Last year when I was covering the Dieselgate problem (the Volkswagen committing fraud by finagling emissions testing protocols) I had a haunting thought — in how many industries are the manufacturers pulling similar tricks? Our society has caused governments to enact emissions controls, energy efficiency measures, and more, in the name of reducing the environmental and climate impact of the systems around us. How are we ensured that the desired result (lowered impact) is what the manufacturers claim?
In the case of Volkswagen’s product line (Audi, Volkswagen, Skoda, etc), their Diesel cars were claimed to be pristinely clean while still providing great performance. As a result of that claim, governments around the world gave preferential treatment to those cars, awarding the VW Group with subsidies and free promotion. If their claims had been in line with reality, I would be applauding the VW Group as well. But it turns out they were cheating and lying their way through the whole process. The cars were only clean in testing labs, while out on the road they were still dirty diesels. While I haven’t been writing reports on Dieselgate developments, I’ve been following the news. It turns out that the fraud was widely known within the VW Group’s management hierarchy, and may have even been under the direction of the top leadership group, just as I expected.
I’m not here to rehash Dieselgate, but I reiterated that story because of news concerning a similar problem among television set manufacturers.
In the case of televisions, there is government testing and requirements concerning energy efficiency. The more efficient the television set, the less electricity it consumes to perform the same task, the less cost it is to own/operate the television set, and the less environmental impact it makes. Governments publish lists of efficient televisions, and there is labeling in the store so that consumers are aware of the impact of choosing one or another.
The NRDC has found that television set manufacturers have rigged their products to finagle energy efficiency settings, in a way that skirts around the Department of Energy testing procedures, making products look more efficient than they actually are.
NRDC and its consultant Ecos Research performed laboratory testing on TVs made by the three major TV manufacturers—Samsung, LG, and VIzio—using the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test method for measuring TV energy use. Per our analysis, we believe that the test loop used by DOE does not reflect the characteristics of content people typically watch. Samsung and LG appear to be exploiting these anomalies to achieve lower energy use levels during the test than in real-world viewing. These two manufacturers, as well as Vizio, have also designed their TVs to automatically disable key energy-saving features such as automatic brightness control or motion-detection dimming—often with limited or no warning—whenever users change main default picture setting on their TV. While the manufacturer’s actions may not be illegal, they smack of bad faith conduct that falls outside the intent of the DOE test method designed to accurately measure TV energy use.
The result is that in normal consumer use (not DOE testing procedures) the affected televisions will consume way more electricity than indicated by the flawed DOE testing procedure. Therefore the claimed energy efficiency numbers are wrong, and the environmental impact is far greater than promised.
You might be thinking – oh, it’s just a television, what’s the big deal?
It’s about the electricity consumption to achieve the task at hand. The more electricity (or other resources) consumed to perform the task, the greater the environmental impact. There are enough televisions in the USA (and elsewhere) that the sum-total impact of higher electricity consumption becomes a large amount of electricity, and therefore a large amount of pollution.
If we get back to cars – one of the reasons we like electric cars is energy efficiency. An electric car can drive about 80 miles on the energy equivalent to 3/4th’s a gallon of gasoline. The BMW i3 has an MPGe nearly 130 miles/gallon. Yet, an electric car performs the same result (hauling our butts around town) while consuming less energy.
One of the solutions to the environmental/climate crisis we face is to change the proportions of energy/resource use per capita. Lowering those proportions means we collectively make less impact. THAT is why efficiency is important, to lower the overall impact per capita. It should also produce an economic impact because we spend less money to achieve the same result.
Bottom line is that if we’re going to trust the desired environment/climate result comes by decreasing our collective impact, we must know with no uncertainty that the products which claim higher cleanliness/efficiency are actually more clean/efficient. Otherwise it’s all a big fraud, and society will die in the name of making a profit.
- Powerdown is a key, but little discussed, aspect to solving energy and climate problems - July 12, 2017
- JB Straubel says Tesla talking with Automakers on Supercharger network collaboration - June 21, 2017
- Range Confidence trumps Range Anxiety; gasoline users can be anxious, too - June 19, 2017
- Tesla Motors could be profitable today, at the cost of a slower business plan - June 14, 2017
- Honda breaks ranks against CHAdeMO, Clarity Electric has Combo Charging System - June 12, 2017
- The unfeasibleness of on-board solar to reduce gasoline used to drive a car - May 26, 2017
- Demonstrating value of thrown-away electronics with an DIY Electric Vehicle - May 22, 2017
- Warming climate causing places expected to be permanently frozen to melt - May 19, 2017
- Tesla to bring Supercharging to urban areas, possible relief for apartment/condo dwelling EV owners - April 24, 2017
- Tesla Motors doubling Supercharger network, delivering on solar-powered-charging vision - April 24, 2017