Here in the US I would probably be saving no more than $20 a year with my 42" plasma over LCD. Keep in mind that I have been talking about a 720p set. Samsung currently does not have any new 1080p in 42". The plasma cost me $519.99, when I bought the Bravia it was $629. In my case the plasma probably wouldn't cost me more in 3 years.
I do have the Samsung 50" 1080p in the living room that I just bought the other day at BB but that sh*ts over the Bravia and don't think it's a fair comparison but that only uses 145W in case you are wondering. The 42" I have been talking about consumes only 112W. I never did use the energy savings on the LCD and had my backlight at 8-9 so that will consume more power than your settings. You are talking about about a model that isn't in the US I don't know if that makes a difference but I am clearly talking about the US models.
An LCD will use constant wattage no matter what is on the screen even when the screen is black (eg. dark scenaries, etc). A plasma's power consumption will vary depending what is shown on the screen (eg. snowy mountains, bright scenaries) the plasma will use more power than an LCD but for dark scenaries the power consumption of a plasma will drop a fair bit compared to an LCD because the wattage will stay constant. So it basically weighs out the same for both TV's. What it comes down to though, is that the actual $$ differences in power consumption is so small that 99% aren't going to notice it.