High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

England to ban Plasma TV's!?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2007, 10:05 AM   #61  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Technically, yes, but they haven't started building ITER yet (the official agreement was just reached last month) and the money is mostly just earmarked, versus JET, which is already financed, built and functional (and to become a part of ITER).

Part of me is glad they are doing this over in Europe, just in case there a few unknowns and they end up creating a microsun or some antimatter
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 08:14 PM   #62  
Shake & Bake - WOOOO!
 
HondoHDTV's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eHDMI View Post
The Conservatives are to propose banning plasma screens and other energy-guzzling electrical goods.

The plans will target white goods like fridges and freezers, as well as TVs, personal computers and DVD players that use too much energy or operate on stand-by.

The ideas come from a group set up by David Cameron to develop policies to protect the environment.

Although the measures to make household electrical appliances more energy efficient are not binding on Mr Cameron, they are thought likely to be warmly received by the Tory leader.

The group will also suggest scrapping Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of the nation's success in favour of a model that measures people's happiness drawn up up by Friends of the Earth.

Under the proposals, a cap could be set on the energy use of each electrical appliance, and those exceeding limits could be banned from sale in the UK.

A new labelling requirement could be introduced to inform consumers of products' annual energy consumption compared with other similar appliances.

And there could be a ban on electrical goods with stand-by lights which can stay on indefinitely.

Some 2 per cent of Britain's total electricity use is currently taken up by appliances left on stand-by rather than being switched off.

The proposals are set to be unveiled on Thursday in the final report of the Tories' Quality of Life Policy Group, chaired by former Environment Secretary John Gummer and green activist Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative spokesman confirmed.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already announced his ambition to "eliminate" the stand-by function on appliances, which was blasted by the Government's energy review last year as a waste of electricity.

The report is expected to focus on plasma-screen TVs as particularly wasteful of electricity, and it is thought that many models would fall foul of the proposed energy cap unless dramatically more efficient technology was developed.

Householders are also expected to be offered tax cuts potentially worth thousands of pounds to make their homes more energy-efficient.

The authors are quoted as saying: "We propose a partial rebate of stamp duty if all cost-effective energy efficiency improvements are adopted at the time of sale or shortly after.

"This should be combined with a zero rate of stamp duty for zero carbon homes.

"We also favour a discount on council tax payable in respect of all homes which are built to the highest environmental standards."

Source


I'd sooner see a "GOOD" dental plan for the British... that would be money well spent.
HondoHDTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2007, 08:46 PM   #63  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Hmmm...

BDA="Blu-Ray Disc Association"

*and*

BDA="British Dental Association"

Coincidence?
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 10:55 AM   #64  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
robox4's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eHDMI View Post
The Conservatives are to propose banning plasma screens and other energy-guzzling electrical goods.

First dentists, now Plasma TV's. What's next?
robox4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2007, 09:06 PM   #65  
Roar Power
 
CyberCat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Default

Governments never tighten their belts, but always ask the public too!

Last edited by CyberCat; 11-28-2007 at 09:09 PM..
CyberCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2007, 07:08 AM   #66  
Connoisseur of Fine Games
 
MikeRox's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Huddersfield, United Kingdom
Posts: 15,756
Default

well they well and truly just lost my vote with that ridiculous proposal.
MikeRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2007, 01:14 PM   #67  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SE TN
Posts: 49
Default

In this energy discussion (funny how threads drift ?) how do fuel cell powered automobiles compare ? This past week I saw a TV commercial for a future Honda fuel cell car, no details like price or delivery were given. Anyone else see that spot ?
hdgtx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2007, 03:06 PM   #68  
Ever Eddy
 
edders's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,455
Default Yep

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdgtx View Post
In this energy discussion (funny how threads drift ?) how do fuel cell powered automobiles compare ? This past week I saw a TV commercial for a future Honda fuel cell car, no details like price or delivery were given. Anyone else see that spot ?
http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4071114All-New-FCX/
Don't EVEN ask what the price will be!
edders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2007, 04:05 PM   #69  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SE TN
Posts: 49
Default

JustEd, thanks for the link!
hdgtx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2007, 04:36 AM   #70  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdgtx View Post
In this energy discussion (funny how threads drift ?) how do fuel cell powered automobiles compare ?
Here are the flaws with Fuel Cell and Fusion energy:

(1) Fusion only happens under a great deal of pressure (like the center of the sun). Creating that pressure requires the input of energy. Where is that energy supposed to come from??? It doesn't just magically appear.

(2) Same with fuel cell cars. They run off hydrogen. Where are we going to get all the hydrogen? (And before you say "water"... where do we get the energy to split the water?) You can't make something without incurring a cost. It costs MORE energy to make hydrogen then you get back from "burning" it. It doesn't make sense.

(3) I'd rather see cars running off a practical fuel like Sugar-based ethanol (like brazil does) or biodiesel (for trucks). These products are essentially Liquid Solar fuel, getting their energy from the sun.

BTW:
There are several U.S. plants, still trying to make fusion work:
DIII-D
Alcator C-Mod
STOR-M

Last edited by electrictroy; 12-23-2007 at 04:44 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2007, 01:01 PM   #71  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

I certainly agree with your point 3, but I have to point out again that even if it takes more energy than you get back to convert a form of energy you can't use to one you can use, it's still a viable option--all you do is increase the price to cover the energy loss.

If the price gets too high, then it's impractical, but having energy in a form you can't use is of no value. Cars don't run off crude oil, they run off gasoline. It take energy to convert crude oil to gasoline. Even if it took more energy to convert crude oil to gasoline than the gasoline would give back, it's still worth doing because crude oil has no value in and of itself as a fuel for cars, while gasoline has high value as a fuel for cars--it's all about money.

Certainly at some point the cost of "throwing energy away" in the conversion becomes so high that the price of the final, usable product is too high to be practical, but so far all we've ever seen is the price of gasoline increase and unless we develop alternate fuels/propulsion systems, then we will pay whatever the price is for gasoline (assuming our economy doesn't collapse first).
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2007, 03:07 AM   #72  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
I certainly agree with your point 3, but I have to point out again that even if it takes more energy than you get back to convert a form of energy you can't use to one you can use, it's still a viable option--all you do is increase the price to cover the energy loss.
Perhaps. But many of us environmentalists are not convinced. We don't see why it's necessary to convert one energy (say oil) to another energy (hydrogen for fuel cells). We argue that the oil should be used directly, albeit more efficiently (like Honda's 70mpg Insight).

Quote:
If the price gets too high, then it's impractical, but having energy in a form you can't use is of no value. Cars don't run off crude oil, they run off gasoline. It take energy to convert crude oil to gasoline. Even if it took more energy to convert crude oil to gasoline than the gasoline would give back
I don't how you would do that. If it takes more energy to create gasoline than is present in the oil, you'd have no oil left. It would be all burned-up in the factory.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2007, 12:11 PM   #73  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Oh, I'm all in favor of more fuel-efficient cars!

My concern is trying to evolve toward energy sources for vehicles that require us to completely replace the existing multi-Billion dollar infrastructure, such as would be required with electric vehicles. I view electric-only vehicles as a subversive plot to destroy our economy as it would require decomissioning our existing liquid-fuel infrastructure while dramatically upgrading our electric generation capabilities--the cost is staggering. That's why I would be a big fan of more fuel-efficient vehicles and a transition to Ethanol for passenger vehicles and Biodiesel for the diesel industry (trucks, ships, electric generation, etc.).

Ahh, I see your confusion regarding my statements about gasoline. Gasoline is not produced by using the energy in the crude oil to refine it. It is produced using energy in various forms that are already part of the process before the crude oil ever reaches the refinery, including electricity. Therefore it is certainly possible to use more energy (say in the form of electricity), than one gets back from the gasoline produced, but it doesn't matter, because cars run off gasoline, not electricity, and as long as the final product doesn't cost too much for the market to bare, it's a perfectly reasonable trade-off.

The price of gas is determined by the cost of the crude oil, the cost of transportation for both the crude oil and the final product, the cost associated with refining it (including energy cost), the cost of sales and marketing, the cost of labor and overhead, various taxes and profit margin (and probably quite a few more things). The energy to produce the gasoline is only one part of the equation. I'm not saying that it actually takes more energy to produce gasoline than you get back from gasoline--I honestly don't know, but there are no 100% efficient conversions of one form of energy to another in practice--I'm just saying it's not at all impossible.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2007, 09:36 AM   #74  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
Oh, I'm all in favor of more fuel-efficient cars!
Good! I see VW is developing a diesel 3-seater that will get 120 MPG. I would love to get my hands on one of those.
Quote:
My concern is trying to evolve toward energy sources for vehicles that require us to completely replace the existing multi-Billion dollar infrastructure, such as would be required with electric vehicles. I view electric-only vehicles as a subversive plot to destroy our economy as it would require decomissioning our existing liquid-fuel infrastructure while dramatically upgrading our electric generation capabilities--the cost is staggering.
True. I guess you don't support Fuel Cell cars then (because they are electric cars after all).

Quote:
Therefore it is certainly possible to use more energy (say in the form of electricity), than one gets back from the gasoline produced, but it doesn't matter, because cars run off gasoline, not electricity, and as long as the final product doesn't cost too much for the market to bare, it's a perfectly reasonable trade-off.
Yeah I see your point. We've got tons of coal laying around... we can burn that to make electricity, and then use the electricity to refine the oil into gasoline. Makes sense.

Unless it would be cheaper to just convert the coal directly to gasoline? It's a bit of a tradeoff there.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2007, 12:16 PM   #75  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Well, they ran coal liquification and coal gasification experiments that were promising, but too expensive at the time (some of them didn't even require taking the coal out of the ground).

I'm not necessarily opposed to fuel-cells cars, if there was some way to fuel them using the existing liquid-fuel infrastructure.

I think the idea of building hundreds of thousands of "battery swap stations" (as there is no way to recharge the depleted batteries in a vehicle quickly enough) is absolutely insane.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to England to ban Plasma TV's!?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
42" Plasma or LCD? mickey79 Flat-Panel TVs 23 01-30-2007 08:05 AM
For sale Brand New Cingular 8125 for just $270 keshi01 DirecTV Forum 1 09-15-2006 08:33 AM
Panasonic PLASMA CES 2006 News! E55 KEV Flat-Panel TVs 5 02-17-2006 05:00 PM
Dell Delivers Plasma TVs, Printers and Music Players for Home Entertainment; Customer Cass High Definition News & Informative Articles 0 10-14-2004 02:40 PM
Pioneer Releases Fifth-Generation Digital High-Definition Plasma TVs Cass High Definition News & Informative Articles 0 05-20-2004 06:43 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:52 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands