Because of the old myth "plasmas use more energy" (which isn't exactly true) British consumers are buying more LCD TVs, according to the online shopping cashback network eDealsUK.com.

More LCD TVs sold in the UK because of Anti-plasma propaganda (http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/more-lcd-tvs-sold-in-the-uk-because-of-anti-plasma-propaganda.html)

Because of the old myth "plasmas use more energy" (which isn't exactly true) British consumers are buying more LCD TVs, according to the online shopping cashback network eDealsUK.com.

More LCD TVs sold in the UK because of Anti-plasma propaganda (http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/more-lcd-tvs-sold-in-the-uk-because-of-anti-plasma-propaganda.html)

From the linked site:

"People are picking the greener type of television, although it is primarily to protect their own wallet not the environment," said Nadeem Azam, the marketing manager of the eDealsUK.com network.

The nerve of those people! How dare they to watch after their own interests! It's true that while being selfish they also help the environment but they should be slapped for placing themselves ahead of others, selfish bastards.

It is not explained who is the propagandist. It surely cannot be a government agency at they would normally offer some data to justify their actions. So it must be the vast right-wing LCD conspiracy of the plasma haters!

Because of the old myth "plasmas use more energy" (which isn't exactly true) British consumers are buying more LCD TVs, according to the online shopping cashback network eDealsUK.com.


well first of all its not a myth,the fact and the reality is plasma do consume more electricity then LCDs.

well first of all its not a myth,the fact and the reality is plasma do consume more electricity then LCDs.
I've posted actual data on how much electricity various sets use in numerous threads over the past year. The "fact and reality" is that the difference in today's sets ranges from non-existent to negligible (ie no differnence to a dollar or two a month), with the exception of the expensive LED sets, which do use quite a bit less juice than either plasmas or standard LCDs.

What doesn't make any sense at all is that someone would pay more up front for "greener" LCD only to save a couple bucks a month on electricity. The return on investment isn't there.

jeff

I've posted actual data on how much electricity various sets use in numerous threads over the past year. The "fact and reality" is that the difference in today's sets ranges from non-existent to negligible (ie no differnence to a dollar or two a month), with the exception of the expensive LED sets, which do use quite a bit less juice than either plasmas or standard LCDs.

What doesn't make any sense at all is that someone would pay more up front for "greener" LCD only to save a couple bucks a month on electricity. The return on investment isn't there.

jeff

well i have seen reviews of 2008 plasma and lcds and not in a single review did plasma come close to the lcds power consumption ,whether the average consumption,the consumption after caliberation or consumption at the same exact brightness level,the lcds still have a huge lead in efficiency.

well even lcds that have regular ccfl backlight still consume significantly less power then their plasma counterparts.with newer tvs such as sony WE5 series which HE-CCFL consume even less power.
yes the power bill saving in terms of $$ is less,but lcds with CCFL still consume less power and about LED backlight lcds they are the future and someone has to buy that in order for it become more affordable,like OLED its currently very expensive but will get cheaper in the years to come.

link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16180631#post16180631)

Real data from Crutchfield. If by "huge lead" and "consume significantly less power" you mean that a 40" XBR7 actually uses 8 more watts than a 42" G10, or that a 52" B550 only uses 20 fewer watts (10%) than a 50" S1, then you have different definitions of "huge" and "significantly" than me.

The existence of highly efficient LED models at 2x purchase price of CCFL models is irrelevant to a discussion of current sales figures. Spending $1,000+ to save $3 a month on electricity is irrational. They'll be relevant when they no longer command a huge price premium and hold a large portion of the market.

I'm not arguing that LCDs don't generally use less power than plasmas, or that in the past the difference wasn't larger. But today, when the real difference amounts to the energy used by a single light bulb, and the cost savings is so minor, I don't see this as a big LCD advantage. But it's always exaggerated and trotted out.

jeff

From the linked site:

"People are picking the greener type of television, although it is primarily to protect their own wallet not the environment," said Nadeem Azam, the marketing manager of the eDealsUK.com network.

The nerve of those people! How dare they to watch after their own interests! It's true that while being selfish they also help the environment but they should be slapped for placing themselves ahead of others, selfish bastards.

It is not explained who is the propagandist. It surely cannot be a government agency at they would normally offer some data to justify their actions. So it must be the vast right-wing LCD conspiracy of the plasma haters!

Wow, ramazur, you've become way to emottionally attached to the LCD side of things and now have you rambling on with non sequitur postings lately. Seriously, is a TV type that important to you?

link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16180631#post16180631)

Real data from Crutchfield. If by "huge lead" and "consume significantly less power" you mean that a 40" XBR7 actually uses 8 more watts than a 42" G10, or that a 52" B550 only uses 20 fewer watts (10%) than a 50" S1, then you have different definitions of "huge" and "significantly" than me.

The existence of highly efficient LED models at 2x purchase price of CCFL models is irrelevant to a discussion of current sales figures. Spending $1,000+ to save $3 a month on electricity is irrational. They'll be relevant when they no longer command a huge price premium and hold a large portion of the market.

I'm not arguing that LCDs don't generally use less power than plasmas, or that in the past the difference wasn't larger. But today, when the real difference amounts to the energy used by a single light bulb, and the cost savings is so minor, I don't see this as a big LCD advantage. But it's always exaggerated and trotted out.

jeff

well like i said before even a normal lcd with CCFL backlight still has a significant advantage over plasmas.
well yes interms of money u want save much in power bills,so in that sense due to the recent fall in gas prices its okay to drive or buy a brand new gas guzzling car/suv.
off topic but what kind of lighting do u use in your house,i mean type of bulb.


well here is a link for the actual power consumption of various tvs in the link at the step 3 option scroll down to energy use
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=10&ma1=16&mo1=362&p1=4238&ma2=60&mo2=360&p2=4236&ph=15

well like i said before even a normal lcd with CCFL backlight still has a significant advantage over plasmas.
well yes interms of money u want save much in power bills,so in that sense due to the recent fall in gas prices its okay to drive or buy a brand new gas guzzling car/suv.
off topic but what kind of lighting do u use in your house,i mean type of bulb.


well here is a link for the actual power consumption of various tvs
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=10&ma1=16&mo1=362&p1=4238&ma2=60&mo2=360&p2=4236&ph=15

We're hardly talking the same thing between an economy car and a gas guzzling SUV. It typically works out to be a couple dollars a month and about $20-$30 a year. Even at $100.00 a year difference that's still less than $.50 a day. Hardly what I would call a "significant" advantage and some of the newer plasmas coming out are even more effecient than the current ones.

well like i said before even a normal lcd with CCFL backlight still has a significant advantage over plasmas.
How do you reconcile this assertion with the data I presented earlier showing that there is not a significant advantage with today's sets?

well yes interms of money u want save much in power bills,so in that sense due to the recent fall in gas prices its okay to drive or buy a brand new gas guzzling car/suv.
maxdog refuted this analogy, no need to expand on what he said.

off topic but what kind of lighting do u use in your house,i mean type of bulb.
I've got some regular incandescents, some CFLs, and some normal florescents. I generally use regular incadescents in 3-way lamps, bathrooms, and my recessed lights that are on dimmers - the dimmer-capable CFLs are way too expensive. I use CFLs primarily in hard to replace locations and non-dimmer recessed fixtures. There's a few in some lesser used lamps & bathroom fixtures where the quality of the light isn't as important. In the ceiling fixtures in my stairwells I actually have one CFL and one incandescent - this gives some of the energy savings of the CFL, but also the instant-on behavior of the regular bulb. Have several plain florescent tube types in my garage.

well here is a link for the actual power consumption of various tvs in the link at the step 3 option scroll down to energy use
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=10&ma1=16&mo1=362&p1=4238&ma2=60&mo2=360&p2=4236&ph=15
First, the site doesn't say what they're testing with. I like that they provide the light output, but what are they watching? Test patterns, mixed content, etc? Second, they don't have any of the 2009 plasma sets, which as I've pointed out are more efficient than prior year models - you can't talk about LED LCDs on one hand and then discount improvments in plasma efficiency on the other. Last, if you click through enough combos you can find examples of LCDs that use more power than similar sized plasmas.

jeff

This might help your cause even more, g:

http://www.crutchfield.com/learn/learningcenter/home/TV-power.html?page=2

That's a near complete list of all their TVs and their internal power testing.

Unfortunately, there are 2 things I would question about Crutchfield's results:

These are based on the default settings on both plasma and LCD TVs, when was the last time any user accepted default settings as their mode of setting the PQ?

The power consumption of plasma has greater potential, if adjusted for those conditions, such as maximizing the TVs brightness. If that were to occur, the plasma could draw up to maximum rated power; likewise an LCD would max out when adjusted for maximum brightness. Under those conditions their rated power would cap the maximum draw.

That no laptop I know uses plasma technology suggests that real world draw of a plasma screen, assuming plasma screens are equally durable and light weight for portable use, is less practical for power management. Assuming also, weight and durability as not a concern, I do not know any desktop monitor made with plasma technology.



link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16180631#post16180631)

Real data from Crutchfield. If by "huge lead" and "consume significantly less power" you mean that a 40" XBR7 actually uses 8 more watts than a 42" G10, or that a 52" B550 only uses 20 fewer watts (10%) than a 50" S1, then you have different definitions of "huge" and "significantly" than me.

The existence of highly efficient LED models at 2x purchase price of CCFL models is irrelevant to a discussion of current sales figures. Spending $1,000+ to save $3 a month on electricity is irrational. They'll be relevant when they no longer command a huge price premium and hold a large portion of the market.

I'm not arguing that LCDs don't generally use less power than plasmas, or that in the past the difference wasn't larger. But today, when the real difference amounts to the energy used by a single light bulb, and the cost savings is so minor, I don't see this as a big LCD advantage. But it's always exaggerated and trotted out.

jeff

If power consumption is THE most important criteria, then no one would buy any large television. a 19 inch LCD uses significantly less power than a 40 inch set. The larger the set, the more power it uses.

Did anyone actually buy the smallest set they could find because of power usage concerns?

The power consumption of plasma has greater potential, if adjusted for those conditions, such as maximizing the TVs brightness. If that were to occur, the plasma could draw up to maximum rated power; likewise an LCD would max out when adjusted for maximum brightness. Under those conditions their rated power would cap the maximum draw.You are forgetting that Plasma is power on demand. Regardless of settings, low APL scenes will draw no where near peak power. The ABL is active no matter what the settings. Therefore the average power consumption can never approach peak power under conventional use.

That no laptop I know uses plasma technology suggests that real world draw of a plasma screen, assuming plasma screens are equally durable and light weight for portable use, is less practical for power management. Assuming also, weight and durability as not a concern, I do not know any desktop monitor made with plasma technology.It is near impossible to make ultra small plasma pixels for numerous reasons. That is why you don't see high resolution small monitors or laptops.

That no laptop I know uses plasma technology suggests that real world draw of a plasma screen, assuming plasma screens are equally durable and light weight for portable use, is less practical for power management. Assuming also, weight and durability as not a concern, I do not know any desktop monitor made with plasma technology.
I'm not sure you can draw any power-related conclusions based on the abscence of plasma screens in laptops and computer monitors. I think there's other more likely explanations.

First, plasma screens are heavier than LCDs - they're made of glass, not plastic. Weight is the enemy for laptops.

Another issue is the potential for burn in. Highly unlikely with typical TV watching, gaming, etc, but PC use has loads of static items on screen all the time.

Last, I've never heard of a plasma TV under 32" in size. Perhaps there's something about the structure of the screen or pixels or something that doesn't make it well suited to small, high resolution displays?

jeff

well in the like i gave u ,at the same brightness output,the plasma clearly has a higher power consumption and if u read carelfully they use a test card so with the exact same conditions the plasma consumes significantly more
as far as 2009 plasma such as g10 are concerned good that its a bit more efficient but then again still doesnt match the lcds and lcds too have improved with higly efficient CCFL or HE-CCFL in the new sony lcd such WE series and offcourse not to mention LED backlight models.

You are forgetting that Plasma is power on demand. Regardless of settings, low APL scenes will draw no where near peak power. The ABL is active no matter what the settings. Therefore the average power consumption can never approach peak power under conventional use.

It is near impossible to make ultra small plasma pixels for numerous reasons. That is why you don't see high resolution small monitors or laptops.

Thanks, X, no I have not forgotten.

Here is a US gov't report on the issue to supplement what you posted in 2007 and also illustrates the issues with plasma power consumption:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11910972#post11910972

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/tv_vcr/Presentation_3_Characteristics.pdf

I'm sure you are aware, but for others, the issue is overall, the gov't concern is that as consumers move to large TVs, there is a net projected increased in total power consumption relative to when we were all on CRTs.

http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3508496637438151.GIF?0.70174214696877

Thanks, X, no I have not forgotten.

Here is a US gov't report on the issue to supplement what you posted in 2007 and also illustrates the issues with plasma power consumption:
Great link, I have not seen the second one. Anyway, out of powersave mode, the ABL of current plasmas kick in at about 30-50% APL [according to data from Andrewfee]. Combine that with display post gamma APL being very low and you should get relatively low average power consumption compared to maximum peak power. Of course certain models may implement less aggressive ABL and try to maximize average brightness. Andrewfee's data suggests this as well. Below is a chart which demonstrates just how low the average APL is post gamma:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/Power.jpg

Great link, I have not seen the second one. Anyway, out of powersave mode, the ABL of current plasmas kick in at about 30-50% APL [according to data from Andrewfee]. Combine that with display post gamma APL being very low and you should get relatively low average power consumption compared to maximum peak power. Of course certain models may implement less aggressive ABL and try to maximize average brightness. Andrewfee's data suggests this as well. Below is a chart which demonstrates just how low the average APL is post gamma:



Thanks, X, is this his own data? Kudos to him, that's a lot of work. Overall, what one is looking at is APL vs Power Consumption per TV such as attached. The percent is percent of total rated power.

But if anyone wants the whole story, its in the proceeds of Energy Star 3.0 meetings, including many comments by Dr. Weber, the 'father' of plasma technology, just to sum his career in a few words.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=archives.tv_vcr_spec

Somehow the 15 watt difference between a 50" plasma and a 52" lcd doesn't seem to matter when you are listening to a 7.1 system with 1 or 2 3000 watt subs (yes peak, but you get the point)

Besides the few dollars saved in a year will be eaten up by the expense of therapy sessions to help deal with buyers remorse.

Energy use and tvs should not be used in the same sentence in 2009....1 cow fart does more harm to the world.

Thanks, X, is this his own data? Kudos to him, that's a lot of work. Yes and the results were very interesting.

Overall, what one is looking at is APL vs Power Consumption per TV such as attached. The percent is percent of total rated power. The data in the presentation charts looks similar to Andrewfee data however, if you notice, the table data seems to be "modelled" data and is a little confusing. Are they suggesting that a 42" Plasma in 2006 had a rated (max) power consumption of 220W?

Cheers

Who cares? It's the U.K. Let 'em buy what they want.

It has no bearing as to what goes on here. Or it shouldn't have, anyway.

Hi

Since the author has a reputation and presented data part of at least, a US Federal agency inquiry, I presume he used uniform measurements for all the TVs he tested. Methinks he actually measured full power output rather than used the manufacturer's spec.

The other charts are also very helpful, the APL vs Power curve has wider variance for different brands of plasma & CRT TVs, whereas its more homogenous for LCDs.

Yes and the results were very interesting.

The data in the presentation charts looks similar to Andrewfee data however, if you notice, the table data seems to be "modelled" data and is a little confusing. Are they suggesting that a 42" Plasma in 2006 had a rated (max) power consumption of 220W?

Cheers

Hi

Since the author has a reputation and presented data part of at least, a US Federal agency inquiry, I presume he used uniform measurements for all the TVs he tested. Methinks he actually measured full power output rather than used the manufacturer's spec.

The other charts are also very helpful, the APL vs Power curve has wider variance for different brands of plasma & CRT TVs, whereas its more homogenous for LCDs.It seems they used a singular model to generate the tables of data [pages 14,15]. Probably no actual measurements were taken. If you compare the modeled data to the actual measured data on page 11 the results don't even come close.

Like you say they probably use a measured full power versus manufacturer spec. That still is a little confusing as I don't recall any 42" Plasma having such a low power consumption back then.

Cheers

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/Power.jpg
Interesting that the ads of The Young and Restless have over three times the APL as the program material. Maybe the government should ban TV ads. That would save power.

well i have seen reviews of 2008 plasma and lcds and not in a single review did plasma come close to the lcds power consumption ,whether the average consumption,the consumption after caliberation or consumption at the same exact brightness level,the lcds still have a huge lead in efficiency.

I also didn't see an LCD that beat a plasma in PQ either :)

For us consumers, these reports have no bearing on what TV we buy, so long as we can afford to power the products we buy. The reason to reduce power consumption, are essentially why energy star exists:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_index

FWIW, its actually easy to design energy savings into electronic products with little to no added cost, the problem has been makers ignore such features as its immaterial to them; its the same as when toilet gallons per flush were mandated.

http://www.toiletology.com/low-flow.shtml

For example, why use DRAM to store TV settings, when Flash RAM retains data without power? Yet, some maker still do. While maintaining power to DRAMs alone is extremely frugal, keeping a typical power supply ON with minimal to zero draw still causes a 'parasitic' draw that cannot be reduced unless the power supply were truly turned OFF. Also, to keep the IR receiver perpetually ON requires the power supply be working continuously. This is the reason you see many TVs with a power OFF draw being in the 0.1-1 Watt. However, if one maker can use 8.8kW per year in standby power, while another can do it for 0.88kW a year, why so?

If you have a brick power supply, touch it when the device it works on is turned off for some hours, you'll often feel its slightly warmer and this is the parasitic loss, energy made into heat.

For the consumer at current prices, we're talking 88c vs 8c /year worth of energy at 10c/kW, most don't care, but the person providing the power does.

If you don't conserve what you have, you can have a sudden catastrophe, such as the price of gasoline versus car's and their mpg.


Who cares? It's the U.K. Let 'em buy what they want.

It has no bearing as to what goes on here. Or it shouldn't have, anyway.

Somehow the 15 watt difference between a 50" plasma and a 52" lcd doesn't seem to matter when you are listening to a 7.1 system with 1 or 2 3000 watt subs (yes peak, but you get the point)

Besides the few dollars saved in a year will be eaten up by the expense of therapy sessions to help deal with buyers remorse.

Energy use and tvs should not be used in the same sentence in 2009....1 cow fart does more harm to the world.

Interesting that the ads of The Young and Restless have over three times the APL as the program material. Maybe the government should ban TV ads. That would save power.

In many countries, ads are banned in some form, often as billboards and such, and in the US within state parks. It would save everyone power and money if we watched only what we wanted, such as with the original TiVO and DVR. Why should you the consumer pay for the energy to watch an ad you don't want?

But, these and other ad killers were suppressed by special lobbying. Have you ever seen the simplest and some older VCRs had them, a timed remote control feature that turned off sound, the screen or flipped to another channel for just a fixed amount of minutes?

HI g:

On bold items, Its just one of many items. In the 1990s, there were attempts to make PDP with tighter dot pitches, but without success. So, PDP typically have distances between each pixel of about 1mm, whereas LCD is under 0.3mm. This overall limits the practicality of small screens. Xrox mentioned this earlier.

LCDs are also made of glass, but the extra components make PDP panels a bit heavier. What is eroding PDP isn't so much that PDP isn't good as a TV, but that LCD, in various forms, is far more versatile. With every bell and whistle attached, its used for TVs and large screen, and from there as these extras are stripped it can be used for desktop monitors, laptops, cellphones etc., In Wikipedia, Dr. Weber's battle for PDP against LCD has been far longer than I realized, down to early 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_F._Weber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display



I'm not sure you can draw any power-related conclusions based on the abscence of plasma screens in laptops and computer monitors. I think there's other more likely explanations.

First, plasma screens are heavier than LCDs - they're made of glass, not plastic. Weight is the enemy for laptops.

Another issue is the potential for burn in. Highly unlikely with typical TV watching, gaming, etc, but PC use has loads of static items on screen all the time.

Last, I've never heard of a plasma TV under 32" in size. Perhaps there's something about the structure of the screen or pixels or something that doesn't make it well suited to small, high resolution displays?

jeff

I also didn't see an LCD that beat a plasma in PQ either :)

Picture quality is subjective and not factual.

Picture quality is subjective and not factual.
Actually many elements of picture quality are factual - color accuracy, grey scale, viewing angle, etc (others can speak more authoritatively on this than me:p)

Personal preference is subjective - don't confuse the two.

jeff

Actually many elements of picture quality are factual - color accuracy, grey scale, viewing angle, etc (others can speak more authoritatively on this than me:p)

Personal preference is subjective - don't confuse the two.

jeff

Oh Snap

+1 :)

When i got my TH-42PX80U there was just no contest ... it was hands the best TV under a thousand dollars at the time, the LCD's didn't even come close in size, price or PQ. It was cheaper too ... and lord my use of a Plasma screen is hardly going to kill the polar bears. The amount of energy we use is hardly the issue its where it comes from ... and there is a nice nuclear station that supplies my power.

If you have seen Panasonics latest plasmas too, they are lighter, use less power and have even better PQ. Rumors of plasmas demise are greatly overstated. The only real threat to Plasma screens are LCD manufacture scare tactics.

Actually many elements of picture quality are factual - color accuracy, grey scale, viewing angle, etc (others can speak more authoritatively on this than me:p)

Personal preference is subjective - don't confuse the two.

jeff

This is true.

Some cheese stinks more than others, factual. Personal preference to eat stinky cheese is subjective.

Myself I run from cheese that could impersonate a flatulant if the correct sound effect was timed just right.