRED in Europe, used in most of the world, (far better than the wimpy sealed beams)  and at the same time   encouraged by the very  same bureaucrat morons
FOR motorcycles in the US.  Finally when the US car makers wanted to play styling games the Federal DOT  gave in and allowed the first "aero headlights" in 1987.  But NOT so you could SEE better. Dire tales of everyone dying because of headlight blinding were passed around but the things were legal in Canada as well as Europe  and they had NO problems.  The fact that drivers could see better at night was the LAST thing on the bureaucrat mind.  

   Good luck to you folks in 6 land over this.  I figure it won't be long 'till they tell decide you don't need a KW either.
Logged
K1DA
Member

Posts: 460




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2009, 11:55:15 AM »

Of course what the voters won't do for themselves the TV makers may succeed in doing with a few well placed "contributions".
Logged
KE4DRN
Member

Posts: 3710




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2009, 06:19:12 PM »

hi,

How many homes in CA have a second fridge,
wine cooler, freezer, etc... ?

Are they going to search your house to find
the offending appliance ?

our cable box used to sweat it got so hot,
TW they told me that is 'normal'.
I exchanged it (told them it kept rebooting) and
got a brand new model that stays cool.

73 james
Logged
K6OK
Member

Posts: 62




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2009, 10:22:37 PM »

I live in California and I'm all for the proposed television energy efficiency standards. The end result will be more LCD's sold and fewer plasmas. Fewer plasmas means less RFI hash on the bands!
Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 800




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2009, 09:16:07 AM »

Just wait!

Beer and soft drinks will soon be on the list along with charcoal grills! The products in all three cases can be harmful to your health and generate copious amounts of greenhouse gas. The fizz in the soda, the head on the bear, and the combustion products of the charcoal, all CO2 and therefore a contributor to global warming.

Add Expressos, Lattes, Capacinos and all your other hot coffees, not needed, caffeine may not be good for you and there are better uses for the wasted energy.

Have fun, no second thought, it consumes energy.

KF7CG
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2009, 07:57:08 AM »

Grasping at straws ey....as they say in the mafia movies "Forget about it".

A TV antenna be it the Digi or old analog is absolutely no where near the phsical design or size of a full sized tribander.   A full size triband antenna is huge compared to a TV antenna, digital or otherwise.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!